All 2 Debates between James Gray and Ian Lavery

Responsible Dog Ownership

Debate between James Gray and Ian Lavery
Tuesday 26th February 2013

(11 years, 2 months ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

James Gray Portrait Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, I should say, as the resident “Gray-hound”, that we are straying slightly from the topic of the debate. Quite a number of people are seeking to catch my eye, and it might be courteous to them if we keep our remarks reasonably short.

Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you, Mr Gray. In reply to my hon. Friend, I would say that the issue is microchipping. I agree that greyhounds make fantastic pets. My point is that, because of the disasters involving greyhounds, legislation introduced microchipping immediately. That has had a great impact, and we should look at it. That is why I mentioned the welfare of greyhounds and the regulation of greyhounds and their owners.

Like many other re-homing charities, the Retired Greyhound Trust is committed to promoting responsible dog ownership, and it does a fantastic job. Members will want to join me in paying tribute to the wonderful work of many re-homing organisations. They are leading the way on promoting responsible dog ownership. Without their efforts, this country could not declare itself a nation of dog lovers. So, good on the Retired Greyhound Trust. We should look at best practice and try to convert it without delay into national legislation for all breeds of dogs, as well as regularly monitoring dog owners.

Many other issues relate to responsible dog ownership, and I am sure that they will be covered in the debate. They include the absence of dog control notices, the status of dog ownership and the £50,000 funding for innovative local community projects to encourage responsible ownership. There is also legislation—we really could have done with this, although that is a separate issue—on attacks on guide dogs, which everyone here utterly deplores. What penalties can be imposed on the owners of dogs that attack guide dogs? Can owners be treated as though their dogs had attacked an individual, because such attacks cause individuals huge distress?

We still have no timetable for the proposed legislation. There should be no further delays in implementing any of the measures. I welcome the progress that has undoubtedly been made, but I emphasise the need to act now, not later, to avoid more people being injured and to protect the welfare of dogs themselves.

None Portrait Several hon. Members
- Hansard -

rose

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between James Gray and Ian Lavery
Tuesday 3rd May 2011

(12 years, 12 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a serious matter. Many people who were once able to get bona fide loans from building societies or banks are now forced to seek finance from loan sharks—

James Gray Portrait The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)
- Hansard - -

Order. We are ranging rather wide of the amendment under discussion. The Chair would be grateful for a little more focus on the amendment.

Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Gray. I thought it was my duty as a parliamentarian to try to answer Members who were asking questions. Thank you for telling me that I may not.