Vessel Emissions: River Thames

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered emissions from vessels on the River Thames.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray, and I am pleased that amid the current political turmoil time has been found to debate this important issue, which is of real concern to large numbers of my constituents. I have been seeking the debate for some time, and I am grateful to the Minister who will respond to it on what has been short notice.

The Minister is well aware, not least because of the numerous times I have raised this in the main Chamber, of the historical proposal to construct a cruise liner terminal at Enderby Wharf in east Greenwich, in my constituency. That proposal was extremely contentious locally, not because large numbers of my constituents were implacably opposed to the siting of a terminal in the area or did not recognise that it had the potential to make a positive contribution to Greenwich in tourism, jobs and revenue for local business, but because residents would not accept—I count myself as one of them—the negative impact that the terminal as proposed would have had on local amenities and, in particular, on the quality of the air we breathe.

For that reason, I fought alongside local community and amenity groups to secure a clean, green terminal at Enderby Wharf—one that would have met the highest, not just the most basic, environmental and air quality standards—or, if one could not be secured, for the proposal to be scrapped altogether. In the end, after a sustained effort over several years to bring home to the developer the reputational cost of seeking to proceed with plans for a terminal that was not environmentally sustainable, we won: the then owner, investment bank Morgan Stanley, announced that it was scrapping its plans. On Friday 5 July, Criterion Capital, a property company that I understand owns and manages a £2 billion portfolio across London and the south-east of England and that has acquired the Enderby Wharf site from Morgan Stanley, confirmed that it would not revive plans for a cruise liner terminal on the site.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and congratulate him on his campaign to protect his residents against emissions from the Thames. My constituency is right across the Thames from his, and I was happy and proud to support his campaign. He has used the words “we won”, but is it not a shame that we were not able to secure the investment, jobs and all the rest of it to support London, the Thames and tourism because of the inability to agree a sustainably environmental project, which everyone would have welcomed had it been achieved?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a great frustration to him, as it was to me, that the developer would not listen and commit to plans for a clean, green terminal and shore-to-ship power.

Nevertheless, it was right that the proposals as set out were scrapped, and residents very much welcomed that. I also welcomed Criterion Capital’s confirmation that the proposals had been scrapped. However, the final demise of the terminal does not mean that the problem of toxic emissions relating to activity on the River Thames has been solved for those living in my constituency. The issue remains of emissions from other vessels using the river and, in particular for my constituents who live in west Greenwich, the emissions from the large number of cruise liners that dock at Greenwich pier each year.

In the time available I will argue that the Government must do more to address that problem and that the best means of doing so is by overhauling the fragmented arrangements in place for regulating the Thames and by establishing a coherent and effective emissions control framework for the river that will improve air quality for those communities that live beside it.

Improving Air Quality

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but I will not venture into the airport air pollution problem. A lot of the air quality, certainly on the ground, has a lot to do with the extra traffic going in and out of the terminals. That also has to be dealt with. There is a lot to be done, but I do not want to get into a huge debate about the runway at Heathrow.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Parish]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I consider to be my hon. Friend.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for being wise in not going down the route of debating Heathrow again. More Opposition Members supported the Heathrow national policy statement on Monday than opposed it.

[Neil Parish]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. I will not venture further.

It is disappointing that these matters have not been addressed properly, but I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It is also disappointing that the Government are not doing enough to support local authorities that are struggling with air quality. Local authorities face real funding restrictions. Although we said that councils need to

“take ownership of delivering local solutions to local problems”

there is the question of whether it is possible to reduce air pollution significantly across the country without our national Government looking at the big picture. The existing mechanisms are not delivering the results we need.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the amount of information and best practice sharing available to local authorities, but the change that is so necessary for struggling local authorities will not be achieved without substantial funding increases. That funding needs to be ring-fenced.

The High Court ruled against the 2017 NO₂ plan because it was too narrow. Since then, DEFRA has instructed an additional 33 local authorities to address NO₂ breaches. So far, only £1.65 million has been allocated to support those local authorities. I am sure the House will agree that that is clearly woefully inadequate, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You changed very quickly.

We would like to see a properly resourced national support scheme for local authorities. The Government have said they might consider the additional funding requirements. I urge the Minister to make a clear statement of intent.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to raise these issues, and I hope the House will give the Minister the oomph he needs to go away and ensure that the respective Departments heed our Committees’ joint work. The Government must grab the bull by the horns, make firm in their clean air strategy proposal and introduce a clean air Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be called to make a brief contribution to this debate. I congratulate the Select Committees on their reports. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for his excellent introductory speech. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who made her trademark thoughtful contribution to the debate.

I want to focus on the River Thames. It is busier now than it has ever been—even than its heyday in the ’30s—due to containerisation, so congratulations to London Gateway, Tilbury and the other access ports. I commend inner-London river traffic: Bennett’s Barges, Thames Clippers and the tourist fleet, including the excellent City Cruises. I will return to Thames construction traffic in a moment, but first I want to mention river crossings in London. West of Tower Bridge, there are more than 20 crossings over the Thames. East of Tower Bridge, where estimates say half of London’s population now live, there are only two river crossings between the Tower of London and Dartford. The static traffic and massive congestion through and around the Blackwall tunnel is a huge source of emissions and pollution, contaminating the whole of east London and drifting westward.

I commend the Department for Transport and Mayor Khan for recently confirming the construction of the Silvertown tunnel from Greenwich to Newham. However, it is worth remembering that it took five years to convince Mayor Livingstone that his manifesto against east London river crossings was wrong, and after him, it took three years to convince the right hon. Gentleman who is now Foreign Secretary, when he was Mayor of London, that his own manifesto against east London river crossings was wrong. Fortunately, Mayor Khan has arrived convinced of the need for these crossings, and with DFT support the Silvertown tunnel has now been given a green light. I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation of that, and perhaps an update on other possible river crossings, with public transport access, which would be very welcome indeed and in line with recommendation 15 of the report and the Government response. Tolling might be needed to help pay for those, because obviously they come at a cost.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that a case has been made for a lower Thames crossing—a tunnel for traffic that would take some of the traffic away from my hon. Friend’s constituency? It might, we suggest, be combined with a rail tunnel for GB Freight Routes. That would cut costs and be a very convenient crossing for both.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend is a well-known champion of rail freight transportation, and in his speech he made the case quite well for the construction of a national link. Were there to be a lower Thames crossing, obviously one would expect the authorities, local, regional and national, to get the biggest bang for the taxpayer’s pound, to ensure that we get the maximum benefit. I am sure that, as and when that debate takes place, my hon. Friend will be at the forefront of those advocating a rail dimension to that crossing.

[Dr Whitford]

On a point of interest, will these tunnels also have separate pedestrian and cyclist tunnels? Obviously, putting pedestrians and cyclists in the tunnel with traffic would be even worse than what are discussing, and why should they end up in a car because of the long route that needs to be taken by those on a bike?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The Minister may well be able to say what access there will be for both pedestrians and cyclists. We have two tunnels in east London. In the Blackwall tunnel there is no capacity for either pedestrians or cyclists, given the volumes of traffic and the narrowness of the verges. The Rotherhithe tunnel, which is even smaller and was constructed in the late 19th century, has restrictions on size, but the pollution down there is horrendous. One would therefore expect that new tunnels could have such capacity, separated from normal traffic, but I do not know whether that is in the construction plans. That is why I asked about public transport access. If that is included, pedestrians and cyclists can use those modes to negotiate the Thames, because it is a barrier in east London. As I said, half of London’s population lives in east London and people who want to get from south London to their jobs in Canary Wharf, the City and the west end find it really difficult to commute successfully.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the Rotherhithe and Blackwall tunnels, which connect to the north circular road, the A406, which goes through my constituency. Does he welcome Mayor Khan’s low-emission zones and the impact that they will have on reducing emissions across London, therefore saving people’s lives?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Several colleagues have mentioned the excellent work that Mayor Khan is doing, with the low-emission zones being very much part of his strategy to tackle air quality. That is a huge priority for his administration, so the point was well made by my hon. Friend. The A406 is a very important artery for London.

I was just about to discuss the Thames itself. Not only are more tourists and commuters using it, but there is more construction traffic. The Thames Tideway tunnel is a good example of a major infrastructure project using the river to the benefit of Londoners. Chris Livett, waterman to the Queen, recently unveiled a fleet of new barges for not just this project, but others. The largest of the barges, of which there are a number, has a capacity of 1,500 tonnes. Each barge carries the equivalent of 50 HGVs—that is 50 lorries off London’s roads—reducing the risk of crashes, congestion, pollution and damage to our road services. This is all very welcome and cleaner, too, and as I say, that means every single barge. Any Member who is on the Terrace at any point over the next three years, enjoying a cup of coffee or tea or something else, will see those barges floating past and heading further along the Thames, where they will be creating environmental habitats for wildlife.

However, there is one issue affecting the Thames that is causing concern: the plan to build a cruise terminal at Enderby Wharf in Greenwich. I do not mean the proposal for the terminal, which is positive—anything that brings more tourists to London is to the benefit of London’s economy and the wider UK, because when tourists get here, they can travel more widely. The problem, however, is how to power these large vessels when they are moored on the Thames between Greenwich and Tower Hamlets. I have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) to address local residents’ concerns, and I pay tribute to his campaigning skills and efforts on his constituents’ behalf.

The majority five-to-four planning decision of Greenwich Council to approve the application, which did not require shore-to-ship power, has caused great consternation on both banks among residents. The EFRA Committee has looked at this matter in previous inquiries. Neither the Port of London Authority nor the Environment Agency, the Mayor of London, the Government, or the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which are all affected by the London Borough of Greenwich’s decision, can alter or amend its approval. The prospect of large cruise ships having to run their equally large diesel engines to power the vessels when they are moored on the river for up to 155 days a year is not positive. Ports on the west coast of the USA, in Scandinavia and in other parts of the EU are bringing in regulations to require shore-to-ship power, called “cold ironing”. Southampton is also looking at this so that ships take the energy from the national grid. Given the challenges of air quality in London, will the Minister advise the House what can be done to make the cruise terminal not just a success, but a clean success?

In conclusion, there is a real risk that we will lose the terminal due to the controversy over this issue. That would be greatly disappointing. We want the investment and the employment, and we would love the tourists. We just do not want it at a dirty price.

Animal Welfare

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and I hope to be able to abide by your eight-minute rule, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs our Select Committee with distinction. Obviously his time spent in the European Parliament was not a wasted apprenticeship; he demonstrates his skills every time we meet.

The motion raises three issues: penalties for animal welfare offences; a ban on third-party sales; and the Committee’s report on the underlying question of prosecutions. I wish to register my appreciation for the briefings I have received in preparation for the debate from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the RSPCA, Cats Protection, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the Kennel Club and, of course, the House of Commons Library.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the better licensing of breeders would promote a more responsible buying culture and help to prevent the cruel practice of puppy farming?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend’s good point reinforces the contribution from the Chair of the Select Committee. I shall say more about licensing in a moment, but it is certainly a key element of the Committee’s report to which we hope the Government will respond positively.

I am always heartened that constituents contact me about a whole range of animal welfare issues because that shows that, while they articulate many concerns, animal welfare matters to them a great deal. Hon. and right hon. Members will receive emails and the occasional letter about the same animal-related issues as I do, including bees, badgers, domestic pets, circus animals, wild animals and dog fighting. It is good to see how much people care, but it is obviously disappointing, and indeed distressing, that these activities and abuses continue.

Along with others, I have backed the campaign instigated by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home that calls for tougher punishments for people who abuse and neglect animals. I was pleased to attend the launch of the campaign here in Westminster, and along with others I pledged my support for increasing sentences for animal abusers. It is unacceptable that people can abuse and neglect animals yet get away with such a small penalty. Battersea’s research shows that England and Wales has the lowest sentences for cruelty across 100 countries and states worldwide. Six months in prison is neither a punishment nor a deterrent when it comes to some of the most serious offences.

Further background information for the debate comes from the EFRA Committee’s third report of this Session. Animal welfare is mentioned in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton—I nearly called him my hon. Friend, but we do this so often that it is almost passé. The report makes a number of recommendations, including on a timetable for the 10-yearly review of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point in due course. It also recommends a ban on third-party puppy sales and that local government should be responsible for enforcing the 2006 Act.

The report goes on to discuss the role of the RSPCA, which has historically undertaken the overwhelming majority of animal welfare investigations and prosecutions. The Select Committee recommended:

“the RSPCA should continue its important work investigating animal welfare cases…It should, however, withdraw from acting as a prosecutor of first resort where there are statutory bodies with a duty to carry out this role.”

A number of us said at the time that it was not for the Select Committee to require the RSPCA to withdraw in that way, because it will always have the right to raise private prosecutions in the courts, in the same way as any other citizen does. The real question was about the word “duty” in relation to other bodies, and the report considered which statutory bodies should be responsible in such circumstances.

The vast majority of our Committee’s work is done by consensus, as is the case for most Select Committees. This was one of the few issues that split the Committee. I voted against the majority view, not as a matter of principle but on the practicalities. In my view, and with no disrespect to those who voted for this recommendation, the expectation that the Crown Prosecution Service or local authorities will step in as prosecutors is pure fantasy. However, after rethinking the matter and considering what happens in Scotland—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), who represents the Scottish National party on the Committee, made a number of important points in this regard—I have been persuaded of one thing. If society is serious about animal welfare, it should accept its responsibilities. It is unfair that the RSPCA has to do society’s work, and it is carrying out that duty because the CPS and local authorities are not. We should send a message that society should prosecute through the CPS and the police—we should not have to rely on the RSPCA—but that is not going to happen any time soon. Regardless of what the Committee says, the RSPCA will have to continue its work, because that is the only option—no one else is going to do it.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am happy to give way to my other hon. Friend from the Select Committee.

[Chris Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend from across the divide for giving way. When the Committee took evidence, we found out that the system works particularly well in Scotland. It is not often that I praise how the Scottish National party runs Scottish affairs, but that system works well. Why cannot we do things as well on this side of the border?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

With my classic cockney accent, I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not join the hon. Gentleman in praising the Scottish National party. I think the policy predates the SNP taking over the Scottish Government, but it has continued since. Indeed, the Procurator Fiscal Service carries out that policy, and the CPS should do so here, but my point is that the CPS is not doing it, is not going to do it, and does not have the resources to do it. If it were not for the RSPCA, the work would not get done, so I support its ability to continue. Until such time as the Government give the CPS and local authorities the wherewithal to do the job, it will not get done unless the RSPCA does it.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate. I want to give a bad example from my constituency, which has quite a few animal welfare issues. In this instance, a young fox had a habit of going to a large supermarket every night to hunt for food. A gang of boys got hold of the fox by the tail and hurled it round and round, smashing its head against a wall several times, and then stamped on its head. The punishment for that—well, it was hardly a punishment at all. It is absolutely necessary to increase the penalties for people who inflict that kind of cruelty on animals.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My right hon. Friend makes the point emphatically that the penalty does not fit the crime. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned, such penalties need urgent review.

I apologise that I will go over my eight minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but hopefully by only one and a half minutes. Given that the RSPCA cruelty helpline receives 1 million calls, 15% of which are investigated, there is too much work to expect the prosecutorial authorities to accept responsibility.

The issue of third-party sales split not only the Committee, but the animal welfare organisations. Dogs Trust and Blue Cross were against a ban, preferring a stronger enforced licensing regime, but the Kennel Club supported it. There is no disagreement about the objective, only about the tools that should be used to better protect animals and purchasers. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister and the shadow Minister about that difference of opinion on the proposed ban, and about how the Government expect to make progress on dealing with concerns about this important issue.

The Minister knows that he is held in high regard by members of the EFRA Committee and by animal welfare organisations. Even though animal welfare is not his primary responsibility, he answers to the Commons on that topic. There is no disagreement about wanting better animal welfare; the key challenge is how to deliver it. I am confident that the Minister and his colleagues, encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) on the Opposition Front Bench, will continue to be as effective as possible in this matter. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to say my few words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I need to listen to “The Archers” a bit more often. From what I gather, the programme is covering quite a lot of contemporary issues at the moment, but he makes a good point.

In conclusion, let me bring to the attention of the House the letter written by the Attorney General’s Office in the name of the Solicitor General to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) who raised the question about whether the Crown Prosecution Service ever refuses to proceed with prosecutions on the basis of resource. The answer stated:

“Resources are never the only bar to prosecution because as you know, the Code of Crown Prosecutors sets out the two stages of the Full Code Test”.

In answer to the question, “Does the Crown Prosecution Service ever refuse to proceed on the basis of a lack of expert knowledge in the subject area in question?” the Solicitor General said:

“No, but a distinction should be drawn between expert knowledge provided by expert witnesses and specialist legal knowledge.”

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I made reference to the wording of a recommendation, which I have reflected on significantly. It says that the RSPCA

“should, however, withdraw from acting”.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree that the CPS should be acting, but does he really think that the CPS will do it if the RSPCA takes a step back?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Wooler report, which has been much talked about and which has helped us to reach our conclusions, raises exactly the point that he makes. There is a transitional period, but it is fair to say that concerns have been expressed—not by people such as me who might be accused of having a partisan view, but by more arm’s-length organisations—about potential conflicts of interest between organisations such as investigators, prosecutors, campaigners and fundraisers. The Royal Commission inquiry in 1983 recommended that the CPS was created so that the police would not be accused of that kind of conflict. My view was that if it was good enough for the police to have an arm’s-length prosecuting process, it is probably good enough for the country’s second biggest prosecutor to be subject to the same criteria.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I see you hastening me to a conclusion. Thank you.

Future Flood Prevention

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). I do not want to speak to the whole report or the Government’s response. I shall focus rather on our Select Committee’s recommendation 15 on the statutory duty for the fire and rescue service. This recommendation is consistent with our other recommendations 16 to 21, which all raise concerns about governance, command and control, structures and relationships. The evidence the Committee heard led us to the conclusion we reached. Sadly, however, the Government disagree.

Under recommendation 15:

“We recommend that the Government places a statutory duty on the Fire and Rescue Service in England and Wales to provide an emergency response to flood events and commits the necessary additional funding and staff resources to support delivery of this responsibility”—

a point to which I shall return later. The Government’s response states:

“Fire and Rescue Services in England already have the discretionary powers they need…A Statutory Duty would potentially reduce flexibility with a one size fits all approach, and there are clear advantages to a permissive regime”.

That sounds like civil service and ministerial double-speak or euphemism if I ever heard it.

I am grateful to Pat Strickland in the House of Commons Library for its briefing, “Should Fire and Rescue Services have a Statutory Duty to deal with flooding?” It outlines that the 2008 Pitt review into the 2007 floods said that there should be fully funded national capability for flood rescue

“underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty”.

In a written answer in December 2015, the then Minister with responsibility for policing and fire said that the good response of the fire services to flooding in that year suggested that there was “no need for review”. The Labour Government had arrived at the same conclusion in 2008, but we have seen more and more serious flood events since then, so the situation is changing.

The briefing paper details the law as it stands:

“The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 does not place a statutory duty…to respond to floods, although there is a power to do so…the Act sets out the statutory ‘core functions’ of FRA…to provide for…fire safety…fire-fighting…rescuing people and protecting people from harm in the event of road traffic accidents”—

or road traffic collisions in 21st-century jargon. The law in Scotland is different. There has been a statutory duty since 2013, and the Pitt review took a similar view to the one that now exists in Scotland:

“The Review believes that clarifying and communicating the role of each of these bodies would improve the response to flooding. However, we are concerned that the systems, structures and protocols developed to support national coordination of multi-agency flood rescue assets remain ad-hoc. We believe that the Fire and Rescue Service should take on a leading role in this area, based on fully funded capability. This will be most effective if supported by a statutory duty.”

That is essentially the core of recommendations 15 to 21 and, as I say, nothing much has changed.

The Library briefing goes on to examine the history of the proposal and the debates in the House. I would like to focus on the history of the fire and rescue service’s statutory duties. Colleagues might expect that the fire service has always had a duty to attend fires, but it was partly the fire that destroyed most of this Palace of Westminster in 1834 that led to the creation of the London Fire Brigade, which celebrated its 150th anniversary last year. Most colleagues would also probably expect that the fire and rescue service has a duty to prevent fires, and I suspect most would consider the role of the fire service in dealing with road traffic collisions to be a statutory duty. That is not the case. On fire, the statutory duty was created only in 1938. On fire safety, it was the Fire Services Act 1947 that created it. As for road accidents and road crashes, it was the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 that created the statutory duty.

When the Government say that the fire and rescue service will deal with floods because it has, it does and it will, that was also the case for fires, fire prevention and road traffic collisions until the prevailing wisdom decided that an expectation was not enough and the Government had to do more than just expect. There not only has to be a legal requirement for a duty; it has to be resourced and paid for, and the Government need to legislate for that outcome.

The Select Committee report makes the case for changes in structures. Part of our recommendations for better preparedness, better governance and stronger resilience is to confer a duty on the fire service to boost all those elements. The Government clearly do not want to proceed in that direction at present.

[Rob Marris]

Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion that the Government’s refusal to create a statutory duty for the fire and rescue service in this regard is driven principally by their desire not to commit resources to this area of endeavour?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend perfectly anticipates my next point. I was about to quote a statistic to demonstrate that the Government do not want to proceed in this direction—because staff reductions in fire and rescue services since 2010 have been significant, with nearly 7,000 jobs having been lost. By my estimate, that amounts to 20% of the British fire service disappearing since 2010. Those numbers are very worrying.

Furthermore, the transfer of responsibilities of the fire and rescue service to more and more police and crime commissioners, and budget pressures on both the police and the fire services suggest that there is real fear of further reductions. The fire and rescue service needs to be able to maintain the staff and equipment necessary to continue to play a prominent role in dealing with floods, preparing for them and mitigating them. To achieve that, they need recognition in law. The Select Committee believes that that needs to be done. It is an issue that is not going to go away. I suspect that at some point—perhaps not now—the Government will get the message.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I will not give way because I need to make progress and to discuss other important matters to which other hon. Members referred.

Returning to funding and the estimates, this Government continue to play a key role in improving the protection of those at risk of flood. The historic £2.5 billion over six years to better protect more than 300,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion is an important increase. A key change is that, instead of the annual budget and the hand-to-mouth existence whereby the Environment Agency was not sure whether a project would be finished, a long-term approach to spending allows the Environment Agency to do the appropriate planning and get on with work instead of guessing how long something will take. We have also increased maintenance spending in real terms over this Parliament to over £1 billion.

The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred to partnership funding. I want to point out that it used to be that a scheme would either get all the funding or nothing. There was no way for a wider range of schemes to be covered. I recognise what she said about the extent of other public sector sources of money, but it matters that LEPs can and have made bids in order to increase economic development and are able to partner that funding. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) said and I will follow up on the issue he raised.

I welcome the support for the use of natural flood risk management and the catchment-based approach that we are developing to prevent floods or to mitigate them where they do occur. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton welcomed the fact that we are introducing a new reporting measure on natural flood management in future spending years from 2018-19. We have allocated a further £15 million specifically for natural flood management schemes. I have not yet seen the candidates for those schemes, but the Environment Agency is working them up and I am aware of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s recommendation of one catchment scale to test out the principles. That approach is already being used in some flood prevention schemes, but it is right to have appropriate criteria for measuring.

On planning for future resilience, the hon. Member for Wakefield referred to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report and the House should be aware that we are now better prepared to deal with such issues. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that I am unable to change the weather—I am certainly not divine in that regard—but we are working hard to ensure that the lessons of previous floods feed into the national flood resilience review. I have chaired weekly meetings, which have only just finished, to get progress updates on what is happening with the different infrastructure providers. We have also re-established the inter-ministerial group on flooding, which meets quarterly for a broader response to flood prevention.

We have allowed the Environment Agency to invest in mobile flood defences. It now has 25 miles of temporary defences and half a million sandbags located across seven key areas, and it can deploy them flexibly around the country. The Army has also been made available. Troops were deployed in Lincolnshire and Norfolk at the request of the local resilience forums, but Suffolk and Essex decided that they did not need the help of the armed forces in the recent coastal surge. Overall, the country will be better protected and services for our communities will be more resilient to flooding. Over the next year, we intend to focus on surface water, which is a significant source of flooding, particularly in cities and urban areas. Again, that will involve collaboration between the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, the water sector, and other stakeholders with an interest in managing the risk.

On working together, we all recognise that flooding affects many aspects of our lives. We carefully considered the report’s recommendations on structures, but we do not agree that there is a need for substantial change—that does not mean to say that there are no ways to make it work even better. The local flood risk management action plan, which the Government published on 24 January, is a good example, and it aims to promote best practice and enable all lead local flood authorities to carry out their responsibilities as effectively and efficiently as possible. Eight councils have not started their plan, and I have written to them indicating that, if some action is not undertaken by the end of March, we will use our powers to get the plans going for them.

We should recognise that the current system means that, since 2005—stretching back into the last Labour Government—more than 500,000 properties are better defended today. I want to get it across that, right now, structural change would get in the way of delivering the flood prevention, resilience and other measures that will be undertaken over the next few years. Again, I am not convinced that just changing the name of who does what will improve the way that different bodies work together.

On the fire services, to which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred, I can reaffirm that the Government have no plans for a statutory duty to deal with flooding. Fire services already respond to flooding as part of their general duties under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and in response to the risks set out in their integrated risk management plans. I pay tribute to those fire authorities that moved around the country following the recent coastal surge. It was well done, and in particular I saw the firefighters from Hampshire who came up to help Suffolk and Norfolk. That shows that the system is working well.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I recognise that the Government do not intend to move on this matter this instant, but does the Minister accept the statistic I quoted that the number of firefighters in the UK has reduced by 7,000 in the past seven years alone? There is no statutory duty, so responding to flooding is not a role that the fire service legally has to carry out. Will she keep that under close review and talk to her colleagues in the Home Office about making sure that numbers do not fall any or much further? Otherwise the fire services will not have the wherewithal to do the job that we all expect them to do.

[Dr Coffey]

I am cognisant of the fact that, certainly in my own area, there are fewer firefighters than there were some years ago. I do not have a single full-time firefighter in my constituency of 300 square miles, and this is an opportunity to pay tribute to the retained firefighters who help their communities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been conversations with the DCLG and, now, the Home Office.

I have covered the point that we expect sustainable drainage in new developments. On governance, I flag up the role of the regional flood and coastal board, and a lot of that work is covered by the regional flood and coastal committees, which comprise a number of different stakeholders.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of insurance. The Flood Re scheme has been a good success, but I recognise what Members said about businesses, which is why we have worked hard to get the British Insurance Brokers Association to bring a product to market. I encourage all hon. Members to make businesses aware of that fact. If people feel that, having been offered a quotation for a specialist policy, they are still struggling, I would like to be made aware of it. I want to look at that in detail, but I am not able to promise today that we will have another Flood Re for businesses because the basis of Flood Re is that it is time-limited. It is a principle of general taxation that we share resources across the country and, to some extent, that is what has been extended with the Flood Re scheme, through which every insurance policy carries a premium to help with flooding.

I recently visited Mytholmroyd in the Calder valley, and some businesses there are moving. Admittedly they are moving about 200 yards, but they are moving and appropriate defences are being established.

Air Quality

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Betts. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee so well and with such authority. As he said, there is a degree of curiosity about the fact that we are speaking to the Minister today, having had some robust exchanges with her only two days ago in the Committee. I am sure that we will come back to that.

I will be brief because in his opening comments the Select Committee Chairman effectively detailed the Committee’s main recommendations, and I am sure that the Minister will focus on the responses, so I do not see any need to repeat what the hon. Gentleman said. The one comment I will make before focusing on ship emissions on the Thames, is that were 150 people dying prematurely from any other cause in Britain, there would be a massive public outcry and a demand for immediate action from the public and the media. However, this silent killer escapes the scrutiny that it warrants except, occasionally, from the media and the Evening Standard in particular. That is clearly an exception because of the impact on London; it carried the report of the Select Committee’s exchanges on Tuesday in its columns yesterday, and the issue even made it into its editorial column because the issue is so important in London.

I want to focus briefly on shipping emissions from the Thames. To put this in perspective, on Tuesday, in response to questions during a discussion on the European directive on air quality, the Minister correctly said that poor air recognises no national boundaries. Obviously she is absolutely right, but neither does it recognise city boundaries or borough boundaries. On Tuesday, the Minister’s response to our exchange on the prospective emissions from the proposed cruise terminal at Enderby Wharf on the Thames was that, on the question of ship to shore power, the Royal Borough of Greenwich had carried out an impact assessment in its planning committee so it was job done. I am sorry to say that for many of us that was just not adequate. It is not adequate not only for residents in east London, such as Ralph Hardwick from my side of the river, who has been campaigning vigorously on this issue, but for residents on both sides of the river and in many parts of London.

It is not just residents, constituents, the Chair of the Select Committee and myself who are unhappy; the EFRA Committee collectively articulated unhappiness about this, as have the Mayor of London, the European Commission and the UK courts on two occasions, as the Select Committee Chair outlined. In his letter to the Minister on 14 December, he said:

“The Committee was disappointed with the information Ministers provided. We are extremely concerned that, despite the courts twice rejecting its plans, the Government has failed to grasp the serious impacts of poor air quality on British people.”

However, in the Minister’s defence, her position was qualified in two elements of the Government response to the Committee’s report. On page seven, in response to recommendation 8, the Government said:

“There will be no ‘one size fits all’ approach…However, it is important Clean Air Zones are co-ordinated from a national perspective”,

recognising that this is not a local borough issue or even a city issue. On page 15, in response to recommendation 22, the Government said that they

“recognise through the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Ports, that local air pollution may be abated through the provision of shore-side fixed electrical power to replace ships’ generators while in port. The NPS encourages developers including ports and shipping companies to examine the opportunities available for shore-side electricity connection, particularly in areas identified as having poor air quality. All proposals should either include reasonable advance provisions to allow the possibility of future provision of appropriate infrastructure, or give reasons as to why it would not be economically and environmentally worthwhile to make such provision.”

I am not sure that the Royal Borough of Greenwich council’s decision addressed either of those issues. The discussion we had in Committee on Tuesday—and have had for some months now—was that it was not down to the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s planning committee to decide on the matter, because it is a pan-London matter. In fact, it goes even wider than that. The Mayor of London has no locus and could not call in the planning decision. The Department for Transport has no locus either, and nor does the Port of London Authority. The Minister, who has responsibility for air quality, to whom we look to be our champion in Government, also does not have the power. Therefore, the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s decision is heavily undermined, and fatally flawed and compromised.

As I said, the Minister’s position was qualified by the two responses from the Government to the recommendations that I mentioned. Further, in response to question 93 in the oral evidence session, her senior colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), said:

“We have both said publicly that we are going to bring a further report, because we have to, given the decision of the court that the Chairman mentioned at the outset, and I would be surprised if there was not an expectation that we addressed this issue. It would be very odd if we left this issue out. I will certainly take away what you have said and we will discuss it in the inter-ministerial group. I would certainly want to address this before the date you suggest.”

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister can confirm that her joint ministerial committee will address the issue of emissions from the Thames. It would be really helpful if she set out in her winding-up speech the frequency of the joint ministerial meetings and the timetable for its final report. This is a very important issue, particularly for London but to the whole country as well, and I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Greyhound Welfare

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Committee visited a GBGB track and we also went to an independent track. While we were at the GBGB track we saw the doping testing taking place. We saw the vets checking the welfare of the greyhound and its ability to race. On the day we went I do not think we could fault the amount of testing and inspection that was going on, but we want to be absolutely certain that on the days when we do not attend the track, the same process is taking place. When it comes to doping, welfare and how many greyhounds are racing, the transparency of the data will tell us where the greyhounds are and how many there are so that if there is a problem we can have the greyhounds tested afterwards as well. There is a real issue.

After what we saw, we believe that the industry is in some ways moving in the right direction and is perhaps not as prone to as much doping as has taken place in the past, but we want to be absolutely certain that it does not take place. It is not only the welfare of the greyhound that is at stake. Doping is an attempt to distort genuine greyhound racing and the result of the race.

I call on the Minister to explain why statistics will not be published until 2018 when the data are already available. In addition, the Government’s latest regulation review did not take the opportunity to extend transparency of reporting to the independent tracks in England. From the industry’s point of view and for the welfare of the greyhound it would be so good to have those figures. If there is nothing to hide, why on earth can we not have the figures sooner? I know that the Minister is very keen on animal welfare. If we had transparency, many of us would feel happier about the situation.

Kennelling is important not only at the track but at the trainers’ kennels. Greyhounds spend approximately 95% of their time at trainers’ kennels. There are pressing welfare issues facing the industry away from the track, and kennelling arrangements differ substantially between the two systems. Although the Government have a non-regulatory agreement with the industry to develop a standard for trainers’ kennels, we are extremely concerned that there is no requirement for this to be used by the independent greyhound sector. Independent trainers’ kennels do not require licensing or inspection. We have concerns that the 2010 regulations do not go beyond racing tracks.

In our report, we urge the Government to extend the 2010 regulations beyond racetracks to cover standards at all trainers’ kennels—both GBGB and independent trainers’ kennels. We recommend that common welfare standards be developed for all kennels and that an independent body verify those standards. The Government are not treating this issue with the severity it deserves. We are disappointed that DEFRA has not recommended extending kennelling standards to the independent greyhound sector as part of its post-implementation review.

I now turn to the financing of greyhound welfare and the role of bookmakers. Greyhounds are bred for the sole purpose of racing—in other words, to provide a betting product. In our eyes, this means that bookmakers have some responsibility to support post-racing welfare, particularly in the area of rehoming. The bookmaking industry made a net profit of some £230 million from greyhound racing in 2014 with a margin of 18%—a margin that is significantly higher and less volatile than a number of other sports. It paid back around £33 million to the greyhound industry in fees for the rights to televise races, and a voluntary contribution for greyhound welfare was paid by some bookmakers.

There has been a decline in the voluntary levy in the past 10 years. In 2015 contributions were £6.9 million, down from £14 million in real terms almost a decade ago. This income stream is threatened by the growth of online and overseas betting operations, which do not tend to make the voluntary contributions. Greyhound racing is currently at the whim of bookmakers who may choose to contribute or not. The voluntary system allows bookmakers to walk away from their responsibility to the industry if the industry tries to increase the levy.

High welfare standards require financing. The onus should be on bookmakers who profit from greyhound racing to contribute financially to improving standards. I understand that discussions between the industry and bookmakers regarding the voluntary levy have now broken down. The Committee calls on the Government to introduce a statutory levy of 1% of gross turnover. This would provide a more stable income stream for animal welfare activities and create an even playing field between contributing bookmakers.

I would go as far as to say that we ought to name the bookmakers who make a contribution to greyhound welfare and those who do not. The bookies who do the right thing are contributing and ought to get some credit for it. The names of those who do not contribute should be made public. In the end, we have to make sure that there is enough money for rehoming. We have very good greyhound rehoming charities that do great work, but they need support, especially from the industry.

We went greyhound racing and we saw the race run in a reasonable way. We saw the greyhounds being checked, including when they came off the track, and we could see very little problem with the race. However, lots and lots of money is being made in online gambling. Therefore it is essential that online gambling should pay a contribution; if the race did not take place, it would not make its money. It should help with rehoming and looking after greyhounds when they finish racing. That is the biggest problem with greyhound racing: they are bred and reared for racing, but what happens to them when they finish? Are they to be discarded or euthanized, or rehomed? We need accurate figures, and enough money for the animal welfare and rehoming organisations to be able to take the greyhounds.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I have been looking at my notes and I notice that in paragraph 79 of the report we named Betfair as one of the organisations that are shirking their responsibility. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point that we should congratulate contributors and name and shame those who do not contribute.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who if I may say so is a great member of the Select Committee, for that point. We want to be able to publish the names of those such as Betfair that do not contribute; let us also name the organisations that do, and see what happens. I think there would be a public outcry, and those that do not contribute would be more likely to do so. We want to be assured that when the greyhounds have finished their racing career, they will be properly retired and rehomed, and there will be money to help with that. That is essential.

If greyhounds are injured in their racing career, there should be enough money to pay veterinary expenses, so that those that are able to can have a fulfilling life in retirement, and will not be euthanized just because that is the easiest thing to do. We did not conclude that we wanted to ban all greyhound racing, but we felt that there was more to be done with respect to breeding, retirement and making sure that greyhounds that have finished racing have a decent life. It is therefore essential that all parts of the betting industry should contribute.

The Committee expects the greyhound industry and its regulator to make progress on the publication of injury, traceability, retirement and euthanasia data, as I have said. Trainers’ kennels should also be inspected to a new transparent public standard. A two-year period to deliver those changes is reasonable. However, the EFRA Committee would expect an update from the GBGB within that timescale. Independent tracks are regulated by local authorities, not by the GBGB. Therefore, there is a gap in accountability and regulation. Local authorities should look to using DEFRA’s imminent consultation on updating animal establishment licensing as an opportunity to raise standards in the independent sector.

The Committee believes that the betting industry must increase its contributions. Bookmakers profiting from greyhound racing have a clear responsibility to support greyhound welfare. If a voluntary agreement cannot be struck with bookmakers, we recommend that the Government introduce a statutory levy of 1% across the industry. That would work in a similar way to the horserace betting levy.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Rosindell, particularly as, if my memory serves me well, you take a personal interest in these matters. I am sure that apart from the usual general interest, the report will contain things of specific interest to you and your constituents.

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Select Committee Chairman. As he did in the previous debate, he covered the vast majority of the points that the Committee wanted to make, so I shall not waste time repeating what he said. He made an excellent job of representing the Committee’s views, as he always does. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks; I am not sure that he was the architect of the Government response, but he will speak on behalf of the Department so it is none the less his. I look forward, also, to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), the shadow Minister, and those of my fellow member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), who is the Front-Bench spokesman for the Scottish National party on these matters.

The Select Committee Chairman made reference on page 3 of the report to a commitment to producing injury data. When the Minister was responsible for the issue he pressed GBGB to produce that, and it has said that it will do so. However, as the Chairman said, 2018 seems a long way off for data that are available now; they could be anonymised, made available and published now. On the matter of the number of dogs euthanised, I understand that animal welfare charities calculate that at the moment between 3,000 and 4,000 dogs disappear each year. When I introduced my first ten-minute rule Bill on the issue, in 1998, the figure was much higher, so there has been significant progress; but thousands of dogs still disappear, which is a cause of huge concern to those interested in animal welfare.

I must confess that I stumbled over the word “trainer’s” under recommendation 4; it looked to me as if it meant a single trainer’s kennel, whereas we are talking about all trainers’ kennels. I thought that the apostrophe should have been at the end. It could be argued that it is in the right place, but that does not suit the way I was taught English at Holyrood secondary school in Glasgow. The question of trainers’ kennels is a key issue. As the Chairman of the Select Committee outlined, the dogs are estimated to spend 90% to 95% of their time in the kennels. The Dogs Trust has produced recommendations on the welfare needs of dogs—a suitable environment and diet, the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns and be housed with or apart from other animals as appropriate, and that they should be protected from pain and suffering. Given that most of the dogs’ time is spent in kennels, the fact that the regulations published in 2010 do not address the issue of trainers’ kennels is a huge omission. The Government should move on that as quickly as possible.

The second paragraph of the Government’s response to the same recommendation states:

“As previously mentioned, Defra are currently considering all the evidence gathered as part of its review before considering whether any changes are needed to the 2010 Regulations.”

That reinforces the concern articulated by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton about the time within which they are responding to the issues raised by the Committee.

The question of rehoming is mentioned at the top of page 5. GBGB has already agreed to the Minister’s request to publish data on injuries, and that is welcome. However, the information is available and we would accept anonymised data for bona fide research and academic purposes, so 2018 seems a bit of a way off. My hon. Friend the Chairman—I call him my hon. Friend for the purposes of Select Committee solidarity—made some points about the betting levy and how much it is worth. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond specifically to this point. As the Select Committee Chairman outlined, £200 million is generated and £33 million goes back to the industry, so I am not sure how significant half a million pounds is. What is the Minister‘s perspective on that? The third paragraph on page 6 of the Government’s response says:

“The remote betting industry estimates that this will add about £2m to the overall transfer of value from the online betting industry to the greyhound industry.”

Is the half a million pounds coming from that £2 million, or is it additional money? I was not clear how the figures relate to each other.

In conclusion, there is widespread concern among animal welfare charities. I am sure we all received representations from the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and others. When this issue was part of the Minister’s portfolio, he took it seriously and was heavily involved. The Department’s response refers to 2017 and 2018 and having another look at things in due course, once we have a better assessment of whether the 2010 regulations have worked or not, but they clearly have worked. The vast majority of people and certainly the Select Committee believe that the regulations should be extended. They certainly should be extended to the kennels of trainers. They should be extended to bring forward data on injuries and closer scrutiny of how many dogs are disappearing, so that we can eventually get that number down to zero.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, in this important debate. I rise to speak as someone who has a forthcoming private Member’s Bill to increase the sentencing for animal cruelty, but it behoves all of us with an interest in the welfare of our animals to be here today to speak out and ensure that our system protects those who cannot speak for themselves about abuse and cruelty. That is especially important for animals involved in a working environment where the nature of the industry can put them under unusual pressure and strain.

Greyhound racing is a long-established leisure activity, but its success must be built on fair treatment, from cradle to grave, of the animals involved. There are real concerns about how far the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 have led to sufficient protections for racing greyhounds. DEFRA’s review into the success of the regulations does not adequately take those concerns into account. Self-regulation of the industry through the Greyhound Board of Great Britain is not open or accountable, and the GBGB has lost the confidence of many stakeholders and greyhound welfare organisations. It is not being sufficiently transparent to demonstrate that greyhound racing is a welfare-friendly activity.

One of the biggest issues is the lack of openly published data on the welfare of racing greyhounds. Baseline data on injury, euthanasia and homing after retirement from racing should be published by GBGB-licensed tracks and by independent tracks monitored by local authorities. Without those data, accurate comparisons simply cannot be made. Indeed, the RSPCA has called for greater transparency and the collection and publication of data throughout the life of every greyhound. In a submission to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, it said:

“The best way of doing this would be to adopt a joined up approach to track dogs, born in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, utilising one centralised database which could be used to capture information on racing status, injuries, drugs, retirement etc and could be used for rolling analysis and to identify patterns and allow remedial action to be taken for example should there be found to be an issue at a particular track.”

It could be argued that the Government are themselves encouraging the industry to be opaque by failing to ensure that the baseline statistics are published so that the industry’s performance can be evaluated. In 2007, the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare recommended that the industry should be required by law to publish annual statistics.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene, as my hon. Friend is making the same point that was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee, by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and by me: that the statistics for injured animals are very important. The Minister has a great track record—excuse the pun—on this matter. He was pushing the industry all the way down the line; he got them to make the agreement. With all due respect, in my view there has been a bit of slippage, in that the deadline is now 2017-18. The figures do exist. They ought to be available and hopefully, as a result of this debate and decisions elsewhere, they will be published.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot continue to just push this into the long grass. Action must be taken.

Ten years on, DEFRA’s position to simply encourage the regulator is clearly not working. In fact, the lack of data undermines DEFRA’s review of the success of the 2010 regulations, because full data are not publicly available. The Committee’s report of February 2016 stated:

“The absence of baseline data regarding issues such as injuries, euthanasia or rehoming makes it difficult to accurately assess the impact of the 2010 Regulations on key welfare issues.”

The Government acknowledged that difficulty in their response when they said,

“the absence of such data has made assessing the effectiveness of the 2010 Regulations difficult”.

Another issue that goes unaddressed by DEFRA’s review is the two-tier system of welfare standards between GBGB tracks and those licensed by local authorities. The 2010 regulations do not establish a minimum set of welfare standards for all tracks and there are discrepancies in the way in which the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is applied and enforced at different tracks. On enforcement, greyhounds racing on self-regulated GBGB tracks are not protected under the Act. On tracks licensed by local authorities, there is no mandate for the local authority to adopt and enforce the Act, and most do not because of the financial cost of doing so and a lack of resources, which is even more of an issue in the current financial climate.

To give an example of the two-tier system, in 2011 an independent trainer was banned from keeping animals for life and received an 18-week suspended sentence for giving his dog Viagra and cannabis. In comparison, in 2014 a trainer licensed through GBGB gave his greyhound amphetamine, following two previous incidents of administering illegal drugs, and the disciplinary committee gave him only a six-month disqualification suspended for two years and a fine. That is a stark example of the absence of minimum welfare standards, which the 2010 regulations have done nothing to rectify.

In its submission to the Committee’s inquiry, the Association of Track Veterinarians, who are directly employed by the GBGB, stated:

“We are unanimously concerned that without appropriate changes, the current regulations will not improve greyhound welfare to acceptable standards, indeed even current welfare standards are likely to deteriorate with time.”

It is clear that there are significant issues with self-regulation in its current form. I am minded to support calls by various stakeholders—including the campaigning organisation Greyt Exploitations, which campaigns for a ban—for an independent regulator to ensure standards are adhered to and the process is publicly transparent. I would also urge the Government to compel, through legislation, the collection and publication of baseline data so that the industry is more transparent and welfare standards can be monitored. If the public’s concern for greyhound welfare continues to be ignored, that will only exacerbate the situation and escalate calls for a ban. We cannot allow poor treatment of racing greyhounds, or of animals in general, to go unaddressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am sorry if I missed this, but did the Minister say what the timescale was for introducing the new BSI standard?

[George Eustice]

We do not have a timescale, but I believe that the board is developing the standard now. We expect to see it developed, certainly during the course of 2018. Indeed, we have decided to delay the introduction of some of the small legislative requirements necessary until we have had an opportunity to review how the BSI standard is working.

The Government also want the board to deliver on the other commitments it has given to Ministers, which tie in closely with the Select Committee’s recommendations and its proposed two-year probationary period. The board has agreed to begin publishing annually from 2018 figures for the number of dogs injured and euthanised at GBGB tracks and the number of dogs that leave GBGB racing, including an explanation of what “leave” means.

Snares

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) on making a very strong case in support of the motion? I am usually pleased to follow the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). He was making an argument, but sadly he ran out of time and we did not get to hear whether his case was as strong as that made by my hon. Friend. It certainly did not appear to be from where I am sitting.

I thank the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union for their briefings for this debate, and I especially thank Nikki Sutherland and Oliver Bennett from the Library for their very useful briefing to Members.

The RSPCA writes:

“In 2005, Defra introduced a Code of Practice on the use of snares. The Code sets out best practice in the use of snares, including guidance on where and how to set snares for different species and possible steps to take to avoid trapping ‘non-target’ species. It should be noted that compliance with the Code is voluntary and a 2012 report produced for Defra found that although awareness of the Code was very high (eg 95% of gamekeepers and 65% of farmers) the levels of compliance with the best practice it contains was very low.”

That was one of the strong arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge.

The League Against Cruel Sports writes:

“The League believes that snaring is terribly cruel, indiscriminate and wholly unnecessary and leads to untold suffering and horrific deaths for wild, domestic and farm animals throughout the country…Most snares are used by gamekeepers to protect quarry, which are bred and protected to act as targets for blood sports.”

That is not the same as the farmer argument that we have heard previously.

I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for not welcoming her to her new position when I opened my speech. I did not get a chance to do so during yesterday’s sitting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, because I was not there for all of her evidence, but I wish her success in her new job. Will she respond to the point made by the League Against Cruel Sports that most snares are set by gamekeepers, not farmers?

The League Against Cruel Sports states that the 2012 DEFRA report on snaring

“confirms that it is not possible for snares to be species specific and that non-target animals are still captured, even when the code of conduct is strictly adhered to…It is not possible to regulate the use of snares through a non-statutory code, as adherence to the code is low and there is no incentive for operators to obey it…It is clear that due to the cruel, unnecessary and indiscriminate nature of snares, primary legislation is the only viable option to ban their use.”

Will the Minister comment on that?

Not surprisingly, the NFU—an organisation for which I have high regard—says that

“the use of snares for fox and rabbit control is an essential part of wildlife and conservation management,”

and that

“in certain situations they can be the most humane method of pest control.”

As my hon. Friend has said, however, this issue is not so much about control and then humane destruction, but about animals dying in snares and not being dispatched as humanely as everyone would want them to be.

The Library briefing states:

“Snares are commonly used in the UK to catch certain animals prior to their killing. They can be legally used, subject to certain conditions, to catch animals including foxes, rabbits, rats and grey squirrels.

While snares can restrain animals without causing injury, they have the potential to cause injury and death”,

as my hon. Friend has said. The briefing also repeats another point that he made:

“They can also catch non-target animals such as badgers and cats. Their use is therefore controversial.”

To save time, I will not refer to the additional regulations for Wales and Northern Ireland, because my hon. Friend has covered those, but the briefing goes on to note:

“In recent years Scotland has tightened regulations on snares beyond the situation in England and Wales. Snares must have safety stops fitted and users are required by law to now attend a training course and register for a personal identification number. This ID number is required to be displayed on all snares which are set.”

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Snare users in Scotland are required to have approved accreditation and must receive a personal identification number from the police, so snaring without an ID number is an illegal activity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that prudent measure should be implemented south of the border?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge has also made that case, although obviously we would prefer a complete ban on these things. It has been demonstrated by the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Government that improvements can be made to the present situation in England and Wales. I am certainly impressed by the fact that each snare has to have an ID number and that, where it can be proven that snares are not being used in the way in which people have been trained to use them, the number can be used to trace the person involved. That is an additional safeguard.

In conclusion, my hon. Friend has made a very strong argument for a complete ban on snares. Even if the Government do not accept that argument, there is also a very strong case, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and I have just agreed, to amend regulations in England. Internationally, we appear to be in a small minority of countries. Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have all seen fit to move on this issue, and I hope the Government will tell us that they agree with the devolved Assemblies, and that they will improve the situation and move towards, I hope, a full ban. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) on securing this debate, which is long overdue. I can only apologise for the fact that I was not able to hear all of his speech, because I was otherwise occupied. As a former vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports, I pay tribute to the league’s tireless work to expose the cruelty associated with the use of snares, and to the many constituents who have contacted me to call for a ban. As has been said, 77% of the public support a ban.

Free-running snares—the supposedly humane option—can, as we have heard in graphic and horrific detail, strangle trapped animals or cut through their fur, muscle and bone. Snares are meant to be checked daily, but often they are not, so animals die from exposure, from dehydration, or because they have been rendered defenceless against predators.

The League Against Cruel Sports reports that 69% of animals caught are not the target species. We have heard how hares, badgers and even cats and dogs can be caught in them. I saw pictures yesterday of Scottish wildcats—Britain’s rarest mammal—being killed in snares. It is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to set a trap or snare intended to injure a protected animal such as a badger, otter or red squirrel. It cannot be right that people can escape prosecution simply by arguing that they lacked the intention to catch those animals, when the likelihood of a protected animal, rather than the intended targets, being caught is so high.

Other countries have managed to ban snares. The UK is one of only five countries in Europe in which snares are completely legal. In countries where snares are not banned outright, such as Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden, their use is much more tightly regulated. We are always hearing from the Government that the UK leads the way in animal welfare, that we have much higher standards than anywhere else and that we are the best in the world. I wish that that was true. Iran has just banned wild animals in circuses, for example; we cannot even do that. Although we have much to be proud of, we need to recognise where we are not leading the way, and where we could take lessons from other countries.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend just mentioned a ban on wild animals in circuses. At least we won that argument. The Government accepted it, and it was a Conservative manifesto promise in the 2015 general election. We hope that the Government will deliver on it by 2020, but does she agree that the sooner they do so, the better?

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I will come on to say later, the Government have a track record of not acting on such things, even when they have notionally accepted the evidence and said that they will act.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which I have met to discuss a range of issues, disagrees. It states that snares are

“an important tool for conservation and food security”.

I accept that farmers have a right to control predators, but that should not mean that we cannot look at whether there are more humane, effective ways of doing so. On conservation, the RSPB accepts there is sometimes a need to control foxes, but it has not found the need to resort to the use of snares on its reserves. Indeed, the RSPB will tell us that fox snares are known to kill capercaillie, the large woodland grouse that is at risk of extinction. Neither the Wildlife Trusts nor the Woodland Trust use snares. Utility companies, local authorities, Network Rail, Natural England, Highways England and the Forestry Commission all manage their land without using snares for pest control.

Despite the best efforts of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) to convince us that this is just about farming, we know that snares are mostly used on shooting estates. Snares are used to trap natural predators, in their natural habitats, in an often barbaric fashion. The birds are spared death by fox only to be shot by humans, in almost unimaginable numbers, not for food or conservation but for sport—as Chris Packham would say, not sport but slaughter.

We are here to discuss a ban on snares, not wider issues around shooting. However, I want to put on record the fact that, to date, more than 62,000 people have signed Dr Mark Avery’s petition to ban driven grouse shooting, supported by conservation experts such Chris Packham and Bill Oddie. They are concerned about the persecution of hen harriers, the environmental damage caused by heather burning and the increased flood risk caused by grouse moor management, as well as the use of snares. Those are serious, legitimate concerns, which Ministers should be working with conservationists and shooting estates to address, but the Government have so far only given a complacent, dismissive response, which verged on the rude, to the public petition.

There is also the issue of lead ammunition. There are viable alternatives to lead shot but, despite that, the Government have shelved the report of the lead ammunition group, which was submitted more than a year ago. There are concerns about the welfare of the millions of pheasants and partridges reared in cramped cages every year purely for the purpose of shooting. The last Labour Government introduced a code of practice and commissioned a study on cage-based breeding, but the coalition Government withdrew the code and failed to publish the review’s findings.

A similar picture emerges when we look at efforts to address the flaws in the use of snares. As has been said, the previous Labour Government published a code of practice some 11 years ago. Subsequent research for DEFRA was concluded in 2010, but it took the coalition Government two years to publish it and nothing has been done. Some four years after the report came out, the then DEFRA Minister could tell Parliament only that

“officials worked with stakeholders to explore options in light of the report’s findings. We are considering options and will make an announcement in due course.”

Last year, the League Against Cruel Sports documented evidence of animals found dead in snares and of pits filled with carcases to lure foxes into snares that were placed along the edge, in violation of the code of practice. There is a clear need to act, but the Government do not seem willing to do so.

The same thing has happened all too often with animal welfare issues under this Government. We have talked about wild animals in circuses; on that and on many other issues, the Government have been too slow to publish research, failed to commission reviews that would give them the evidence necessary to support the policy, and dismissed expert advice, as we have seen with the badger cull. We can only conclude that neither animal welfare nor evidence-based policy is a priority for the Government; that Ministers are in thrall to vested interests and allowing their own ideological aversion to any form of intervention or regulation to hold sway; and that preventing unnecessary suffering is simply not something they care about.

Given the new Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for repealing the foxhunting ban, I fear that today’s debate may not meet with her approval. The Minister, whom I congratulate on her appointment, supported efforts last year to weaken the hunting ban, which is disappointing. I hope that on this issue she will prove more receptive. I hope that she does not stand before us today and tell us that the code of practice is working. From all that I have heard today from my hon. Friends, and from all that I have read and watched in recent days—that has included video evidence of the graphic slaughter of these animals—it seems all too obvious that the voluntary approach and code of practice are not working, and that very little progress has been made. Unless the Minister is very persuasive today, I believe the obvious conclusion is that a ban is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I would just ask him to be patient and wait a few minutes.

Returning to the recognition that snares are capable of causing injuries, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 prohibited the use of inhumane self-locking snares. I recognise what the hon. Member for York Central said: that they are accepted to be in law mechanisms that tighten and cause asphyxiation. The 1981 Act requires trappers to check their snares at least once every 24 hours. Hon. Members will also be aware that the Act prohibited the use of snares to take certain species, including badgers, otters, red squirrels and hedgehogs. The Deer Act 1991 offers similar protection to any deer. Under the Animal Welfare 2006 Act, there is a legal responsibility to prevent unnecessary suffering to any animals under human control, including any animal restrained in a snare.

The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge refers to the inefficiency of snaring, but I am not aware that he has suggested other methods that would be more efficient in wildlife management. I recognise that the hon. Member for York Central referred to several alternatives, including chemicals. As yet, I am not aware that they are shown to be more efficient or effective. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) referred to efficiency. I think that is borne out, although I recognise some of the issues addressed.

The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge and other Members referred extensively to the 2005 code of practice issued by DEFRA, and to the 2012 study. He mentioned a number of issues he would like to see addressed. That is a view shared by many people. Land management organisations and gamekeeping associations around the country have developed a new code of best practice on the use of snares for fox control in England, which would also be suitable for the control of rabbits. Designed and written by a number of stakeholders, including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the National Gamekeepers Organisation, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Moorland Association and the Countryside Alliance, of which I note the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a member, this new guidance builds on the previous DEFRA code of practice, but draws on reliable research conducted by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust by setting out principles for the legal and humane use of snares.

The capture of non-target species can be reduced by appropriate setting, taking into account the behaviour of the target animal. The new code of practice emphasises this very clearly, stating that if non-targets are likely to be caught, snaring should not be used. Improvements in snare design mean that it is far more likely that non-target species, even if caught, can be released unharmed.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds talked about well-designed snares and started to explain, before he was cut off in his prime, how best practice can tackle a lot of these issues—a point reinforced by the hon. Member for Strangford. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse drew attention to the fact that snares are mainly used by gamekeepers, rather than farmers. I would point out that snares are used by different groups, including gamekeepers and farmers. These different groups operate in very different environments and have different pressures. Snares are often the most appropriate mechanism for gamekeepers. Upland areas have a different habitat and environment, with more unrestricted areas than farmland.

There have been many references to practices in Scotland and the Welsh code, which the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) said should be made statutory. I think we should give the new code of practice, which I understand is very similar to the Welsh code, a chance to come into effect before even considering any further regulation.

If people do not believe the law is being enforced they should report such incidents to the police. Many forces have rural and wildlife crime units. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse said that the wild animals in circuses prohibition will be delivered in this Parliament. I point out gently to the hon. Member for Bristol East that the Labour Government were in power for 13 years and the Ministers of the day were not persuaded to legislate on a ban.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I would not want the Minister to inadvertently mislead the House. After the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was passed, proposed legislation on circus animals was left to one side. Between 2007 and 2009, the Labour Government were persuaded of the case and the 2010 Labour party manifesto committed to legislating on wild animals in circuses. The lobby was successful, but she is correct that at that point we did not have time to legislate.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not questioning what was in his manifesto, but his party was not re-elected in 2010. I was referring to the practice of snares, rather than wild animals in circuses.

I am confident that the new code will improve the situation. It is different from the 2005 code, in that the new code has been designed and owned by the sector, rather than Government—although we have, of course, brought people to this place and had conversations. By showing leadership in this area, the sector will undoubtedly have more success in promoting good practice with their members and changing behaviour than the Government could achieve on their own. I cannot announce today exactly when the code will be published, but I am confident it will be very soon. I am on day four in this role as a Minister. I am really looking forward to the code’s being published and put into practice.

We have had an excellent debate. It is crucial that we all take responsibility and continue to work together to ensure that best practice is recognised, shared and followed by everyone who uses snares. We support measures that improve animal welfare, including the new code of practice. We are all looking forward to its being published very soon.

Welfare of Young Dogs Bred for Sale

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I thank colleagues at Dogs Trust and Battersea dogs and cats home for their briefings and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is also my colleague on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I want to concentrate on the trust’s briefing on the illegal importation of puppies into the UK under the pet travel scheme.

Since the introduction of the scheme, Dogs Trust has found that it is being used as a cover for the illegal importation of puppies for commercial sale. In 2014, the trust’s undercover investigation, “The Puppy Smuggling Scandal”, found evidence of puppies being brought into the UK for sale via PETS from both Lithuania and Hungary. Despite changes to the scheme in December 2014, including the requirement for member states to carry out non-discriminatory checks, the problem continues, with the second investigation in 2015, “Puppy Smuggling: The Scandal Continues”, identifying that the changes have not been the deterrent that they were intended to be, with the trade continuing from Lithuania and Romania.

Dogs Trust tells me that it is conducting a pilot scheme with Kent trading standards to pay for the quarantine costs of any puppies that they seize at the border, in the hope that that will disrupt the trade. Last year, more than 3,000 dogs were imported into the UK from Hungary under PETS. From Lithuania, 2,000-plus dogs were imported, and more than 2,000 were also imported from Romania. However, those figures represent only the dogs that have been declared. The trust cautions that many more undeclared dogs are entering from those countries and others.

Despite the trust’s work to raise awareness of this illegal trade, it is concerned that little progress is being made in tackling the problem. This is a very important point, to which I would like the Minister to respond: during the pilot, it has not received any details about the puppies that are handed over to it and, as a result, it does not know whether the pilot is disrupting the trade because it is unsure where the puppies have come from and how they have been found. Dogs Trust would like to know, first, what assessments the Government have made of the Dogs Trust pilot quarantine scheme and, secondly, how effective the Government believe that that scheme has been at disrupting the illegal importation of puppies under PETS.

Dogs Trust makes four recommendations. First, if there is to be real progress in tackling the ever growing problem of illegally imported puppies, the UK’s key agencies need to share intelligence. Secondly, visual checks, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and others, of all dogs entering Britain will help to ensure that they are healthy, not underage and match the information given in their passport. Thirdly—this was also raised by colleagues previously—there should be immediate sanctions such as fixed penalty notices or on-the-spot fines that are large enough to act as a deterrent for those found to be illegally importing puppies. Fourthly, there should be a crackdown on vets who supply fake pet passports, through work with the veterinary regulatory authorities in the countries that import puppies into the UK.

Battersea raises a number of points, mostly on domestic matters. It welcomes the consultation launched in December 2015 by DEFRA and the progress that has been made, but it raises a number of issues and statistical anomalies to which I hope the Minister might be able to refer. The Minister is held in high regard—he knows that—and we would be very grateful for his responses. We look forward to his comments and those of other Front Benchers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady is right to say that the American authorities are taking action. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is looking carefully at this, as well as ensuring that vehicles are appropriately tested. We have reached agreement at European level to ensure that what is being emitted from cars are the real emissions. That will help us to deal with our air quality issues.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that many people regard the legal limits for maritime cruise ships berthing in cities as inadequate. Regulations in cities such as Gothenburg, and others in the European Union, place higher requirements on vessels, including a requirement for ship-to-shore energy supplies. Why cannot we have that for London?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are certainly looking at the issue that the hon. Gentleman identifies. We are determined to fulfil our environmental obligations, and we will be bringing the whole of the UK into compliance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I pay tribute to the Mayor of London for his work on air quality. I am unable, however, to connect directly the work of the Mayor of London to the question about Glasgow.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The question is certainly not about Poplar and Canning Town or Denton and Reddish, but about Glasgow.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am glad that you recognise my Glasgow credentials, Mr Speaker, because sometimes my classic cockney accent confuses people.

I welcome the Minister to his place. In any such discussions with Glasgow, I ask that he takes into account river traffic. The Thames is busier than the Clyde, but vessels on the Clyde do contribute to emissions. Will he ensure that he remembers that addition?

[Rory Stewart]

Among the different sources of nitrogen dioxide emissions, river traffic is indeed a substantial emitter. Glasgow City Council and officials from the Department will take that into account.