Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I went to Exeter, I saw the real damage to the economy of the south-west caused by the important link to Exeter being interrupted by floods last year. I can reassure him that there have been senior Ministers from the Department for Transport at our Cobra meetings, and they are fully aware of the consequences and have been working hard to ensure that our transport links have been restored rapidly.

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

4. What his Department’s latest evaluation is of the badger cull pilots.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

We are waiting for the independent expert panel to report its findings, and we will consider all information the pilots have generated and decide on our next steps in due course.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Everybody wants bovine TB to be defeated, but there is great scepticism out there that this tactic was ever going to work. Will the Secretary of State say when we can expect all the evidence to be published on the risks associated with culling?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a perfectly valid question but we must wait for the independent panel. That panel is independent and I do not want to put any pressure on it. It has a large amount of data from the two pilots that it will analyse for safety, humaneness and effectiveness. We must be patient and wait for it to report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We share some of the public’s concerns about the potential risks posed by sky lanterns. However, we commissioned an independent study, which was published in May last year, and it concluded that the overall impact of sky lanterns on animal welfare was quite low. We are therefore focusing our efforts on ensuring that people are aware of the risks and trying to improve voluntary action to deal with the problem.

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

T3. I am sure Ministers will agree that we need to be vigilant against rabies. There has been a huge increase in the number of illegal puppies smuggled into the UK, many from eastern Europe. Will the Minister commit to re-evaluating the procedures for protections against rabies entering the UK?

[George Eustice]

An increase in the number of illegal imports of puppies has been reported, but the trading standards authorities are monitoring the position carefully, and intercepted the illegal movement of a number of puppies last year. We consider the pet passport scheme to be proportionate to the risk, but we also monitor the position carefully and work closely with agencies in other European countries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

If we take the transport sources of air pollution, for example, we have invested over £1 billion in measures to promote growth in electric vehicles, which will help to transform future air quality, along with cleaner buses and a range of other policies. We are also negotiating at the European level for better standards in diesel vehicles, which contribute significantly to oxides of nitrogen levels.

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

Most of the polluted roads in the country are in London. What meetings has the Minister had with the Mayor of London to address this serious situation for residents in the capital?

[Dan Rogerson]

In the last month I have had no such meetings, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the Mayor to discuss this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The “If They’re Gone” campaign is one of the highlights of what this country is doing in giving leadership. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has launched the rhino part of the campaign, and the elephant part highlights the importance of making people aware of the risks that ivory poaching poses to that species. The next phase is the orangutan phase. The orangutan is an endangered species and this country is determined, through our footprint abroad and in terms of the palm oil we all use—making sure we are responsible at home and abroad—to protect that very special species.

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

The Minister mentioned rhinos and elephants and recent reports have shown that terrorists are slaughtering those animals to raise revenue for terrorism. In making their assessment, will the UK Government link up with the experts in counter-terrorism in the Foreign Office to ensure that we make as big a contribution as possible to stopping that dreadful trade?

[Richard Benyon]

The Foreign Secretary recently convened a meeting of Ministers to do in this country precisely what is happening in the United States. There has been a realisation that this is not just an environmental problem—it is about security, too. In large parts of Africa, organisations such as al-Shabaab and the Lord’s Resistance Army are helping to finance the evil they do through this trade. There is a realisation that we need a cross-government approach and that was the basis of the event that the Prince of Wales hosted at Clarence house. We will formulate that approach in a meeting later this year to ensure that we are co-ordinating things across government while pooling resources with other Governments to ensure that we are doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Laura Sandys]

I am sure the horses and sheep would have had something to say if it had been. That legislation was not only about animal welfare, but about more effective agriculture—I am concerned about how effective a plough drawn from the end of a horse’s tail would be. Even Cromwell decreed through parish rights that

“No Man shall exercise any Tyranny or Cruelty towards any brute Creature which are usually kept for man’s use.”

We should therefore be proud of our traditions and standards.

It was for that reason that when I became a Member of Parliament, I did not feel that this issue would concern me particularly. I felt we were leading the way—setting the standard. That was most certainly the case until live animal exports started from my local port in Ramsgate. As I started to see the trade first hand, I was extremely surprised that we in this country had so little power or control over the well-being of the animals bred here by UK farmers and exported to the continent. The trade out of Ramsgate shows, for example, how many licensing regimes regulate the industry. The ship that takes the animals across from Ramsgate to France is licensed in Latvia, but was designed as a roll-on, roll-off vessel for river crossings in Russia, not for crossing the channel. The transport licence holder has a licence in Holland. The drivers of the lorries do not need licences at all, but they do need to hold certificates of competence, which can be granted in any country, including those with different animal welfare priorities. They do not have the same tradition as us or the same high standards.

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

If I could take the hon. Lady back to the vessel that carries the animals across the channel, does she know why it is used instead of the normal channel ferries on the Dover-Calais routes, which carry lots of goods, travel faster and are in better condition?

[Laura Sandys]

The trade used to be out of Dover, but there was an issue with berths and some of the animal transport boats. Indeed, there was an issue before I entered this House whereby the ferry operators banned the trade on their ferries. As a result, a specific transportation mechanism was needed, but we are talking about a ship that is not equipped to go across the channel, despite our regulators saying that it is. It is equipped for fresh-water river crossings, not channel crossings in the middle of winter. We have already had a major crisis, when animals were taken halfway across the channel but had to return because the boat could not manage the seas.

Let me return to the drivers, the third element in all this. They do not need licences; they need certificates of competence. Certificates of competence can be granted in any country, with any set of standards, and would not necessarily meet the standards of competency in this country, which must reflect not only an ability to deal with animal welfare in a positive sense, but an ability to deal with animals in a crisis. I have seen major problems on my portside when people without the relevant competency have tried to deal with crises and emergencies.

Of course we have to meet EU standards, but others do not have to meet UK standards. When I went to see the commissioner in Brussels, he told me that he was keen for the rest of Europe to raise its welfare standards to match ours, but at the moment we are witnessing a race to the bottom. As a result, lowest common denominator standards are being applied to all the different licensing regimes in the different parts of the live animal export supply chain. Our farmers in this country are not lax about animal welfare. They take huge pride in maintaining standards, but once they start trading in the licensing regime, the EU standards apply. I have been contacted by many farmers who have been appalled by what is going on in my port.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys]

Absolutely. Animals can be transported across Europe, and the journey need not involve crossing water, but our priority must be the standard of that transportation. As I said, the licensing regime has many layers, which creates a lot of confusion and inhibits us from imposing our own animal welfare values on operators within our borders.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I confess that I have not finished my research for the debate, so, given that we have reached it earlier than I anticipated, the hon. Lady might be able to help me out with a figure. I believe that the number of animals exported is less than 5% of the total number slaughtered in the UK, which gives us a measure of the size of this trade. Does she know what percentage of live export animals are sold abroad for breeding purposes rather than for slaughter and meat?

[Laura Sandys]

As I understand it, there are two quite distinct trades. The animals exported through my port are definitely for slaughter and not for breeding. I am happy to be corrected, but I believe that animals for breeding will be transported in quite different conditions from those transported for slaughter. That shows the difference between looking at the issue as a long-term economic asset as compared with a temporary price differential to be achieved in a different territory.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who demonstrated his long experience and expertise in these matters. We are grateful for that contribution, as it helps us to get a better understanding of this subject. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this debate, along with the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions raised. I was one of his predecessors as Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I recall that when I was appointed I was identified in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph as a “townie veggie” and a “lacto-pescatarian”. I also had some fun poked at me by Horse and Hound, although being attacked by Horse and Hound is a bit of a badge of a honour for Labour Members, so it did not do me any harm whatsoever. This issue came across my desk, and I was reassured about the regulations, the monitoring and the enforcement. Some three years later, the Minister is being asked these questions again.

The National Farmers Union was much more generous in its welcome of my appointment. It said, “We don’t care where he comes from or what he eats. We will judge him on what he does for farming.” I built up a very constructive relationship with the NFU in my time as Minister of State at DEFRA, and I have high regard for the farming community. That arises, first, from the quality of product they produce and the very high animal welfare standards to which they produce it. Our standards are much higher than those of most of the rest of the European Union, as can be seen in the lead we have set on chickens, eggs, poultry and the rest. Sometimes that has been at the expense of the farmers, because they pay for it out of the profit they make at the end of the year. We also charge farmers with responsibility for looking after the countryside and our environment. The farming community is a big part of the United Kingdom, economically, industrially and environmentally, so I have nothing but regard for the NFU and its members.

The hon. Member for South Thanet raised two key issues: the general issue of live animal exports; and the secondary issue of what happened at Ramsgate in September. Those issues are distinctly different and need to be addressed differently. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will cover the Labour party position on live exports in detail, but I can say that we have called for a full review into the trade; a look at the treaty of Rome, because measures to ban any live trade would fall foul of that; and better facilities to be available at or near the port of Ramsgate. Hon. Members have already drawn attention to European regulation 1/2005 and the minimal animal welfare provisions, so I do not need to go into that, although the Minister may wish to refer to it when he responds.

My hon. Friend has previously asked the Minister

“if he will carry out a full review into the animal welfare considerations of the live export trade”.

He was told:

“The Government has no plans to carry out such a review.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 713W.]

It is a measure of the power of Backbench Business Committee debates that the Minister made the statement yesterday that he has taken action on this issue and the export of live animals through the port of Ramsgate will face tougher welfare checks. One can only assume that that is a result of his having examined the questions, the correspondence and the fact that this debate was taking place.

The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency has been asked to look into the three additional measures that the Minister mentioned: the AHVLA implementing its own contingency plans in the event of an emergency with the transport; improved procedures to ensure that an AHVLA vet is always within an hour of the port to assist inspectors in the event of an emergency or welfare concern; and working with the operator of the transport vessel to develop new contingency measures. Those very important measures have been raised by the Minister and they may offer some reassurance. However, for the House and for the hon. Member for South Thanet clearly they only reinforce the questions she asked in her introductory remarks, such as why it has taken so long for these things to be identified. She also asked about the pre-existing arrangements, and the monitoring and enforcement that was going on.

I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its briefing on the subject. Its policy position is clear. It wants: an end to the long-distance transport of live animals, with a maximum journey of eight hours; amendments to existing legislation; and full costs being paid by the hauliers rather than by the taxpayer. That brings us to the question raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others about the suitability of Ramsgate as opposed to Dover. We are advised by the RSPCA that the

“trade in live animals changed to Ramsgate from Dover in…2010 as the loading bay in the port of Dover had been damaged.”

The hon. Gentleman suggested that commercial reasons may have been behind this, because of the lobbying by animal welfare groups against the general trade in live animal exports.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about an eight-hour transporting limit, but that would preclude a number of people transporting their animals from west Wales and from mid-Wales to markets in the UK. How would he overcome that problem?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The point was dealt with earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the explanation she gave about exemptions for particular species in regions and areas covers that. I was not setting out my position; I was putting on the record the RSPCA’s position, out of gratitude for the briefing and information they supplied me, so that it is in the public domain for anyone listening, watching or reading afterwards. They will be able to weigh that up in the mix and decide whether it is something that they want to support.

On Ramsgate versus Dover, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire suggested that the decision may well have been a commercial one taken by the ferry operators because they did not want to inflame or outrage public opinion and were aware of the power and influence of the animal welfare lobby against live exports. The perverse outcome is that instead of the animals being transported on vessels that are quicker and better equipped to carry cargo, and having better animal welfare facilities available much nearer the port, the animals have to go to the port of Ramsgate in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Thanet. It is clearly not as suitable and it does not have the facilities. Clearly, the vessel she described was not built for this particular trade. The perversity of the outcome leaves a bad taste; it is a success for those lobbyists who chased the trade from Dover, but the animals have to go through the additional journey time, the additional discomfort and so on. I am not sure that that counts as animal welfare. It certainly does not address animal welfare concerns as I would understand them. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister has anything to say about that.

The second issue is the incident in September. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the NFU and I have also received a briefing from it, for which I am grateful. I know that the NFU has written to the Minister, asking a number of questions. Who made the decision to unload? Who decided to kill the animals and which ones to kill? What were the reasons for the kill? Why were the animals unloaded on to an uneven surface? Why were there open drain pits and animals drowning, not just being shot? Were they shot in the right part of the head? What were the skill levels of those involved, who were clearly moved by compassion and tried to do the right thing? When we see the photographs of the blood, the animals and the discomfort, we see that this clearly was not done in a way that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would recognise; it was not done in the professional way that we would all expect. In that instance, there are serious questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. I know that there is an inquiry going on and that he might very well be constrained in how much he can share with us, but a commitment to ensure that that is in the public domain as quickly as possible so that we can return to the subject will, I am sure, be welcome.

I hope, too, that the Minister will make comparisons between the trade from the south-west and Wales to Ireland and the trade to the continent. I do not hear the noises from Wales—I do not hear about protests at Holyhead or people complaining about the live trade there, so I assume that that trade works in the way that the Department and industry want it to work in contrast with the way it is operating at Ramsgate.

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying and he is setting out his case very clearly. Does he agree with many of my constituents that the important thing is to establish what happened and ensure that it never happens again?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

That is a very good question to conclude the points I am making to the Minister. As I said in my opening remarks, there are two distinct questions. One is about live exports as a trade. Although I do not eat meat and poultry—my cards are on the table—that is a matter of choice and if the trade is legal, which it is, and if people are making a living out of it and there are jobs and economies at stake, I would go along with it. What happened at Ramsgate is a whole different ballgame, and the concerns about Ramsgate’s suitability as a port were well expressed by the hon. Member for South Thanet, in whose constituency the port is situated. In that instance, those questions are very valid.

As I have said, trade is legal and we found out from the exchange between the hon. Member for South Thanet and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East that we are talking about 0.5% of UK trade in sheep. Regulations are supposed to cover the facilities, the transportation, the haulage companies and the principle of animal welfare. The questions are therefore about the relevance of the rights, their validity, their monitoring and their enforcement. There are many questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, although we recognise that he will not be able to answer all of them. I look forward to even better reassurances than those that I was able to give when I was sitting in his place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, as the sole representative of my political party, it is difficult to be in more than one place at once, but I am working on it.

I am genuinely glad to take part in this debate, because the issue is close to my heart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for all her work on the issue. She has put it high up on the political agenda again, and I thank her for that.

I do not think it is useful to characterise this debate as being one between those who are grown up and those who are somehow not grown up. I seriously regret the tone of some of the debate over the past half an hour. We are all trying to work out how to reduce the harm that can be done to animals in the live animal trade, and there is a legitimate debate to be had on whether it is ever possible to put in place sufficient safeguards for live animal exports in order to ensure the welfare of the animals. Some people—including some of the hon. Members present—believe that it is possible to do that, but there is a group of people who are not un-grown up, who are not unscientific and who are not in some way defective who have genuine concerns about whether or not, even if we had an eight-hour journey limit, we can look after animals sufficiently.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Several of us who spoke earlier—I accept that the hon. Lady has greater difficulties than others in attending debates—put on record the fact that we choose not to eat meat and poultry and that we would prefer it if other people did not, either. We have been debating two distinct issues: one is the principle of live animal exports, and the other is what happened at Ramsgate. For many people, they are the same issue, but for others they are two distinct issues that need to be addressed in different ways.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I genuinely think is extremely helpful and very much welcome.

I come to the issue from the perspective of having spent 10 years in the European Parliament. I was vice-president of the animal welfare intergroup. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was its president and he did a great job.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) will come back and argue about the practicalities of that for certain geographical locations in the United Kingdom. However, the desire must be to have slaughter as close to the farm as possible and to obviate the need for any long-distance journeys, whether in the UK or to the continent. I am arguing that we should look again seriously at the recommendations of Thanet district council, the RSPCA and others. From experience, every regime so far put in place has not worked. We had another scandalous example with Joline this time round, and there have been others in the past. That is why I support the proposal for an inquiry.

I would prefer the Government to set up an independent inquiry, but if it must be the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, so be it. That Committee can look at animal welfare, the economics of the industry and why there is such economic necessity for live animal exports, as well as at the distribution of abattoirs, which in themselves have the potential to generate employment. It can look at how, if we are to transport animals in the future, we can reassure people that those animals will be safe and secure, and that their welfare will be maintained not only in this country but, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, when they reach other countries. In the past we seem to have lost control of what happens to our exported stock in other countries.

That is the short-term practical approach; we need to undertake an inquiry, take on board Thanet district council’s recommendations and introduce an economic debate on this issue. I am also worried about the staffing of individual organisations on which we rely to undertake these tests and checks. I give the example of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Its offices are being closed, staff are being laid off, and I doubt whether it has the capacity to maintain the vehicle inspection regime that we would expect of it. I am also concerned about staffing in DEFRA and the cutbacks there, and about the resources available to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The inquiry should consider that range of staffing issues because the worst thing that could happen is that we put an inspection regime in place, but the resources and the expertise are not available. That includes the expertise of working alongside voluntary organisations such as the RSPCA. That is the problem with a pragmatic approach in the near future if we do not move towards a ban.

So often, promises have been made, and procedures and regimes have been put in place that have not worked. My view now is therefore that a ban should be introduced because the animal welfare issues are overriding.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about ensuring that adequate resources are available to do the job. On Tuesday, Committee proceedings finished on the HGV Road Levy Bill, which gives the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency additional resources to monitor and enforce the levy that will be introduced in due course for foreign hauliers using our roads. Perhaps the Minister will say whether, given the additional safeguards that appear to be required at Ramsgate, DEFRA will provide additional resources to address that matter.

[John McDonnell]

I think that the Minister heard the question; he does not need me to repeat it.

The Minister has a job to do now in negotiating with other Departments. Yesterday, I met some Public and Commercial Services Union representatives, who are involved in the Department for Transport, including VOSA and DVLA. There are genuine issues about the future, including the review of Department functions, the threat of privatisation and outsourcing, and staff numbers. I am therefore fearful for whatever regime we expect to be put in place. I believe that neither the staff nor the expertise are there, or that they will be so stretched that the regime will not meet our requirements.

After several years as a Member of Parliament, with the problem arising regularly, it is clear that every regime put in place has not worked, resulting in immense animal suffering and immense concern throughout the country. I have many letters from constituents who are concerned about the matter and constituents who have been on demonstrations in Ramsgate. Time and again, they have come back extremely concerned about what they have witnessed. It is now therefore my view that we should introduce a ban and, if necessary, lobby Europe to challenge the European interpretation of the directives, thereby reassuring many of our constituents who are anxious about the matter.

Failing that, if there is to be an inquiry, it needs to be done quickly and be fully inclusive. I am anxious that organisations such as the RSPCA, as well as producer representatives and the trade unions, are fully involved, and that the inquiry comes up with some recommendations fairly soon. That must include representations about the level of resources, as well as the regime that will be put in place.

Badger Cull

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), who made a very thoughtful speech and showed that just as there is no one opinion on this question in farming there is no one opinion on the Government Benches.

I speak as a former Minister of State at DEFRA who tried to address the issue in 2009-10. I saw at first hand the emotional and financial effect on farmers and their families and the pain inflicted by bovine TB. For most people in the country, except to those who watch the BBC’s excellent “Countryfile”, that is invisible. In the Adam’s farm section of the programme, viewers will have heard Adam Henson’s vet confirm that his prize beasts were infected with TB. They will have seen the pain that he felt and how that announcement affected his family. I am sure that that brought the issue home to millions more people than would otherwise have been the case.

[Miss McIntosh]

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that he had the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee’s 2008 report on the incentives and financing that the Government of whom he was a member were giving to farmers for biosecurity measures? We received no answer. Does he regret that now?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I will come on to what the previous Government did at DEFRA when I was Minister of State. The hon. Lady will forgive me, but I do not have the record for 2008. I know that her Committee did sterling work on the subject and I respect the activity in which it was involved.

My former boss at DEFRA, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), states in an article to be published today:

“Some of the facts are agreed. Bovine TB is a terrible disease. It has a huge impact on the farmers affected and they are understandably desperate to find their way out of this nightmare.”

He goes on to say:

“But we all have a responsibility to take action that will work.”

That is the starting point for our disagreement with the Government.

The forced delay to Government plans announced this week shows how difficult the subject is. There is no easy answer and that is why I want to refer to comments made by the Secretary of State on Tuesday. He said in his statement:

“The previous Government took forward the RBCT in a whole series of trials and then stopped and decided to do nothing.”

He went on to say that

“after the trials, the Labour Government stopped dead.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 839-44.]

With the greatest of respect to the Secretary of State, that is entirely wrong. Yes, we decided against a further or widespread cull, but our decisions were based on the evidence of the science presented to the Department and to Ministers at the time. Moreover, my right hon. Friend, who is in the Chamber, implemented the findings of the independent scientific group after the Krebs trials of the 10-year randomised badger cull. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned, John Bourne’s recommendation was not to cull but to tighten cattle controls. That is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Select Committee, and that is what was done.

We went further. We set up the TB eradication group, which comprised members of the British Veterinary Association, the NFU, Government scientists, individual farmers, DEFRA officials and others. For the Secretary of State to say on Tuesday that we stopped dead is insulting to the dedicated work done by those people on the issue of bovine TB and that was grossly unfair of him.

We also lobbied the Treasury for every penny we could get for compensation for farmers afflicted by the disease and, critically, we kept up support for the search for vaccines for badgers and cattle. In contrast, one of the first things the coalition did at DEFRA, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), was cancel five of the six vaccine pilot trials. That looks like an even poorer decision today than it did then, and it looked pretty awful when it was announced.

For the Secretary of State to say that we stopped dead was plain wrong. If badger culling was proven scientifically to have worked, I am convinced that the Labour Government, having supported the trials with appropriate controls, would have pulled that trigger to protect cattle, to protect badgers and to protect other wildlife. It did not work then, however, and despite the coalition’s changes, such as harder boundaries and so on, we do not think that it will work now.

Sir John Beddington was quoted by the Secretary of State on Tuesday. He was reported as having said that

“we might expect a 12 to 16% reduction in bovine TB…after nine years”.—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 839.]

That is hardly a vote of confidence. Those figures have been put in perspective in a number of speeches, as well as during DEFRA questions earlier today. I can understand that farmers, some Government Members and others want to be seen to be doing something—anything—and to be doing it now. As we heard in the statement, however, nothing will happen until next year, if then.

As the new Secretary of State has found out, there is no easy solution, no quick fix and no silver bullet. Vaccines and vaccination for badgers and cattle are the way forward. If there is a vote tonight, I will support the motion and I hope that the majority of Members will do the same.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee obviously speaks with great authority on such matters. As one of her vice-chairs on the all-party parliamentary group on local environmental quality, I am used to following her—I have certainly done so for the past couple of years. Perhaps in future I will get ahead of her, but that is something to hope for.

I shall not speak for long. I want to raise two issues, the first of which is the Thames tideway tunnel and how it will impact on my constituency. I am grateful to the Minister who has responsibility for the natural environment and fisheries for the letter he sent to London MPs yesterday to explain how the Bill will help. The second issue relates to water for fire sprinkler systems, which we have discussed before. It could be referred to in the Water Industry Act 1991, which the Bill amends. This might be a missed opportunity to amend the Act further to deal with that issue.

I shall deal with the constituency matter first. As a former Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a former Minister for London, I am familiar with the challenges facing the Government in dealing with the problem of massive sewage discharges into the Thames. Since the formation of the coalition Government, all the political parties, as well as the Select Committee, have considered the matter and concluded that something needs to be done.

In my constituency, Thames Water’s original plans would have taken nearly all of King Edward memorial park, which, given the population density, is one of the very few green open spaces in Tower Hamlets in east London. Not surprisingly, the plans caused considerable outrage—and that hostility continues today—and it led to the formation of the Save King Edward Memorial Park campaign. It comprises local residents, freeholders, leaseholders, council and social tenants, and residents from the new expensive blocks on the river as well as from the established estates and nearby. All were determined to protect the park from being destroyed by Thames Water.

I pay tribute not only to the campaign officers but to all residents, local councillors and officers of Tower Hamlets council, as well as to the local papers, the East London Advertiser and The Wharf, for the campaign to save the park. The campaign officers are Carl Dunsire, Emma Dunsire, Robin Milward, Toni Davey, Mahbub Mamun Alam, Raihan Islam and Mark Baynes. They have all done an excellent job bringing the community together and lobbying Thames Water and myself—and I have been in discussions with DEFRA, so the campaign has clearly made an impact. Local celebrities, including Sir Ian McKellen, Lee Hurst and Helen Mirren—to name but a few—have also registered their support.

I must also pay tribute and give credit to Thames Water. That will not go down well in the constituency because it is still regarded pretty much as the enemy, but to its credit, it has engaged with us, understood and several times changed its plans for King Edward memorial park. Mr Phil Stride and his team deserve credit for that. Some months ago, Thames Water also engaged as a consultant our former colleague, Mr Martin Salter, the former Reading MP. That has helped the consultation process with local residents. Also, I recently chaired a constituency public meeting to which more than 100 people turned up.

The Save KEMP campaign, which, as well as local residents, comprises people of professional standing—for example, Carl Dunsire is an engineer—identified an alternative brownfield site on Heckford street. That proposal was put to Thames Water a considerable time ago, and since then the company has floated it as a secondary option. Having said that, the company’s preferred option remains to build out on to the river from the foreshore of King Edward memorial park, rather than in the park.

John Biggs, the Greater London assembly member for east London, and I wrote to Thames Water this week seeking the latest consideration of the two options and the costings. Heckford might be slightly more expensive but given the disruption to the local community, the support for the project and everything else, if the costs were equitable, the local community would be strongly in favour of Heckford.

[Frank Dobson]

Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind, when talking about the extra expense, that Thames Water, over the past six or seven years, has made profits totalling £1 billion, which have been paid out to its currently Australian shareholders and before that its German shareholders?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point that will be a matter for scrutiny in Committee. I expect it to be raised in Committee in due course.

East London assembly member John Biggs and I are seeking Thames Water’s latest considerations, and obviously the Bill would affect the building of the Thames tideway tunnel. The local community is resolute on this issue. My only concern about the choice between the Heckford street site and the Thames foreshore site is that building the interceptor to the sewer on the foreshore would mean much more traffic by water, on the Thames. If Heckford street is chosen, there will be several thousand heavy goods vehicles on the streets of Tower Hamlets and further east for several years. That would not be a welcome dimension, but these things are in the balance, and obviously we are pressing for the best possible outcome for the local community.

The second issue that I want briefly to mention is fire sprinklers. I pay tribute to the Minister, who is always courteous and efficient. I am grateful for the meeting that he afforded me and the officers of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue to discuss the matter only four to five weeks ago. There is a myth perpetrated by the media—mostly in adverts on TV and in the cinema—that when a fire in a building activates the sprinkler system, every sprinkler right across the building is activated and the whole place is doused in water and damaged. The reality, of course, is that the only sprinkler activated is the sprinkler head immediately above the seat of the fire, as the heat generated by the fire melts the soldered link, causing the blockage to fall away and allowing the water to act as an extinguishing agent. The problem with the myth is that people are frightened of sprinklers, because they think that if they install them in their building and they are inadvertently activated—we know that smoke detectors can go off because of burning toast—their home would be damaged. However, that is not the case, and the cost to society of not installing sprinkler systems in buildings includes the hundreds of millions of pounds lost to schools damaged by fire every year—a cost that is often passed on to local council tax payers, as most local authorities self-insure.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about a matter that was brought home to me recently. Hon. Members will remember the serious fire that closed Wood lane, opposite the BBC in Shepherd’s Bush—perhaps that is why it got so much publicity. The consequence of such events in major buildings with no sprinkler systems is not just the risk of loss of life, but often the permanent loss of jobs where buildings cannot reopen and the huge damage to industrial and public buildings.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I am coming to, immediately after I make the point that when a school burns down, the problem is not just the damaged building, but the disruption to the education of the students at that educational establishment and the impact on parents, who have to take their kids to schools further away, with disruption to friendships and the rest of it. As for the point that he correctly makes, when there is damage to an industrial or commercial premises, there is not only the damage to the building, but the cost of insurance for the company, a loss of production and, more often than not, unemployment costs to the individuals who work on those premises, because it takes months and sometimes longer to rebuild or replace, if at all possible.

Most critical of all is the loss of life. Fire deaths affect the most vulnerable in society. The majority of people who die in fires are the most vulnerable—the old, the sick, the young, people with social difficulties or people with addiction problems. The most vulnerable are the ones who predominantly die in fires. Tragically, we have recently seen a number of major multiple fatalities across the country, most recently in London—in what was formerly Brent East—where a mother and five children died in a fire. However, the experience of local authorities where fire sprinklers are the norm is entirely different. There is a district in Arizona called Scottsdale—one of Phoenix’s five districts—that is the fire sprinkler capital of the world, as I am sure the House will be pleased to learn. Scottsdale has had a city ordinance for 30 years that says that if someone builds something, they have to install a sprinkler system. One person has died in a fire in Scottsdale in 30 years. Scottsdale has 250,000 people. They smoke, they cook, they burn candles and they probably have heating too, despite the desert climate. Sprinklers save lives. That is now becoming the UK experience. More local authorities, more registered social landlords and more developers are recognising the benefits of sprinkler systems.

There has been extensive correspondence between the all-party group and DEFRA on the Water Industry Act 1991. If I may, I shall quote from a letter from former chief fire officer Ronnie King, who is a highly regarded officer in the fire service, as well as being the active administrative secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue and the chair of the water liaison group. In reference to the Act, which the Bill amends, he says:

“To this end I outline in this letter a proposed change to section 57 on the provision of water for firefighting. Section 57 covers the duty to provide water for firefighting and currently this duty is limited solely to providing water from designated fire hydrants. Increasingly householders are seeing the benefit of installing sprinkler systems, which will lead to significant reductions in fire deaths and injuries if they could be more widely used. Under the current legislation such supplies are classified as non-domestic supplies and are subject to agreement of terms and conditions on a case by case basis. An amendment of section 57 to include as firefighting water that taken from service pipes connected to a sprinkler system will clarify the status of connections to the water system for automatic fire sprinkler purposes. The current ambiguity is a barrier to the proliferation of sprinkler systems.”

I acknowledge that the Minister has asked his officials to examine that matter and to report on it. If nothing can be done in this Bill, we would be grateful if it could be considered for the water Bill that is coming along not far behind it. I also want to acknowledge that the vast majority of the water companies already do the right thing in co-operating, without the legislative clarity that the proposed amendment would provide. An amendment to the Water Industry Act 1991 in the Bill would be welcomed by the fire service and the fire industry as another major step towards a safer society, but I recognise that that might not be possible yet. School fires are increasing, and I am told that 10% of schools are affected by vandalism involving fires each year. More fires are occurring during school hours, and it is only a matter of time before there is a major tragedy. Most fire legislation is reactive and retrospective, drafted on the back of a major loss of life. The amendment that I have suggested could take us forward significantly, and protect our children in the future.

In conclusion—and as a complete aside—we really need to hold a fire evacuation drill in this place at some point, because we need to give leadership to the rest of the country on these issues. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Waste Water (Thames and Greater London)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me to speak. I am very grateful to you for your chairmanship of our proceedings this afternoon. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on raising this important issue at a crucial time for this project.

I do not know any elected person from any political party who could possibly approach this project in any way that was not sceptical. We are talking about a huge sum of money, but we are also talking about a huge problem. Consequently, it is right that we rigorously check, first, that undertaking this project is the right thing to do and, secondly, that the alternatives are simply not good enough to deal with what we know is a very serious problem.

I approach this project from that perspective, and I also approach it as a constituency MP, whose constituents are paying Thames Water’s bills in the most westerly point of the Thames Water area. As is the case with many MPs in the Thames Water area, my constituents will ask me whether this project is good value for money and what it aims to achieve. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, and I respect the debate and the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced it.

We know that we face a very serious problem. It is not only a legal problem, although it is important that we respond to the European Commission’s concerns and its belief that we are not complying with the urban waste water treatment directive—we will vigorously defend ourselves against that claim. Nobody who has anything to do with the River Thames can deny that we face a problem now and that if our generation of politicians does not take action, we will leave the next generation with a possibly devastating impact on an iconic—that is a rather overused word, but it is appropriate here—river that runs through one of the most important capital cities in the world.

Therefore, the Government are taking a similar view to that of the previous Government, in that we believe that it is important that this project goes ahead and that the tunnel option is the right one. We are open about our reasons for that. I have the highest respect for Lord Selborne. He is an extraordinarily able parliamentarian and he has experience of a wide range of scientific and environmental issues. My Department is taking his commission and its inquiry seriously. We have contributed to that process, and we will certainly look at what his commission says. We want to be as open as possible, and we also want to try to make people who are sceptical about our proposal understand how we have arrived at this point, sharing with them as much information as we can.

It takes as little as 2 mm of sudden rainfall to trigger an overflow into the Thames of untreated waste water from a combined sewer. Currently, around 39 million cubic metres of waste water enter the Thames every year from London’s combined sewer overflows when storm water capacity is exceeded. That is enough to fill the Royal Albert hall 450 times. I have tried to get that image out of my head, but failed.

Those discharges occur around 50 to 60 times a year, and they have a significant environmental impact on the Thames. The drought ended in June. That was just after the Department for Environment, Food and Rural called the drought summit—the two events may have been linked—and at that time there was a combined sewage overflow spill that resulted in an appallingly large number of fish being killed. It is the habitat and environment of the river that we are concerned about. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties know that those discharges increase the likelihood of aquatic wildlife being killed and create a higher health hazard than we can imagine for people using, enjoying or living near the river. Therefore we must take action. Nobody has more respect than me for David Walliams for his extraordinary achievement, but it brought to our attention the fact that he had to take antibiotics to protect himself in case he fell ill because of the condition of the Thames, as so many other people already have.

In the few minutes that I have left, I will try to respond as quickly as I can to the specific points that my right hon. Friend made. I received a copy of them as I walked into Westminster Hall this afternoon, because I came straight from another event.

My right hon. Friend asked what the Government’s response is to the recommendations of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report of 30 March. I can assure him that we will respond to that report in full in a few weeks’ time, and I will ensure that he is apprised of that response.

My right hon. Friend also asked whether my Department will hold off on the publication of the revised national policy statement until the relevant part of the Localism Bill has been implemented. We are going through this process without prejudging what Parliament will do, on the basis that the Localism Bill as it currently stands will receive Royal Assent. It is really important that we understand that the Localism Bill will bring that crucial element of democratic accountability, and I am grateful to him for raising that point.

Parliament will consider the NPS by the end of this year. My right hon. Friend asked me whether I can confirm that there will be a debate about the NPS on the Floor of the House and, if so, whether the motion will be amendable. The NPS will be laid before Parliament for 21 days, and it is in his gift and that of any other right hon. or hon. Member to request a debate on it. I would welcome such a debate, which would be an opportunity to set out our reasons for supporting this project.

My right hon. Friend asked whether significant consequential buildings will be the subject of local planning processes. I think that he is concerned about the NPS and the planning processes being dealt with all in one when there might be specific issues in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies about legitimate local planning concerns. My understanding is that those cases would undergo application for development consent. I will write to him and make it absolutely clear what we are saying here, because I know that this is a matter of particular importance to right hon. and hon. Members.

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

Will the Minister be so kind as to include in that correspondence the other hon. Members who are here in Westminster Hall for this debate and who are interested in that particular issue?

[Richard Benyon]

I put it on the record that I will copy that correspondence to the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who are present in Westminster Hall for this debate.

The Thames tunnel commission has been established. As I have already said, we are providing evidence to it and we will look at what it produces. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark asked about the cost of the Thames tunnel project. Obviously, that is of huge concern to everybody who pays water bills in the Thames Water area. The current estimates for the costs are being reviewed on a regular basis, as he would expect them to be. As is the case with any cost assessment, there are assumptions in those assessments, including assumptions about construction costs and the financing of the operation. I assure him that Thames Water is building a very large contingency element into its costs analysis. Along with Thames Water, we are being extremely rigorous in ensuring that all risks are being considered and that—without being Rumsfeldian—all the unknowns that we know about are assessed, to see whether we can know more than we currently do.

The most important point, however, is that there must be a credible package to put, first, to water-charge payers and, secondly, to put to investors. Without that credible package and without Government support for the project, I do not believe that we can go ahead with the scheme. As I have said, it is extremely important that there is a credible package. An impact assessment from 2007 of cost-benefit analysis is being updated, and we will make the updated version public.

My right hon. Friend asked what the rules are regarding compensation when people’s land and amenities are affected by this scheme. If he will allow me, I will include a fuller answer to that in my letter to him.

My right hon. Friend’s last question related to issues about the sites at King’s Stairs gardens and Chamber’s wharf. That is a very important question and there are other sites that other hon. Members have already raised with me and will continue to do so. I confirm to my right hon. Friend that those issues are planning issues and therefore that it is for Thames Water to take them forward. However, we are looking very closely at them and we will liaise with him and others if we feel that there is a role for Government to influence the process. We want to ensure that this enormous scheme—both its construction and its eventual operation—has as little impact as possible on his constituents and others in the Thames area.

I cannot give a fuller reply than that, but I assure my right hon. Friend that I will continue to liaise with him and other London Members, particularly riverside Members, as well as with any other hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Thames Water area, to ensure that we are working together, first, to make the value of this project understood and, secondly, to make it a success for future generations.

Bovine TB

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I thank him and the Select Committee on which he served, as well as the present Select Committee, for the efforts that they have put into addressing this difficult issue. However, nothing compares to visiting a farm in one of the worst affected areas and learning at first hand about the devastation and heartache that repeatedly having to send cattle to slaughter brings.

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

There are some Opposition Members who do not have a romantic view of badgers, but nor do we want to see animals killed unnecessarily. As a former DEFRA Minister, I understand the pressure that Ministers are under to deal with the problem of infection in the cattle herds and among badgers. However, I do not agree with the interpretation of the science.

Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the reducing compensation for farmers, because that will be greeted with concern? This is about making the farming community observe the guidelines that some do not observe. Will she confirm that the evidence that swung her decision in favour of the cull is the latest extended evidence on the randomised badger cull, because that is a new element of science? How will she report culling progress to the House, and how often?

[Mrs Spelman]

To be clear, I do not have a romanticised notion either. Like anyone who loves nature, I love the badgers too, but we must be clear about the humaneness and efficacy of what we are discussing. As regards new science, the science published since 2007 by Christl Donnelly and peer reviewed is an important factor in the decision. On the compensation, if farmers do not get their cattle regularly tested in a timely fashion, as they are required to do, they will have their compensation reduced. This is a balanced package and people must take responsibility. The farming industry has shown its willingness to do that and I commend this balanced package to the House.

Dangerous Dogs

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Bayley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who saw off a lot of competition to secure this debate, on giving us all the opportunity to have this discussion with the Minister.

I asked about dangerous dogs twice last week in the House, at Home Office questions and in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. As the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) has just said, because the issue is cross-departmental, it is more complicated. However, I was grateful for the positive responses from both Ministers on the Treasury Bench. Also, as was referred to earlier, the coalition agreement is positive in that its programme for government states:

“We will promote responsible pet ownership…and will ensure that enforcement agencies target irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs.”

On the back of last year’s DEFRA consultation, which received more than 4,000 responses, I and other colleagues hope that the Minister will indicate the Government’s conclusions and the way forward.

I have had, as have many colleagues, various meetings with a number of organisations, most recently with the Dogs Trust, the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Association of Chief Police Officers. They all want a Bill. I am grateful to them for their briefings, and the consensus across the piece is that any Bill must consolidate legislation concerning dog control, allow greater flexibility and discretion to enforcers and the courts, include a genuine preventive effect, update some offences, improve public safety and animal welfare and reduce the cost of enforcement, all of which have been referred to by colleagues so far.

As the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, breed-specific legislation is not effective in tackling the real cause of the problem, but should—there is agreement—relate to the owner’s acts and omissions rather than the type of dog. All the groups mentioned also believe that, without the political will to repeal breed-specific legislation, it must be amended to ensure better canine welfare and a clear strategy must be put in place to phase out the breed-specific legislation. The third main pillar of the consensus is that the scope of updated legislation must be extended to cover all places, including private property, to ensure better public safety and animal welfare. It must also provide suitable defences for responsible dog owners—for example, if people are attacked and their dog defends them. I want to focus a few remarks on the third point.

I was e-mailed by two constituents, Mr and Mrs Sprosson of Wapping. They were walking their dog last Friday and were subjected to a vicious attack by a dogo Argentino. Both their dog and Mr Sprosson were seriously injured. It was very much the usual story, with no owner in sight, although one eventually came into the open. My constituents are very unhappy with the response to their 999 calls to both the police and the ambulance—I am pursuing those concerns with the borough police commander and the chief executive of the London ambulance service—but those responses were almost symptomatic of the problem caused by inadequate legislation, which does not give the emergency services clear indications of how they ought to respond. Mrs Sprosson, in her e-mail, concluded:

“It is only a matter of time before this dog attacks again. Judging by its size, strength and alarming aggression it could easily kill a child and very badly damage an adult. What will it take for the police to address this terrible situation? How many more people will it be allowed to damage before they are forced to take action?”

The statistics, quoted by many and in the speeches this morning, are quite clear. We have seen a twelvefold increase in dog fighting between 2004 and 2008, according to figures from the RSPCA; 6,000-plus attacks on postal workers every year, according to the Communication Workers Union; 1,000-plus dogs seized by the Metropolitan police in 2009 and 2010, according to the Mayor of London’s office; and, sadly, as has been referred to, eight people killed and 197 seriously injured in the past four years. All of that is costing the taxpayer money, quite apart from the untold suffering.

I have not mentioned compulsory microchipping for all dogs, which many of us support, although perhaps not the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). That would be a modern, 21st-century solution to registering dogs, tracking owners and ensuring that those responsible are held to account when things go wrong.

In conclusion, there is cross-party, animal welfare, police and public support for a Bill dealing with dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners. The Minister is sympathetic and DEFRA and the Home Office want to make progress. Colleagues in the Chamber are not being over-critical but genuinely trying to be helpful in giving momentum to what Ministers and civil servants want to achieve, which is updating the legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

13. What steps she plans to take to reduce the incidence of antisocial behaviour by dogs and their owners.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

DEFRA is working closely with the Home Office to deal with the issue of antisocial behaviour on the part of dogs and their owners. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, on 7 February the Home Office issued a consultation paper on a new, streamlined framework of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour. Subject to consultation, the new tools will replace 18 of the formal powers that are currently available, including those applicable to dogs. The consultation ended on 17 May, and the responses are being analysed.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is reassuring to hear that discussions are taking place with the Home Office. Members of the all-party associate parliamentary group for animal welfare met representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers last week, and they presented their evidence to the Department shortly afterwards. Will the Minister meet members of the all-party group to discuss ACPO’s information and the concerns it raised with the Department?

[Mr Paice]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always happy to meet him and, indeed, any other colleagues. As he also knows, the issue of dogs is the responsibility of my noble Friend, Lord Henley. I will pass his request on to my noble Friend, but I assure him that if he cannot deal with it, I will do so.