Dog Fighting

John Pugh Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Sir Roger, may I shock assembled company, and possibly some of my constituents, by saying that I am not generally a dog lover? In fact, I have spent much of my political career dodging dogs, and my cats, Arthur and Wilson, wish me to put that on the record, but I an admirer of dogs’ qualities—their loyalty, their bravery and so on. I come from an area of Merseyside where there is an unsavoury subculture—a very small, but very troubling one—of dog fighting.

Dog fighting is only one of the aspects here. We have talked about trophy dogs, which are clearly a more obvious thing for most people. They are selected, bred and trained to be vicious and are subject to deliberate neglect. Quite how horrible that is has been well described by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who so movingly started the debate. Such dogs are often discarded. I was told that the average life span of the average Staffordshire bull terrier is something like three years, as nobody wants from the RSPCA a dog that has been badly trained.

Dogs are becoming part of a testosterone-fuelled culture. It was put to me by experts, including a policeman who trained dogs for many years, that just as some people with a criminal or violent background should not have access to guns, they should also not have access to certain breeds of dogs. I think there is a case for licensing both dogs and ownership.

Dog control has at times been seen as a slightly marginal and difficult issue for Government. Legislation in this area has not been wholly successful—attempts to outlaw breeds, for example—but it seems to me that the Government have to take this issue very seriously. Issues such as dog fighting, out-of-control dogs, packs of dogs marauding through neighbourhoods and poor welfare of dogs generally are proxy for a wider range of issues, such as violent and socially disturbed neighbourhoods, drug and alcohol abuse and, importantly, serious family issues. I had a long conversation with the RSPCA at its last event here and I spoke to some of the inspectors who went into homes. They said that often when they went into homes apropos a dog and got access where social workers could not, they saw troubling instances of families and children in neglect as well.

We have made a lot in this Parliament of the issue of troubled families. It has been a high priority for the Prime Minister and everybody right through Government, but troubled families usually have troubled pets as well. Antisocial dog behaviour is often the most evident signal to the outside world of antisocial behaviour in general, and poor and disturbed families. I want to make a very simple point: although this issue may seem marginal and almost on the fringes of political debate, it is actually central to social policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this debate on what is obviously an important issue that the House cares deeply about, which is why we have had so many Members here. Dog fighting is an absolutely repugnant activity. As the hon. Lady made clear in her opening remarks, it has been banned in this country since 1835. It is certainly depressing to think that it persists to this day. The cruelty is not limited to the dogs directly involved in the fighting; the animals are sometimes used as bait, as various hon. Members have pointed out. One hears distressing anecdotes sometimes about older dogs that end up being used as bait after being advertised for rehoming by elderly owners. That is utterly appalling.

I pay tribute to the League Against Cruel Sports for its work in highlighting the issue and for its work in helping with enforcement to bring prosecutions against the evil people who engage in dog fighting.

Around five years ago, when I served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I read a detailed academic study into the phenomenon of dog fighting, and other more recent reports suggest that the practice of dog fighting takes place at different levels, as various hon. Members have pointed out. They can range from one-off, one-on-one dog fights in urban parks and housing estates—sometimes called “street rolling” or “chain rolling”—to more organised events behind closed doors, often involving illegal gambling. As other hon. Members have pointed out, that is often linked to other crime. There is also the continued desire for certain individuals to acquire so-called status dogs, which has a link to this problem. They have no concern for the dog’s welfare or the safety of other people, including their own family members.

I want to touch briefly, however, on some good-news stories on dogs. In general, the trend for stray dogs is decreasing, and the latest figures published in September last year showed 102,500 stray dogs in 2015, down from 110,000 the year before and 126,000 five years ago, so we have made some progress. The successful roll-out of compulsory dog microchipping in April will help to reduce that further. We have now got 91% of dogs microchipped as of the end of April. Also, the number of stray dogs being euthanised is down to 5%, which is the lowest figure ever, down from a high of 16% around 20 years ago.

In addition, we have achieved a lot of success in our work with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group. Six of the main pet advertising websites have signed up to the PAAG minimum standards for adverts, which has led to a huge number being removed and no longer appearing, including adverts involving prohibited breeds. Gumtree reported to me that the number of pets being advertised on its website following its signing up to the code has gone down by more than 70%. PAAG members put filters on their websites to identify potentially problematic adverts, which are then tracked and removed. Information is also supplied to authorities such as the police and local authorities to assist them with enforcement action. Key words can range from obvious terms such as “pit bull” to less obvious references to “gameness”, “red-nosed dogs” and “Staffie cross”, which is often code for “pit bull”. Those are all now terms that flag alarms with the websites, and that is an important step forward.

In addition to this work, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was strengthened to make it far easier to bring prosecutions for dog fighting. There is now a long list of things that make it an offence to cause an animal fight, receive money for admission to an animal fight, publicise an animal fight, provide information about an animal fight, make or accept a bet on an animal fight, take part in an animal fight, possess anything designed or adapted to be used in an animal fight, keep or train an animal for use in an animal fight, keep any premises used in an animal fight and be present at an animal fight. So a wide range of criteria make it easier to bring prosecutions. The maximum penalty for any of those offences is six months’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.

Before the Animal Welfare Act came into force in 2007, the maximum penalty for causing or assisting in an animal fight was reserved for the people arranging the fights and the fine for other related offences was capped at £2,500. A year ago, we removed the upper cap and there can now be an unlimited fine for animal cruelty. We changed that just a year ago.

I am told there are around 20 prosecutions a year and several custodial sentences, but I understand the calls for the maximum penalty for dog fighting to be increased. Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), made that point. I can say that in the closing stages of the previous Parliament we looked at this issue and considered the case for increasing the maximum sentence for animal fights, but we did not have a legislative vehicle to do so at that point. The view now—this is a Ministry of Justice lead—is that we should look at all animal cruelty because there may be a case for changing the sentences for other types of animal cruelty as well. The Government keep the issue under review, and my colleagues in the MOJ—

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I will not give way; we are tight on time.

A second issue is equally important. As the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) pointed out, we need not only to have the maximum sentences set at the right level, but to give the right guidance to magistrates when sentencing, because we still only have a handful of custodial sentences. Such decisions are set by the independent Sentencing Council, and the guidelines on animal welfare offences, including those on dog fighting, are available on its website. I can tell hon. Members today that a review is ongoing. A consultation on sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty offences is now open and will close on 11 August.

I want to say a brief word on enforcement, which is carried out by the police, working with the RSPCA. The RSPCA has been tackling animal cruelty, particularly dog fighting, for years. It has a great track record. The threshold on puppies, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is an issue we are looking at in an animal establishment consultation that has closed. We will respond to that shortly. On the register of people convicted of animal offences and banned from owning animals, the police are looking into that to see whether it will be possible, without publishing information, to give certain agencies greater access to it.

In conclusion, we have had a good debate and many important points have been raised. I am sure my colleagues in the MOJ and in the Sentencing Council will take on board some of the points raised today.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

As I indicated, the concept of street pastors did not actually originate with the Church of England, and we acknowledge that. However, Anglicans support absolutely what the street pastors do. Churches should work together; indeed, we should look to work with other faiths. In the city of Birmingham, near my constituency, there are also street pastors of the Muslim faith, and I have seen for myself what an impact street pastors have on gang culture and on tackling knife and gun crime.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Church Commissioners’ ethical investment policy.

[Mrs Spelman]

During 2015, the Church Commissioners’ ethical investment strategy won awards at the Portfolio institutional awards in the category of responsible investment. The commissioners have also had success in leading shareholder resolutions on climate change behaviour with BP and Shell, and they will continue to work with other institutional shareholders on filing similar resolutions at their annual general meetings.

[John Pugh]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that full response, but is not the correct principle that the commissioners actively seek to shun investment in companies guilty of what the Chancellor calls “aggressive tax avoidance”?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes. Indeed, it is just a year to the day since the Archbishop of Canterbury said that a good economy is based on

“the principle that you pay the tax where you earn the money. If you earn the money in a country, the revenue service of that country needs to get a fair share of what you have earned.”

I could not put it better myself.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

It sounds to me like my hon. Friend’s constituency is a food powerhouse and I congratulate him on the success of the Radnor Hills water company. We are the No. 1 exporter of lamb in the world and Welsh lamb is an important part of that success. I will be in China next week, trying to open that market for lamb, and I will continue to push the case here in Britain.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Lamb aside, and without being too specific, is there not a possible policy conflict between promoting some regional foods and the Government’s anti-obesity strategy?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I believe in everything in moderation.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely correct. At present, the quota regime is due to end in 2015 and he is right that sugar prices are 35% higher than world prices, which is 1% on the cost of the average shopping basket. We are clear that we want the quota regime to go. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that, at every opportunity when this issue is raised, I remember the need to defend the interests of cane importers and to make sure that the duty regime is fair to them.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T3. Will Ministers update us on where we are with dangerous dogs legislation, given the continued prevalence of attacks and, indeed, organised dog fighting?

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

My hon. Friend will be aware of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s recent announcement that we intend to proceed with changes to dangerous dog legislation by bringing in new antisocial behaviour provisions. We are talking to the Home Office about that and we intend to bring them in at the earliest opportunity.

Dangerous Dogs

John Pugh Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

Absolutely. Unless dog control orders can be enforced and policed, they do not mean anything.

Therefore, instead of dog control orders, the Government could have followed the example of the Scottish Government who have introduced dog control notices. The Northern Ireland Assembly has also introduced control notices as a way of monitoring the behaviour of dog owners.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman dismisses microchipping, but presumably if it were made compulsory with proper enforcement, there is also a case for dogs, particularly dangerous dogs, being confiscated from people who do not have them microchipped.

[Chris Evans]

That is it in a nutshell. If people had dangerous dogs that were not microchipped, they could be confiscated.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this stimulating debate and on the measured, thoughtful way in which he introduced the topic.

I cannot compete with some of the horror stories that have been mentioned, but no politician is far from this issue. This year, I was accosted by two amiable Alsatians that did not quite wish me to canvass the house that I had intended to visit. In my constituency this year, a councillor has been bitten and a caseworker has lost part of a finger. Hon. Members might like to speak to my good friend the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr Benton), who to this day bears the marks of a serious attack by dogs.

Fundamentally, the problem is dogs’ bad behaviour, but that is associated with the problem of neglect and poor training, which is worsened a great deal by the contemporary cult of the status dog, which people use as a potential deterrent or threat. Hitherto, the resolution, which has been fairly straightforward, has been to ban so-called uncontrollable, savage dogs that are naturally disinclined to behave themselves in a civilised fashion. The view has also been that owners of dogs that are out of control should be charged by the courts, and guidelines have been issued in that regard over time. There is general consensus that such measures are not sufficient and that more is needed.

All hon. Members have acknowledged the fact that we cannot legislate for the genuinely unpredictable. Occasionally, even well-behaved dogs go beserk and do strange, unpredictable things, even if owners wish them not to do so. Hon. Members are probably aware of such cases. However, much of what people are anxious about is, sadly, predictable. The fundamental drive behind all our contributions today is the desire to see dog owners made more genuinely responsible for their dogs. Otherwise—something suggested to me by police dog handlers—there ought to be some restriction on who can own certain sorts of dogs. That idea was put to me seriously by a man who has had a lot of experience breeding dogs and working with the police with dogs. If we do not allow someone with a criminal record of some length to own firearms and the like, why would we allow him to own a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog?

That is a separate point from the drive to increase owner responsibilities, and I have no particular view on which of a number of different suggestions along that line would be best. I favour microchipping, but one might want to look at insurance, which has not been mentioned so far; at obliging owners to muzzle or keep dogs on a lead; and at neutering certain dogs, if they are to be owned in certain circumstances, almost as a precondition of sale, although none of that gets around the issue that is dogging the whole affair, which is the problem of genuinely irresponsible owners. They do not even shoulder their current responsibilities and, if asked to do more, will discard the animals that they have taken on. There seems to be a lot of evidence that that is happening—a large number of Staffordshire bull terriers end up in pounds throughout the land and are destroyed. The other day, the average life expectancy of a Staffordshire bull terrier was cited as about four years, because people take them on but discard them when they become troublesome.

I am genuinely convinced that the threshold for the ownership and breeding of dogs needs to be raised, either generally or for specific breeds, but that will only be an effective remedy if coupled with sensible plans for realistic enforcement. Without enforcement, no proposal will be worth while, but there is the question of how enforcement will be funded, which drives us back to the issue of whether a licence is a viable idea.

Gangmasters Licensing Authority

John Pugh Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing this important debate.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), who is present and who was responsible for the original proposals, which went through the House of Commons and into legislation. I followed and supported his private Member’s Bill, turning up on a few Fridays to ensure that it ran the course. That might seem strange, because I represent a seaside constituency, but it is one that has a large agricultural hinterland. It was obvious to me, when he was promoting his Bill, that something needed to be done. I was acutely aware of a number of workers whom I saw around the town who were there illegally or were trafficked—they were certainly not treated at all well. In many cases, they were appallingly housed. In one celebrated case, a large number of Russians were found in a big house in Southport in conditions resembling the black hole of Calcutta. Those who were better housed might still be extraordinarily badly treated, with their rent often deducted from the pittance they were paid; every conceivable regulation for houses in multiple occupation was violated by gangmasters who often owned the property concerned.

It was also apparent to me at that time that there was some criminal involvement. Conversations that I had with the police and immigration authorities indicated that that was indeed the case. Clearly, from conversations that I had with valid employment agencies operating properly within the law, the situation was also a considerable restraint on their trade and was a problem in the labour market. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South said, such people were breaching the law not only by using illegal labour but by not paying full taxation or proper national insurance. It was rather puzzling, when looking at the accounts of some large agricultural suppliers, as to how much they managed to get done with so few people seemingly employed on the books. That was before the Morecambe bay tragedy, which focused people’s minds on the seriousness of the issue and on how right the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North was to bring it to our attention. Had people acted sooner, we certainly would not have had that tragedy.

I had a foretaste quite recently of what might still happen in the absence of a similar piece of legislation. Southport has a long history of shrimping, but we had a bonanza—almost a freak of nature—of cockles and other shellfish quite recently. It was a sudden surge, perhaps because of some tidal movement. However, it became well know that in the northern part of the constituency an awful lot of money was to be made from prestigious restaurants by going there quickly, taking appreciable risks and obtaining what was there. The local authority took the matter under control very effectively, but it was obvious in the circumstances that many strange people were suddenly showing up in town, and were prepared to take appreciable risks on behalf of themselves and those they employed in trying to obtain a quick financial return.

I wholly support the thrust of the legislation. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South said, it prevents a number of wholly undesirable activities. It prevents people from being treated badly, and prevents abuse of health and safety legislation. It even saves lives. It is not an underestimate to say that lives would be put at risk in the absence of proper supervision of the gangmaster business. It certainly ensures that more taxes are paid than would otherwise be the case, and it goes a long way towards cleaning up the supply chain, which has been fairly murky in the past. I have no real evidence for this, but I am fairly confident that supermarkets were receiving vegetables that had been provided through gangmaster chains that required some inspection, to say the least.

At the moment, the Government are against red tape, as we all are. No one makes a case for red tape. The issue is what is meant by red tape. There is no clear definition. I am told by people in the Department for Transport that they were asked to look at traffic regulation orders as a sample of red tape, which shows how vague and blurred the definition is. If it means over-regulation and unnecessary regulation, we are against it in principle, but what we are discussing is not an example of that. There is clear evidence that an authority such as the GLA is needed, and I would be sorry to see it abolished.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South has made a case for an extension of the GLA’s remit, and I am slightly wary of that. He drew a valid distinction between dealing with gangmasters as an industry-specific issue, and dealing with them in terms of the business model involved. My instinctive preference is to look at the industry-specific aspect.

[Mr David Hamilton]

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the construction industry. Many foreign companies come to the UK and bring their employees with them. The very problem of employment and accommodation to which he referred exists here now. Such companies give with one hand, and take away with the other. They pay wages to their employees, but then increase the rent for their accommodation. That happens now in the construction industry, and it goes against local British firms that are trying to get into the market and do a fair job with people they care about: their employees. The regulations should apply to foreign employers, and ensure that exploitation does not happen.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman has slightly anticipated me. There is a prima facie case in the construction industry, and there has long been a history of gangmaster behaviour, which used to be called the lump. Building firms sometimes employ people as a gang instead of employing them individually to avoid some of the penalties that might be incurred because work on a building site is intrinsically risky. A construction firm might incur liabilities, but sometimes, by arrangement, they fall on the gangmasters, who accept no ultimate liability whatever.

There is a decent case for including the construction and agriculture industries, but it becomes more difficult in the catering industry, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned. We seem to be moving into territory where we may be imposing on an industry regulation that, strictly speaking, is unnecessary.

[Ian Murray]

Perhaps I could provide some clarification. I examined whether there should be an extension to other industries, but I particularly asked the Minister to examine whether it would be appropriate for the GLA to cover other industries, rather than saying that it should have a blanket involvement. I was asking for some proposals from the Government, and whether it would wise and prudent to do so.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely valid point. He is suggesting a benchmark or threshold that must be met before imposing additional regulation. Surely, that benchmark or threshold has been met in the agricultural industry. In my view it has certainly been met in the construction industry. Removing existing controls when there is clear evidence that they are needed would be regressive and wholly detrimental to the interests of British commerce and to the people who work in those industries.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. It may help hon. Members to tell them that I am hoping to start the wind-ups at 10 minutes past 12. I believe that three hon. Members wish to be called, and if they are reasonably brief, they can all speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I will not take up much time, Mr Dobbin. I did not intend to speak, because the previous contributions were so good, but I would like to make one or two points. We all come to the House with our own experiences from the lives that we led before becoming Members of Parliament. That is one of the characteristics that is strong in Parliament. I came here with nearly 20 years’ experience as a coal miner. The comparisons between the mining industry and the construction industry are stark. They are very similar, in that the numbers of deaths and injuries in each are extremely high. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), who spoke before me, I do not lean away from regulation. Regulation saves lives in many areas, and the construction industry is one of the areas that I believe is very important.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who initiated the debate, that the GLA should follow the evidence that comes forward. I will just make one or two observations. When I was unable to get my private Member’s Bill through—technically, it is still there, but I think that I am about 120th or so in the list—among the examples that I intended to raise was Pure Recruitment Solutions, based in Glasgow. Its licence was revoked in 2008. However, the company still operates and provides labour to a number of sectors, one of which is construction. The same is true of Prestige Recruitment Ltd. Its licence was revoked in 2007, but it still operates in a number of sectors, including construction. It is also true of Victor Wolf Ltd, which lost its licence in January of last year, and of ASAP Recruitment, which lost its licence the year before. It still works in various sectors, but not in agriculture.

The fact is that we close companies down in one sector and they re-establish themselves in another. I refer to construction unashamedly, because I strongly believe that the number of deaths and serious accidents in the construction industry can be reduced if regulation is applied. The regulation is supported by the representatives of the workers and by the honest employers in the construction industry. I meet them regularly, as other hon. Members must. People can go round the businesses in my area, where the building sites and so on are. Subcontractors are, by nature, local firms. However, in many cases, the subcontractors are being squeezed out of the market simply because labour is being brought in from other places. Bed and breakfast is included for those workers; their board and so on is included.

I remember my father telling me about the situation in the mining village of Newtongrange. Images of it can be seen in the Scottish mining museum. I am talking about a time just before the second world war. A person called Mungo Mackay owned all the houses in Newtongrange. He was also the coal owner. He gave the miners a rise and then put the price of bread up in the shops and put the rent up. It was a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

The people who are being exploited today are the foreign workers who come in, but the situation is also completely unfair to local employers. It is about time that we recognised that if we want to make progress in this country and create an environment that is worth working in, we must ensure that the honest employers are protected and protect the workers at the same time.

I wanted to make one or two points, because the 2004 Act is under threat. We should be looking at extending the Act, not reducing it. We should be ensuring that we protect British workers. Disasters happen because of a sequence of events. I fear that one of these days there will be a disaster in the construction industry and then people will be concerned. I was part of the Bill that went through Parliament; my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North allowed my name to go down. I question whether the Bill would have been able to go through if the disaster in Morecambe bay had not happened. The reason why it received support across the board was the disaster that happened at that time. If it had not happened, there might have been difficulties in getting the Bill through. I do not want the same to happen in the construction industry. There are deaths and serious accidents in the construction industry on a regular basis. The numbers will grow if employers are unregulated. They will exploit that avenue. We should not be allowing that to happen.

[John Pugh]

In the run-up to the Olympics in Athens, many lives were lost on the building sites. In the run-up to the Olympics in London, no such event or no event of such a size has taken place. Does that not help the argument that regulation on British building sites is at any rate better, if not good enough?

[Mr Hamilton]

There were a number of reasons for that. I can give the example of the headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland—admittedly, that is not the best subject in the world to be talking about at present. Only one accident happened there, and the reason why only one accident happened was that at the beginning the contractor who got the contract sat down with the work force and the trade union movement and agreed with all the subcontractors a strategy whereby accidents were unacceptable. The problem is that very few employers of that magnitude take that view. That employer did it, and better than that, it was able to prove that the contract came in under budget and under time.

Let me contrast that with the Scottish Parliament. The Bovis company was running things at the Scottish Parliament. If someone walked on to the Scottish Parliament building site, they would hardly find an English-speaking worker, yet the signs were all in English. They had to go to serious classes and there were a number of accidents at the Scottish Parliament.

There are good employers and there are bad employers. I do not criticise all employers. However, if we un-regulate or do not regulate and employers recognise that there is a gap, they will go to that gap.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

10. What recent progress has been made on reducing the incidence of diseases in the bee population; and if she will make a statement.

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

I am pleased to report that there has been a significant reduction in the number of colonies lost from all causes. For example, losses over the 2009-10 winter were 16%, compared with 30% in 2007-08, and cases of foulbrood disease have decreased steadily since 2008. It is clearly too early to know the results for the current winter, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the national bee unit has lost only two out of 180 units.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister for that response. The previous Government’s promises to fund research into bee diseases created a buzz of anticipation, so can I take it that the coalition have a proper plan “Bee”?

[Mr Paice]

The previous Government committed £4.3 million to research on bee health, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and I am happy to pay tribute to them for that. Of that sum, £2 million was for the insect pollinators initiative, and £2.3 million was for the healthy bees plan, and we hope that those resources will deliver results. I must say, however, that that was the result of a massive campaign by Back Benchers on both sides of the House, which forced the previous Government to commit those resources.

Public Forest Estate (England)

John Pugh Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

I share that concern. It comes back to the exchange that I had with the Secretary of State during her initial contribution. There is a deficit in the running of the New Forest, and there is a good reason why there is a deficit. It is precisely because the Forestry Commission has duties, such as trying to address matters concerning disease and matters concerning conservation, as well as trying to make what profit it can from the commercial management of the timber industry.

When we consider what the future holds, we are told not to worry because either the Government will be convinced that a new or existing charitable trust will be able to take on the burden, or they will not give up the forest and it will remain in public ownership. This is not dissent; this is me participating in the consultation. Here is my answer: do not give up the forest or give it to a charity, either a new one or an old one, because they will be unable to take on the £2.9 million deficit. If the Government say, “Don’t worry, we’ll pay for that,” why the heck are they bothering to make the change? We really do not need this.

There is particular concern about the Public Bodies Bill. The New Forest has traditionally always been governed by its own legislation, which is laid out in the New Forest Acts, but there are provisions in the Public Bodies Bill that look as though they will take precedence over those Acts. If I seek any assurances at all from those on the Government Front Bench, it is an assurance that no provision in that Bill will have supremacy over the provisions of the New Forest Acts. It is terribly important that we have a constellation of organisations and that the verderers are able to say no. We need a sort of mixed economy, with neither statism on the one side, nor total privatisation, or hand-over to a private organisation or charity, on the other.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Lewis]

No, I will not.

I must say that I am getting a bit fed up with being put in this position, as this is not the first time. At the general election there were Liberal Democrats who pledged in good faith that they would not raise tuition fees, and yet they have had to treble them, and there were Conservatives, like me, who pledged in good faith that the nuclear deterrent would be safe, yet we have seen its confirmation put off until after the next election. Now we have this measure, which I do not think was in any party’s manifesto. Much effort has been put into ensuring that the Conservative party is no longer seen as the nasty party. We may no longer be the nasty party, but I do not want the new party that I understand some people are trying to form—a strange permanent coalition of Conservatives and Liberals—to get the reputation of being the party of nasty surprises. This is a nasty surprise, and we can do without it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I do not think anybody in this House can be unaware of the increasing problems of dangerous dogs to which the hon. Lady refers, and the tragedy of John Paul Massey and other children who have been killed by dogs in recent years. Clearly, we do have to act. I can assure her that my noble Friend Lord Henley, who leads on these matters, will be taking account of the proposals to which she refers. We should understand that we need to find a way forward that addresses the real problem of people who are already, in many cases, disobeying the law by holding dogs which are classified as dangerous dogs. It is those people we need to attack rather than the much larger number whose dogs are perfectly harmless.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

We do not let a criminal or unsuitable person have lawful possession of a firearm or a weapon. Given the known temperament of certain breeds of dog, could we not insist on a fit and proper person test as a precondition of owning a dangerous dog? After all, criminals seem to have a proclivity for precisely these breeds.

[Mr Paice]

As I have said, that proposition and many others are being considered by my noble Friend, and he will make his announcement shortly. My hon. Friend needs to recognise that to take that approach would require an immense amount of regulation and control about who was able to purchase dogs, which would then feed back through the whole supply chain of puppies and become quite a mammoth undertaking. Nevertheless, it is worth considering, as with all other propositions.