Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas Anderson

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Jade Lomas Anderson was 14 on 9 March. On 26 March, she was savaged to death by four dogs. Jade was a very popular girl. She was full of life and loved to dance. The order of service at her funeral told us that she was the world’s biggest One Direction fan—Harry was her favourite. She entered and left the church to their music. At her memorial service and at her funeral, friends, family and teachers were full of praise for her. Her head teacher said that Jade was a lively girl who always had a smile on her face. Her friends and family said that she was beautiful, kind and a very good friend. She was the life and soul at family parties and was always first on the dance floor. She always had time to help and support other people. Her Facebook status said she was “in a relationship”, and her 13-year-old boyfriend Josh said that

“she was beautiful and wouldn’t hurt a fly”.

Jade had started at her new school only the previous June. Having come from a very small school, she made a tremendous effort to fit in and work hard at her studies. The school was very pleased with her progress and gave her a glowing end-of-term report. As a special treat for doing so well, her parents gave Jade permission to stay overnight at her friend’s house. It was a treat that ended in tragedy when Jade returned to the house alone and was savaged by four dogs.

The dogs were quickly shot by a police marksman but Jade could not be saved. It is still too early to know all the details of what happened that day, and indeed we might never know all of them because Jade was alone at the time of her death. I am certainly not going to speculate in this speech about the potential findings of her inquest. It is also too early to know for sure whether the owner of the dogs can be prosecuted under 150-year-old legislation, but it quickly became apparent that she will not be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, because the dogs were not a banned breed and because the attack took place on private property. It seems absolute nonsense that one of the first acts the police had to undertake was to test the dogs to see whether their DNA contained traces of any banned breeds. We should have legislation that reflects the deed of the dog, not its breed.

The Government’s proposals to amend the law to make dog attacks on private property prosecutable and to extend the legislation to cover attacks on assistance dogs are very welcome, but they simply do not go far enough. The consultation on dangerous dogs, started by the last Labour Government, closed in June 2010. Since then, there have been calls from organisations and charities, from Labour and from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to introduce holistic legislation. Indeed, the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), stated in February 2013:

“DEFRA should introduce comprehensive legislation to consolidate the fragmented rules relating to dog control and welfare. New rules should give enforcement officers more effective powers, including Dog Control Notices, to prevent dog-related antisocial behaviour.”

Tinkering with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—cited by many to be the worst piece of legislation ever produced—is simply not good enough. There are around 210,000 dog attacks each year and more than 6,000 people are admitted to hospital—often with life-changing injuries or terrible facial injuries, especially for children. On average, 12 postal workers are attacked each day. The NHS spends more than £3 million on treating the victims of dog attacks; local authorities spend £57 million on kennelling costs; and Jade Lomas Anderson was the ninth person to be killed since 2006.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

In two separate incidents in West Lancashire in the past two months, a female adult and a four-year-old boy—he suffered nine scars to his face—have been attacked by dogs. One attack was in the street and the other on private property. Neither the dog warden nor the police were able to take any action over these incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need tougher measures immediately to ensure that people of all ages are better protected, and that agencies must have the necessary powers to enforce that protection?

[Julie Hilling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Since Jade’s death there have been thousands of further attacks on people, including one on a child in Bolton who had her eyelid ripped away and has terrible marks under her eye. Fortunately, the dog missed the eye altogether so her sight was saved. This is not an insignificant problem. It is an issue that affects the quality of life of millions of people and one that deserves the full attention of the Government, who should provide legislation that will really make a difference.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong and passionate speech and paying a fitting tribute to Jade Lomas. My thoughts are with her family and friends. My hon. Friend will be aware that I recently witnessed a brutal attack by a Staffordshire bull terrier in which a cat was mauled to death in front of me and a man was injured—I only narrowly escaped injury myself. The family involved have been told that it would have been better if the dog had been running free in the street, because then something could have been done about it. That highlights again the issue of attacks taking place on private property. Does my hon. Friend agree that this simply has to change?

[Julie Hilling]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has it absolutely right. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to extend the legislation to cover private property, but that in itself is not enough, because preventive measures are necessary, too.

Dog control notices would give the authorities the power to intervene if concern has been raised about a dog. They would be able to instruct the owner to take a range of actions that could include keeping the dog muzzled, keeping it on a lead or keeping it away from children. The owner and dog could be made to undertake training. I believe, although not everyone agrees with me, that we should be able to order the owner to reduce the number of dogs in a household if the home is not suitable for the number and size of the dogs.

Dog control notices are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Veterinary Association, The Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Communication Workers Union. They have already been introduced in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and they should be introduced across the UK. Their existence would provide a swift, flexible and proportionate way to deal with irresponsible dog owners. They would act as an early warning system and action could be taken to promote responsible ownership, rather than just prosecuting owners after a tragedy has taken place.

I welcome the Government’s intention to extend the legislation on out-of-control dogs to cover assistance dogs, but I do not understand why they have not included all protected animals. “Protected animals” are already defined under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that would deal with the increasing problem of attacks on livestock as well as dealing with attacks on cats, which can often be the first sign that a dog is dangerously out of control. Why should not a responsible owner walking a dog on a lead be protected by law from an attack by a dangerous dog?

My constituent Ryan came to see me when his dog was attacked in a park. He not only had to deal with the trauma of the attack, but then had a huge vet’s bill to pay. He did not need to describe the attacking dog to the vet; the vet could tell him about the dog, because a series of people had come to him with their injured dogs. Another constituent, Beryl, came to see me after her two cats were attacked by a dog in her own garden. After much pressure, the police did take action, but it would be so much easier if there were clear legislation.

Dog charities and local authorities are reporting an increase in the number of abandoned dogs. Some are abandoned because their owners can no longer afford to look after them, others because their owners can no longer control them. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home told me that 41% of the dogs that came to its shelter last year were what it calls “bull breeds”, and 32% of those were Staffordshire bull terriers. The home has also seen an increase in the number of Akitas—Japanese fighting dogs—and Rottweilers. Like other charities, Battersea finds it difficult to re-home such dogs. Indeed, it was unable to re-home 28% of the dogs of all breeds that came to it. It was keen to stress that it does not destroy any dogs that can be re-homed, and places no time limit on the length of stay. In fact, the longest stay was by a Staffordshire bull terrier, who stayed for two years until the charity found him a new home.

We do need to take action on the indiscriminate breeding of puppies. The Blue Cross says that it would like hobby breeders who are flooding an already saturated market with puppies to be stopped. That could be done by decreasing the number of litters a year that a person is allowed before having to become a licensed breeder. Many organisations think that the number should be reduced to two a year; others, including the former chief vet for the RSPCA, believe that anyone who breeds dogs—even if by accident—should be registered. The Government are proposing the compulsory microchipping of all dogs. Why can they not require a register of breeders at the same time?

If microchipping is to be effective, there needs to be an obligation for the dog’s owner to transfer ownership officially. My local police tell me that they sometimes take a dog back to the registered address, only to be told that the owner gave it away some time ago. The old slogan “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas” needs to be brought to life by proper controls of ownership. The issues of dog welfare and community safety cannot be separated.

Replying to an intervention by me in a debate last week, the Home Secretary told me that the Government had not included dog control notices in their Bill because they believed

“that the other powers and orders we are introducing under this antisocial behaviour Bill will give sufficient power to the police to be able to deal with dangerous dogs without needing to introduce a separate—and yet another—notice.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 170.]

I have to inform her that none of the experts agree with her.

Dogs that are used as weapons may come to the attention of the police, and the owners could become subject to the new antisocial behaviour orders, but dogs like those that killed Jade would never come to attention in that way. The only complaint about those dogs appears to have been a complaint about noise. If that could have been investigated with dog control notices in place, maybe—just maybe—action could have been taken; or maybe the people who were scared to walk past the garden would have felt it worth while to lodge a complaint because something could have been done.

Jade’s was not the first case of dog attack to arise in my constituency, and if the Government do not take action, it will definitely not be the last. We need holistic legislation to deal with both dog welfare and dangerous dogs, because the two issues are inextricably linked. A well-trained, well-socialised and well-looked-after dog is far less likely to be involved in an attack. However, we also need to educate people about both care and respect for dogs. Even the most well-mannered dog may behave differently around children.

Many owners have spoken to me in the past few weeks, and have told me that they would never leave their dog unattended with children. Why can we not support the voluntary sector in its efforts to train children and adults to care for dogs and take responsibility for them? Why can we not encourage secondary schools to make that part of personal, social, health and economic education, and encourage primary schools to educate their children about care for their pets? The current proposals will not protect our children, and they will not protect our communities from the blight of dangerous dogs.

I would be the last person to suggest that if we had had legislation in place, Jade would have been saved, but one thing is sure: if we do not take comprehensive action there will be more Jades, and more people’s lives will be ruined by out-of-control dogs. Jade’s parents, Michael and Shirley Anderson, are fighting for Justice for Jade. They are determined to campaign to change the law so that no other family has to suffer in the way in which they are suffering. The Minister has the power to listen to them, to the many hon. Members who have raised the issue, and to the experts, and introduce comprehensive legislation. Will he do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is something we have been discussing with ACPO, because it is essential that if we give powers to the police, they can exercise them properly. A range of sanctions will be available to the police to deal with dogs. Some dogs, I am afraid, will have to be destroyed straight away—that is the reality—and others will be impounded, so it is important that there are facilities available to keep those dogs safely until they can be assessed or retrieved, as appropriate.

Returning to the proposals to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act, we hope that they will provide a set of flexible and effective tools and powers to enable the police and local authorities to tackle a wide range of antisocial behaviour, including dog-related incidents. The amendments to the Act, bolstered by the new antisocial behaviour measures, will provide the framework for tackling irresponsible dog ownership, from low-level incidents to more serious dog attacks. That will help to encourage a more responsible approach. The focus should also be on ensuring proper enforcement, which can only be helped by engaging local communities, who understand local problems and can report them, combined with educating owners on responsible behaviour, as the hon. Lady said.

[Julie Hilling]

If the Bill really does as the Minister says and offers that holistic approach that could be summed up with dog control notices, why are all experts in the field saying that the Bill does not go far enough? There is still real concern about not having the ability to intervene early and the particular things that we can instruct the owner to do, including having training for both the dog and the owner. Without those, it is hard to see how this will be a holistic, preventive measure, because it is not enough. I appreciate that there will be actions to take after the event, but we have to do things to stop the problems in the first place.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady is right. It is not good enough to deal with problems after the event. We need a preventive measure—an injunctive measure, which will be provided by the antisocial behaviour provisions that I am describing. She raises an important point, which I hope my colleagues in the Home Office will have the opportunity to discuss during the Bill’s passage through the House. They are confident that the measures they are introducing will have the desired effect. Obviously, the hon. Lady is not quite persuaded of that view yet. I hope we will have that debate and get the right solution.

It is unnecessary to devise new labels and new measures that replicate the existing ones, so I hope the hon. Lady she will approach the measures with an open mind and listen to what my colleagues in the Home Office have to say. If she is not persuaded, she will no doubt argue for strengthening the Bill when it comes to the House, but I hope she will be persuaded, as we believe that the flexible approach adopted in the Bill provides a suite of measures which can be used not just for dogs but for other antisocial behaviour practices which need to be addressed. That is not a subject for this debate but I refer, for instance, to the flag racing of horses, which I am very concerned about. I would like to see antisocial behaviour measures which deal effectively with that.

Let us have that discussion in the context of the Bill. I certainly hear the hon. Lady’s concerns; it would be foolish not to, and I will take them back to colleagues. Nevertheless, let us have the debate when we get to the appropriate stage of the Bill.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. To me, the crucial question is where intervention can start. Many of these cases would never have reached anything like antisocial behaviour. If we look at the deaths and terrible injuries that have occurred, we find that many of them would never have passed any threshold other than someone saying, “I’m a bit worried about those dogs.” That stage is crucial.

There are other issues, such as the breeding of animals and their welfare. There has long been a need for all those aspects to be wrapped up in one Bill, but it feels as though we are just dealing with little bits and we will still have to come back and do more.

[Mr Heath]

I do not entirely agree that it is necessary to have consolidated legislation in order to effect the suite of measures that the hon. Lady is looking for. There are many cases in criminal law where various provisions dealing with similar issues are contained in different legislation. Sometimes that has benefits. I agree that it makes it slightly more difficult for the lawyer or the police officer to find the necessary measure, but provided they know that there is a measure on the statute book, they can use it. This is fairly common in criminal law. There has been a great profusion of criminal justice legislation over the years, much of which deals with overlapping issues.

I do not entirely accept the hon. Lady’s criticism. In a perfect world we would have neat self-contained Bills on every subject, dealing with the entire statutory background to it. In reality, the House does not work like that. Also, there are provisions with respect to dogs and antisocial behaviour in common law as well as statute law, so even if we had a single statute, it would still not cover all the law that pertains. Nevertheless, I hear what the hon. Lady says.

To continue what I was saying, it is very important that we now work with practitioners, local authorities and animal welfare charities to produce guidance that clearly demonstrates how the new tools can be used to cover all that dog control notices do and more, and to take account of the needs of communities as well as dog welfare. One of the measures echoes the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Local authorities will be required to provide 24-hour accommodation, but the police should also have such a facility if they are doing their job properly. We need to talk to them about that.

A number of commentators have asked who will enforce the controls on dogs. The Government understand the pressure on both the police and local authorities at this time. The split that we see is that the police will concentrate their time on more serious criminal matters, which will involve investigating dog attacks under the Dangerous Dogs Act, and not spend time dealing with stray dogs. That makes sense. Local authorities should be taking decisions on local priorities for action and allocate their resources accordingly. Some local authorities have been very proactive and imaginative in providing local solutions and approaches to dealing with dogs. For example, it is a requirement of Wandsworth’s housing tenancy agreements that any dogs on its properties are microchipped. That means that there is a direct link between the dog and its owner, which encourages more responsible behaviour and reduces dog-related incidents.

The Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits four specific types of fighting dog, and the hon. Lady mentioned the issues relating to bull terriers—the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro. It has been suggested that we should add to this list of prohibited dogs. However, none of the key stakeholders, such as the police or local authorities, consider it would be very effective to add more types of dog to the prohibited list. In fact some stakeholders want the list taken away completely and for us to concentrate on what the dog does, not on the breed of dog. Like the police, the Government are not in favour of introducing new categories. We take the view that both deed and breed are important.

The four types of prohibited dogs are fighting dogs—dogs specifically bred for fighting—but the Act also recognises that any dog has the potential to be dangerous if incorrectly trained and left in the wrong hands, which is why there are offences for any dog to be dangerously out of control. It is why education for the public is so vitally important, along with early intervention that will allow the correct agencies, such as animal welfare organisations or local authorities, to intervene and provide advice in order to correct behaviour that could have a detrimental effect on the safety and welfare of the dog.

In addition to the extension of criminal liability to all places, the proposed amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act will include, for the first time, a specific offence for a dog attack on an assistance dog. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes that.

The Government believe that irresponsible dog ownership is best targeted through a number of actions and initiatives. The hon. Lady will know about the microchipping initiative that we also have under way. We will debate this many more times during the next few months. I hope that we will get the right results this time, unlike the last time the House legislated. I can only assure her—and through her, her constituents—that we take the issue of dangerous dogs extremely seriously. We want to get the right answers and we are bending every sinew to make sure that that is the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

My noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach has assured me, within the Department, of the concern expressed throughout Lincolnshire, but we have to be consistent in our application of the criteria. As I have just described, we felt that the whole application was rather too loose. We have an appeal to consider and if Lincolnshire people come forward with a variation on the application, that will also be considered.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to ensure universal availability of flood insurance.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to ensure universal availability of flood insurance.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The availability and affordability of insurance in flood risk areas is an important issue for the Government. We are at an advanced stage in intensive and constructive negotiations with the insurance industry on alternative arrangements for when the statement of principles expires. I will be providing a further update to the House shortly.

[Julie Hilling]

Simon Douglas, the director of AA Insurance, believes that some homes will not be able to renew their flood insurance this year because their new policy will extend beyond the life of the statement of principles. The situation is now urgent. The Secretary of State must resolve it. When is she going to sign the deal?

[Mrs Spelman]

I took the trouble to find out the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The Environment Agency has confirmed that it has received no reports of flooded properties there, notwithstanding the surface water pressure over Bolton in June. None the less, the issue is important.

On the urgency, I gently remind the hon. Lady that her party had two years in government from the time when it agreed that the statement of principles would not be renewed. It found no solution, leaving this Government with a ticking time bomb in the safe where no money was left.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I commend Ealing council for its “Dog Watch” initiative. There are many examples of local authorities taking innovative approaches to tackling that complex problem, including, for example, Wandsworth, which has restrictions on dog ownership in its tenanted properties. We believe in localism and that local authorities should be free to decide how to innovate, and those are both good examples of how to do so.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T6. On Tuesday, we mark the 80th anniversary of the mass trespass at Kinder Scout. In Bolton West, we also remember the anniversary of the mass trespass at Winter hill in 1896, when 10,000 Boltonians trespassed on the moors above Bolton. However, all hon. Members know that the campaign for public access is not over. Will the Secretary of State inform the House when the process of designating the next stretches of England’s coastal paths will begin?

[Richard Benyon]

I visited one of the next phases of the coastal path earlier this week in Somerset, and saw some of the complications of integrating land management with access. We inherited quite a complicated system that we are trying to make simpler, and the first section of the path that I opened at Weymouth has a “lessons learned” report, which we are working on. The next five sections will be announced shortly.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call the Minister—

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Chairman]

Ah, I call Julie Hilling. You were a little late, but I am glad that you have joined us.

[Julie Hilling]

I apologise, Mr Hoyle, for being a little slow in standing to indicate my intention to speak. You can take it that I was confused about which clauses were being debated at which time.

I want to speak briefly about new clause 1 and, in particular, to press the point of a national social tariff. In the north-west, the affordability of water is affected by deprivation. Unlike the south-west, it is not affected by geographical issues or expenditure. We are a region with considerable difficulties and the bills of United Utilities, which is the north-west water company, are close to the national average, but income deprivation is worse than in any other region. More than half of the country’s most deprived communities are in the north-west, even though we have only 13% of England’s population. Ofwat’s analysis shows that once households in the South West Water region receive their proposed £50 bill reduction, affordability problems will be more severe in the north-west than in the south-west. Company social tariffs will not solve the problem, however, as too many customers in the north-west are in financial need to make the in-house cross-subsidy work properly. We therefore need a national social tariff scheme that all water companies would pay into. Taking the hands-off approach of leaving it to water companies to provide their own affordability schemes, and certainly giving them the choice of whether or not to provide it, will not help the people who are most in need in Bolton West.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As Members know full well, the only purpose for which we currently plan to exercise the power in clause 1 is to reduce the charges on household customers in the South West Water area. We have recognised that the circumstances in the south-west are exceptional and we will be addressing that unfairness. I am grateful to Opposition Members for bringing forward the amendments because they allow us to explain a little more clearly what we are trying to achieve in this part of the Bill.

Our policy has been set out clearly both in the water White Paper and by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. We will fund South West Water to reduce its customers’ bills by £50 a year from April 2013 and we have committed to do that until the end of the next spending review period. To answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) asked, yes, from then it will be for the next comprehensive spending review period to negotiate this out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ budget, but that certainly does not imply cuts across other vital parts of its budget. I assure her that this is an absolute priority. It has been hard-fought for by hon. Members from across the south-west, and there is an absolute commitment from the Government to continue the important work to address an unfairness that we recognise.

As hon. Members from the south-west will testify, this support for customers in the south-west is the result of their long campaign. They have fought hard for this and the problem of high water bills in the region has been raised many times in the House. I am proud that the Government are making progress on this issue but I am a little disappointed that the Opposition wish, through amendment 1, to force a further round of discussion on the merits of reducing bills in the south-west before we can move forward. Let me explain why. The Chancellor’s Budget or autumn statement is the appropriate place for setting out Government spending plans and for doing so within the broader economic context in which such decisions are made. It is inappropriate to micro-manage the economy through individual statutory instruments committing future Government spend. The Government make many decisions on spending and Parliament does not examine each one in detail through a process involving the laying of statutory instruments. However, the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny does exist. DEFRA spending is subject to scrutiny by the excellent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and, if so wished, by the Public Accounts Committee. Government spending is also subject to the usual supply and estimates procedures with which we are all familiar. If the Government decided to use this power to provide further support, I would fully expect Members to scrutinise the case and to ensure that assistance was given only where and for as long as it was right to do so.

I draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) the fact that new section 154A(1) within clause 1 focuses on an “English undertaker” and a “licensed water supplier”. We have to accept that there is not a lot of money floating around in Government at the moment—I am sure he recognises that—and so the idea that the Government are going to start sloshing money around freely without any public debate is absolutely ridiculous. One must also accept that that would be the case in future. We do not know what the future holds, but we want future Secretaries of State to be able to use the power where genuinely necessary. We therefore do not think the amendment is necessary. The Government are not going to start doling out money to water companies on a whim. We are using this power this time after years of debate, but it is unimaginable that any future use of the power would not attract the same level of debate.

In a similar vein, new clause 1 would threaten the action we are taking to deal with wider affordability problems. I point out that we will have the opportunity to develop the House’s thinking on this with the water Bill. I know that the Bill is eagerly sought by Members on both sides to take forward many of the issues we set out in the White Paper, which have been the subject of past reports to the Government. The Government have given a clear commitment that the Bill will be available for proper and full pre-legislative scrutiny and I hope that we will be able to publish it soon. Whether or not it is in the Queen’s Speech is not a matter for me.

[Julie Hilling]

May I press the Minister a little more on this? When he says “soon” does he mean in the next Session or the Session after that?

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Lady will understand that I am not privy to what is in the Queen’s Speech. I very much want a water Bill as soon as possible, but we have given a commitment that the Bill will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny, and that is not something that happens overnight—it requires a process and it would be tight to get in the full level of pre-legislative scrutiny and a Bill in the next Session. However, I accept her point that it is needed by many people as quickly as possible.

We know that some households in the south-west and other regions—let me reiterate that other regions are also affected—struggle with their water and sewerage charges. We will soon be issuing guidance that will allow for the development of company social tariffs. Water companies will be able to reduce the charges of customers who would otherwise have difficulty paying in full. In consultation with their customers, companies will decide who needs help in their area and then design local solutions to address local circumstances. Water companies know their customers and local circumstances. Companies vary in size and customer base, and average bills also vary from company to company. On Second Reading, Members spoke about the different kinds of affordability problems faced by their constituents. They also recognised that in some parts of the country there might be less scope than in others for customers to cross-subsidise others in the region. I urge hon. Members to consider the Cholderton company, which serves only about 2,000 people. The difficulty of having a nationally mandated tariff that would apply to that company as well as to Thames Water, which has several million customers, accentuates the problem.

Imposing one-size-fits-all standards, as new clause 1 would require, on companies that decide to develop social tariffs would prevent them from reflecting the circumstances of their customer base and what their customers want. Some companies might be less likely to introduce social tariffs if the model did not suit their local circumstances. If hon. Members intend that all private water companies should be forced to introduce a centrally imposed social tariff scheme, I cannot support the introduction of that regulatory burden.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I am not against support for water customers in the south-west, and I absolutely agree that it is unacceptable in 2012 for the Thames—the major river in our capital city—regularly to be flooded with sewage. However, it is also not acceptable in 2012 that hard-working people in my constituency are having to beg for food, or that they are spending more than 5% of their income on water bills. My constituents cannot wait for a further water Bill to address the affordability of water: they need action to help them with their bills and action on social tariffs.

In the north-west of England, the affordability of water is based on deprivation rather than on historical or geographical issues. The bills of United Utilities Water—my local water company—are close to the national average, but income deprivation is worse than in any other region. More than half the country’s most deprived communities are in the north-west, even though we have only 13% of England’s population. Based on Ofwat’s analysis, once households in South West Water’s region receive their proposed £50 bill reduction, affordability problems will be more severe in the north-west than in the south-west. Company social tariffs will not solve the problem. Too many customers in the north-west are in financial need to make in-house cross-subsidy work. It therefore needs a national social tariff scheme that all water companies will pay into. The Government’s hands-off approach, leaving it to water companies to devise their own affordability scheme and even giving them the choice whether to provide one, definitely will not help those people most in need in Bolton West.

There is no definition of water poverty. Households needing to spend more than 10% of their net income on heating and lighting are deemed to be in fuel poverty, but there is no equivalent definition for water. It seems to me, however, that if someone has to pay 5%, or even 3%, of their income on their water bill, they are pretty poor. Some 840,000 households in the north-west are spending 3% of their income on water, and 370,000 households are spending more than 5% of their net income. It is no surprise then—absolutely shocking, but no surprise—that 4,890 tenants of Bolton at Home are in debt, and that 1,462 of them owe between £1,000 and £2,000. This debt is of concern to all of us and adds £15 a year to everyone’s bill.

We need to recognise that some people simply cannot afford to pay their bills. I was told last Wednesday about a 70-year-old lady in Bolton who has just been rehoused in a Bolton at Home house. She had to move out of her last rented home because she could not afford to pay the heating costs. She has had to ask Bolton at Home for a furnished property because she cannot afford to buy her own bed, cooker, carpets or armchair—a furnished property at the age of 70 when she should be able to enjoy her life surrounded by her own belongings. Before she retired she was a care worker, but was never offered a pension scheme and was never able to save for her old age. She is now trying to live off £134 per week for her gas, electricity, water, food, clothing and all her other needs, and her water bill is about to go up by nearly 5%. Such people need help not greater debts.

United Utilities is a good water company and offers financial assistance schemes. It has a trust fund that will make grants to customers in genuine financial difficulty. That can clear outstanding water arrears, which is great, but does not help people to find the money on an ongoing basis to pay their bills. I am also told by Bolton citizens advice bureau that the fund often runs out of money before the end of the financial year, that it rarely assists people who cannot afford to pay the current year’s instalments, and it will refuse a grant if it does not think that the customer has a good enough reason for falling into arrears in the first place.

United Utilities also has an arrears allowance scheme that reduces the balance by £1 for every £1 paid by the customer. Again, however, the customer has to be able to pay the ongoing charges, and if they miss just one payment, they are thrown out of the scheme and will not be readmitted. There are also 5,200 United Utilities customers on the WaterSure scheme, which is for those who have medical or other needs that mean they have high water usage, but that simply caps their bill at the average household bill. United Utilities is also running a feasibility study on a support tariff. However, none of this solves the fundamental problem that some people do not have a big enough income to pay their water bills.

Unlike for other services, my constituents cannot shop around for a better deal. They can buy their water only from United Utilities. These private firms are monopolies, and frankly it is not enough just to expect them to be philanthropists. United Utilities is telling me that company social tariffs will not work for the north-west. We therefore need national action on social tariffs. Water companies can apply to have money deducted directly from benefits, but Bolton citizens advice bureau tells me that its money advice staff are deeply frustrated by that. Of course, we all believe that people should pay off all their debts, but when a person reaches a crisis of debt, priorities have to be made. There is no point paying off a water bill if the person is evicted from their home; the water bill is not a priority if they have no electricity in the house; and the water bill is not a priority is there is no food to feed the children. If a person is on limited income, the advice from all professionals is to manage priority debts. Only when homes are saved or prosecutions avoided are other debts dealt with. As there can be only a limited number of attachments to benefits, it can be harmful if one of them is for water bills.

Finally, water debt is just part of the problem facing so many low-paid people. It is 2012, and we have poor people dependent on food handouts. We have poor people losing their homes, poor people unable to heat their homes, poor people unable to pay their water bills—in fact, poor people paying the price for global economic failure. The Secretary of State should take action now on water poverty. I urge her to do so.

Food Prices and Food Poverty

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Let me start by welcoming the opportunity to debate this important matter. World food prices are volatile and the Government should do all they can to help families, but if we are to have a grown-up debate we need to start by acknowledging what the Government can and cannot do. Contrary to the rather Dickensian impression the hon. Lady seeks to convey, food price increases are not a direct result of the Government’s political composition, and a Government cannot be held responsible for what the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) cited: the abandonment of families by the main breadwinner, the misfortune of a house fire or domestic violence perpetrated in the home. Food prices are the product of many complicated and interrelated factors, many of which are globally driven.

In order to have a fully informed debate, I will turn first to the specific issue of the groceries code adjudicator, which this Government, unlike the previous one, are introducing, and put the current situation in context. No one underestimates the difficulties families face in balancing household budgets when bills are high. As a veteran of the weekly shop, I see at first hand the impact of food price rises, as I am sure many of us do. Let us set the record straight. Last summer food price inflation overtook general inflation, but by November the reverse was true. In the coalition Government’s first year in office, food prices increased by less than the average annual increase in Labour’s last five years. Between 2007 and 2008 food prices rose twice as fast as they did between 2010 and 2011. Although the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has a new-found interest in food prices, which is to be welcomed, it comes a little late.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady says that food prices are not rising as fast as they had been, but does she acknowledge that wages have not gone up over that period, which means that people are suffering huge food poverty?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am challenging the hon. Member for Wakefield to consider the fact that during her party’s 13 years in power, which saw steep rises in food prices, it introduced neither a groceries code adjudicator nor the other measures called for in the motion. Despite claiming today that the adjudicator would be some sort of panacea, the hon. Lady seems to feel that doing nothing about this for 13 years is a credible basis on which to criticise us for not having completed the process in just over 18 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

That is a shame, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there is a long list of things relevant to household budgets; there was a wider definition of that earlier. Freezing council tax is but one example of what frees up the budget to buy more food.

Last year, the Government’s Foresight report on the future of food and farming concluded that Governments across the world must take action now to ensure that a rising global population can be fed. It is a chilling fact that in only 13 years there will be 1 billion more mouths to feed on this planet. Increasing demand for water, land and energy means that food security is one of the world’s greatest challenges. The report identified five challenges for all nations to act on: balancing future demand and supply; ensuring that there is adequate food price stability and protecting the most vulnerable from volatility; achieving global access to food and ending hunger; managing the contribution of the food system to mitigating climate change; and maintaining biodiversity in our ecosystems. To take on those challenges, we need international reform. To address global food security, we need an increase in agricultural productivity, which means a move away from subsidy. To address the risk of climate instability disrupting production patterns, we must have open world trading systems.

In June last year, G20 Agriculture Ministers met and agreed to the creation of an agricultural market information system, which aims to stabilise food price volatility through better transparency in the marketplace. In November, I attended the climate change conference and helped the South African Agriculture Minister to get agriculture included in the work stream for the next climate change convention. We are now preparing for Rio plus 20, where we will push for international policies to help the most vulnerable in our society. We will lobby for the sustainable intensification of agriculture, climate-smart agriculture and the reduction of post-harvest losses. The Afghan Minister whom I met in Berlin this weekend at green week said that the reduction of harvest losses would make one of the greatest contributions to combating famine.

The challenges present an opportunity for the UK, and we need to be the first out of the blocks and embrace it. British food producers must make the most of international markets. That is why I have announced that I will publish an action plan at the end of the month to help export the best of British food and drink across the world. It is through global trade that the UK can secure its future food supply and help keep food prices down. We already contribute to global food supply. We provide 2% of global wheat exports, 4% of global barley exports and 1% of global cereal exports. That demonstrates that the UK has a major role in food production. By expanding production and exports, we can contribute to the overall economic recovery.

The food and farming industry is a high performer with great potential. The food chain contributes £88 billion per annum to the economy, which is 7% of GDP. It is responsible for 3.7 million jobs. The Government are acting across the food chain to stimulate growth, facilitate international trade and drive fair competition, because a thriving and competitive economy, where our products are freely traded on an international market, will deliver resilient, stable and affordable food supplies to our consumers.

The Government are working with industry and environmental partners to see how we can reconcile our goals of improving environmental protection and increasing food production. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield for welcoming the green food project. The Government are spending £400 million on food and farming research, which addresses productivity, environmental performance and resilience along the food chain.

Nobody is under any illusion about the pressures that high food prices put on all our constituents. However, it would be wrong to pretend that there is a “silver bullet” solution when there is not.

[Julie Hilling]

I have not heard in the Secretary of State’s contribution any mention of what she will do for the most vulnerable in this country, who are dependent on a hugely increased number of food banks. What will she do to feed those families who cannot feed themselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Listening to the Secretary of State’s final comments, I thought for a moment that I had stumbled into some sort of parallel universe, because I did not recognise any of her claims about what the Government are doing. She talked about the freeze in council tax. First, some of the families we are talking about are so poor that they do not pay council tax. Secondly, in Stoke-on-Trent, as in other areas, the council has been so hammered by the cuts in support from national Government to local government that it cannot accept the bribe of a 2% freeze and will have to make increases to try to get back some of the money that has been ripped away from it.

I welcome this debate because it provides the other side of the “heat or eat” coin. We recently discussed in this House the situation whereby people have to make the choice between heating their home and having food to eat. Sadly, many people do not have that choice because they cannot afford to heat their homes or to eat properly. Many families cannot afford to put proper food in their stomachs, let alone heat their homes.

The problem is going to get worse. To be fair to the Secretary of State, she touched on this area, to a small extent. Back in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, we had cheap oil and we encouraged farmers, not only in this country but globally, to turn that oil into food by using machinery—whether milking pumps, tractors or heated greenhouses—to produce more food. The UK imports a huge amount of food—even things that we grow well in this country, such as tomatoes. We seem to have a fascination with buying imported tomatoes even during our tomato season. On imported foodstuffs, we bring into this country a large amount of soy to feed our cattle because of the ever-increasing demand for more milk production. As a result, oil prices are rising and will continue to rise further. As the years go by, the built-in link between the price of oil and the price of food means that the food prices that we have been used to will continue to increase as the price of oil goes up.

We need to wean our farmers off oil. Back in the ’70s, companies decided to produce ever-better strains of seeds. That was linked to the oil industry, because in order to grow those better strains, the farmers needed fertilisers linked to oil. As the weeks, months and years stretch out ahead of us, if we cannot reduce the constant link with oil, we will face an inexorable increase in the cost of food. We need to act now, and the Government need to act now, to start to break that cycle.

Food banks such as that at St Clare’s, Meir Park, in my constituency are doing fantastic work and helping the vulnerable in our society, and they have started only in the past year. In the 13 years of the Labour Government, for which the Secretary of State tried to berate us, they were not needed. I would like to see a country in which there were no food banks, of course—everybody would—but while we have the need for them, we must have them.

[Julie Hilling]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Trussell Trust estimates that 60,000 people got food from food banks last year, and that 100,000 will this year? It estimates that by 2015, half a million people will depend on them.

[Robert Flello]

Absolutely, my hon. Friend is correct: that is the scale of the problem we face. By 2014-15 half a million people will be looking to food banks, so how many people will by 2020, and how many by 2025, if action is not taken soon?

People do not want to go to food banks. They do not think on a Saturday afternoon, “Oh, I know, let’s pop to the food bank.” They do it because they have no other choice. They are people with pride and self-esteem, but they think, “Well, hang on, it’s that or starve.” What a contradiction it is that at the same time we are throwing away 7.2 million tonnes of food every year. It is unbelievable that we are wasting food on such a level. It is appalling, and a national disgrace.

Why is that happening? The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) rallied to the defence of the supermarket industry. I will make further points about that industry in a moment, but when it has food promotions such as two for one or three for one, it causes problems for families at the poorest end of the scale, who do not have a freezer and cannot store so much food. However, most of the problem comes from people such as—dare I say it?—us in the House. Mea culpa: at the end of Christmas and its excesses, we look at our own fridge or freezer and see that it is still full of food that was not needed. That food ends up going in the bin, at the same time as people—[Interruption.] Well, actually, I do not throw food away, but there are people who do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T2. The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside is concerned about the future funding of higher-level stewardship on the west Pennine moors and the Red Moss site of special scientific interest, which are both in my constituency. What assurance can the Secretary of State give that she will secure funding and not be out-negotiated by the French, or by the Treasury?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question, because we are very conscious that the uncertainties of the EU proposals on common agricultural policy reform are causing some landowners and farmers to worry about their stewardship payments. May I, though her and the House, assure everybody involved that the Government are determined to continue with our stewardship schemes, both higher level and entry level, and will do everything in our power to ensure that that happens? We are at an early stage of the negotiations, but we are determined that somehow—either through a transfer of money from pillar one to pillar two, or perhaps through the greening element of pillar one—we shall maintain those excellent schemes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful that my hon. Friend allows me to correct her impression slightly. The decision, which will be made quite rightly by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, results from the merger of two agencies into one. All that is being closed is the actual laboratories that undertake scientific testing. The post-mortem centres are not proposed for closure, and most samples are already sent by post anyway, so it does not represent in any way a diminution of service.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

10. What plans she has to bring forward proposals to deal with antisocial behaviour by dogs and their owners.

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

As the House is aware, the Home Office has already consulted on changes to the tools and powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including antisocial behaviour involving dogs, and is considering the responses. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is also considering a range of further measures to promote more responsible ownership of dogs and will make an announcement shortly.

[Julie Hilling]

When my constituent Pat Brennan was savaged by a bull mastiff, he was told that there was nothing he could do because the attack took place on private property. How many more people have to die or be maimed for life before the Government act?

Bovine TB

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

There have been trials in my hon. Friend’s constituency on the deployment of the injectable vaccine. That is all there is available to tackle badger TB. I have seen the trials for myself. They have concluded that it is possible but impractical and certainly difficult to make affordable. We have established through those trials the practicalities, and that was what was being undertaken in his constituency.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the assessment of her own expert wildlife crime unit that the free shooting of badgers presents a very real danger of persecution being carried out under the pretext of culling?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think that those assumptions were made before we published the detailed guidance today. I recommend to her the guidance that we have issued to Natural England because it shows precisely the controlled conditions we propose would be required for licences to be granted in order to minimise risks to public safety and maximise the effectiveness and humaneness of this approach to dealing with badgers.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We have made it clear that we would not expect charitable trusts to take these on without the running costs, so the hon. Gentleman’s fear is unfounded. Some smaller, local areas of woodland might fall into heritage status, but for those that do not, we are consulting on whether to offer them to local community groups or charities to take over first and foremost. If no local groups or charities want to take on the leasehold and no suitable buyer with a credible access and environmental protection plan comes forward, the woodland will simply remain in public ownership.

As I have said, for sites that are predominantly commercial in nature, we propose offering long leases with conditions attached. To be clear, there will be no one-size-fits-all approach, no land grabs and no fire sale. Instead, there will be a thoughtful, detailed, long-term programme of reviewing the estate, potentially over 10 years. There will be no rush; it is more important to get this right. We will look at how to improve the rate of recovery of plantations on ancient woodland sites, thereby enhancing biodiversity.

We will look at how the Forestry Commission can work with communities to help them to bid for local woodlands and at how we can actively improve access rights. I am thinking in particular of how we can access resource improvements for people with disabilities. We will look at how we can enable groups who run woodlands to draw down environmental grants in a way that the Forestry Commission currently cannot.

Those are all things that the Forestry Commission, with its expertise and dedication, is perfectly well placed to do. It is where it will really add value. If Members were to ask someone from the Forestry Commission whether they would rather be working with communities to help in the recovery of ancient woodland sites, or shrink-wrapping Christmas trees, what do they think they would say?

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Even if community groups could afford to purchase woodland, why should they if it is already in public ownership? It is rather like a thief stealing a car and then offering to sell it back.

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have tried to point out, and as evidenced in the documents prepared by the previous Government, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are no opportunities for communities in respect of the public forest estate, there is a risk in Whitehall politics. The point about giving the community that lives nearest the forest that opportunity is that they are the most likely to protect it in perpetuity.

This is a really exciting opportunity for our woodlands. We share completely the desire of those who love to walk, cycle, ride, kayak or go ape in our woodlands. I have children and know what a lifeline woodlands are in the long summer holidays. I am certainly not going to deny others the respite that those woodlands gave me, not now and not for future generations. I want to see whether we can improve on the status quo. I want many people to be engaged in the consultation, and I mean genuinely engaged by the facts, not the fiction. This is an opportunity to do things better. If access rights, public benefits and environmental protections are not the same or better, we will not make any changes. I believe that they can be better, that they should be better and that the consultation points the way to making them better.