Breed-specific Legislation

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for her comprehensive introduction.

My constituency has contributed the second highest number of signatures to this petition, which shows that my constituents have a great interest in animal welfare matters. In a nutshell, they believe that the breed-specific legislation is flawed, outdated and ineffective, and means that dogs are euthanised simply because of the way they look. No other option is available, and no assessment is made of whether the dog is actually a danger. It is argued that there is no specific research demonstrating that the dogs in question pose more of a risk than other types of dog.

I am a dog owner, and I regularly take our Labrador Mellie on walks through Rivacre valley in our constituency, where we meet lots of constituents, of course, and lots of other dogs. They all have different personalities, and it is very apparent that a dog cannot be judged by what it looks like or its breed. Focusing on four breeds only is ineffective; that is shown by the fact that the breed-specific legislation has not improved public safety as intended.

My hon. Friend gave a number of statistics, and I want to refer to a couple. In the past 20 years, dog bites have increased by 154%, but only 8% of dangerously out-of-control dog cases involved banned breeds. What is happening with the other 92% of out-of-control dog cases? Why have all the legislative eggs been put in one basket, which accounts for only 8% of the problem?

As we know, hospital admissions due to dog bites continue to rise year on year, so it is clear that the law has significantly failed to do what was intended. It has not reduced dog bites, and it means that innocent dogs continue to be put to sleep. Tragic fatalities as a result of dog attacks continue, so it is clear that the law needs re-examining. Public safety must be paramount, and we absolutely cannot have dangerous dogs coming into contact with the public, but if that is what the legislation is meant to prevent, it is failing.

As my hon. Friend said, recent research from Middlesex University London was instructive. It found that data about dog bite incidents is lacking, and record keeping across the country is inconsistent. The university’s report said:

“Participants almost unanimously cast doubt on the idea that breed was a cause of dog attacks noting either that dogs are not inherently dangerous if properly socialised and engaged with using appropriate behaviours, or that all dogs could be dangerous if placed in the wrong situations and handled inappropriately.”

It noted studies that indicated that dog bite incidents should not by themselves be taken as an indication of dog aggression that requires a regulatory response. Statistical data on the extent of dog attacks therefore needs careful interpretation, and there should be an examination of all the other factors in play.

A dog’s behaviour can very much be influenced by its owner, as well as by other environmental factors. All dogs can be dangerous in the wrong hands, and action to tackle canine aggression should focus on the animal’s training. That would be better than the current crude and ineffective focus on what the dog looks like.

According to the latest data from the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, about 200 leading behaviour experts found that socialisation is the most critical factor: 86% said that the way a dog is brought up by its owner is the most important reason why some are more aggressive towards people than others, and 73% said that the dog’s upbringing by the breeder before they are sold determines behaviour. It is clear that that is where the focus ought to be.

I understand that a steering group has been set up to look at the recommendations from the Middlesex University London report, but it will not look at the legislation, despite there being serious questions about whether it does what was intended. As we have heard, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association and the Kennel Club all want the introduction of what they call breed-neutral legislation that better protects public safety and dog welfare. We need to look at what the evidence and the science are telling us and what the experts say. I would like the Government to commit to a review of the legislation as soon as possible, and to engage with local authorities, the police and experts from other countries. As we heard from my hon. Friend, we can learn from experiences abroad and use them to develop a deeper understanding of what works in this area, because we have seen that the legislation does not stop dog bites and is bad for animal welfare. It is obvious that we need a more rounded approach to dog control that focuses on prevention through responsible ownership and education.

Finally, I want to talk about how breed-specific legislation plays into the wider legislative framework around dogs. A number of constituents have contacted me with their concerns about the increasing number of artificial insemination clinics; unqualified people are able to call these places clinics. Some people will think that their dogs are being dealt with by a professional when the person may have no qualifications at all. There are real concerns about whether these clinics are safe. We certainly cannot be sure that breeding is not going on there, and that needs much closer examination. That is another example of how our legislation is well behind the curve on developments in animal welfare. We need to regulate these clinics and ensure professional standards; that is in the interests of the public and animal welfare.

In conclusion, we want to be a world leader in animal welfare, so we need to keep legislation up to date, follow what the science and expert advice tells us, and base our approach on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

I could not agree more, and I hear that that was very much the tone of the useful meeting the all-party group on fisheries had with the Faroese Prime Minister yesterday. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Government Ministers have also made that message loud and clear at all levels.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

9. What estimate he has made of the level of food that will be produced by UK farmers in each of the next three years.

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

Fortunately, we in this country have a high degree of food security. We currently produce about 60% of all the food we need and 74% of all the food we can grow or rear here. We monitor the level of production extremely carefully and, as the Secretary of State said earlier, published a detailed report at the end of last year.

[Justin Madders]

As the shadow Minister referred to earlier, last autumn CF Fertilisers in my constituency stopped production because of high energy costs, and it has not reopened because the demand for its products simply is not there. It really is a concern that farmers are not putting food into the ground because of the high prices. I wonder what the knock-on effect will be in the next two or three years, particularly on availability and cost for consumers as well as my constituents’ jobs. We have had a list of things that the Government are doing, but surely it says something that even now, with rocketing fuel prices and food prices, there is simply not enough demand for that factory to reopen. Does the Minister agree that more must be done?

[Victoria Prentis]

I chaired a fertiliser taskforce several weeks ago, and the strong message from Government, those who work in the industry and those who supply fertiliser to the industry was that we should have confidence in this year’s fertiliser supply, buy fertiliser and use it as required. We will continue to work together to monitor the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I am working on the next tranche of funding to help tackle this scourge. My hon. Friend talks tirelessly about the challenge in Harrow. I would be really happy to come and see the issue for myself, and discuss with his constituents what more we can do, because Conservatives absolutely want to get rid of this blight.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

T2. I invite the Minister to visit Ellesmere Port, where we have many fly-tipping hotspots as well. If there are to be further rounds of grants, I urge her to ensure the criteria for selection are transparent and clear, so we all know what we are looking for to get approvals to deal with this issue.

[Jo Churchill]

Noted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

The commission is well aware of this issue, but in the recent Elections Bill the Government did not propose any change in the statutory framework under which the commission operates. There is an issue over people and organisations that are not registered as political actors putting out social media posts, because the current digital imprints provisions seemingly do not apply to them. That is an issue that the commission is aware of.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, in that my wife is a local authority member—and what a good job she does! I have to say that.

A constituent recently brought to my attention some Facebook advertising by my local Conservative Association encouraging people to report potholes and other street affairs through the association. I have no problem with issues like that being raised, but I do not understand why the association could not just direct people to the council website where there is an online reporting facility. Will my hon. Friend look into the reasons why that arrangement exists?

[Christian Matheson]

I shall also declare an interest: my hon. Friend is my constituency next-door neighbour, and I also know his wife, who is a councillor, although neutrality restricts me from saying what an excellent councillor she is. In answer to his question, if the advertising is legal under the current framework, there would be no reason for the commission to have a concern over it.

Zoos, Aquariums and Wildlife Sanctuaries: Reopening

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for allowing me to speak in the debate? I pay tribute to his outstanding opening contribution, which set the tone. I go beyond that and thank and congratulate him on the leadership he has consistently shown on this issue over many years. It is inclusive leadership, which takes in the detail of the case so very often. As we saw from his contribution, the work that he does is detailed and well informed, which makes it so much easier for the rest of us, because he does the hard miles. He is a fantastic leader of the all-party parliamentary group on zoos and aquariums, and I for one am extremely grateful to him.

Growing up in Cheshire, a visit to the zoo, whether with my family or with the school, was always a highlight. A visit with my family to Chester zoo, which lies within my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), is always a great highlight, as it is for so many other families around my neck of the woods.

It has been a difficult couple of weeks for the zoo, for the reasons that my friend, the hon. Member for Romford, talked about. It ran a high-profile public campaign, which I must inform the House it did not want to run. For a couple of weeks beforehand, it was briefing me and other interested parties on the difficulty of the situation, for all the reasons outlined by the hon. Gentleman: its responsibilities to maintain animal welfare; its responsibilities to maintain the scientific basis for which it is renowned; and its inability to do so because money was, quite frankly, running out. It made the very difficult decision to go public just over a week ago, when the Government made it clear that zoos were not allowed to reopen.

If I have a criticism of the Government at that point, it is that no reason was given for why zoos could not reopen. We know, for example, that IKEA was allowed to reopen, and I am pleased for it. We know that Kew Gardens was allowed to reopen, and it is a beautiful place to visit. Chester zoo lies in 128 acres of parkland and gardens. The inconsistency was not easy to understand.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown in the campaign and the excellent result we have got. Obviously, there are further things we need to do to secure the future of all the zoos in the country, but it is a good start. On the point of consistency, part of the zoo is in my constituency, as he has rightly pointed out, but also in my constituency is the Blue Planet aquarium. Unfortunately, as we have heard, it is not going to be able to reopen. Can he understand the confusion we have, where Cheshire Oaks, which has hundreds of shops with confined spaces, is basically next door to the aquarium and is able to reopen next week, but the Blue Planet aquarium will not?

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend gives the perfect illustration of the confusion that the organisations feel and that members of the public will feel. I say to Ministers, to the Government and to Government Members who are speaking to Ministers that they should try to treat the public with a bit of respect. If there is a reason for the closures, they should explain it to us. They should tell us why some things can open and others cannot, but should not be inconsistent or illogical, for the very reason that my hon. Friend has talked about.

Chester zoo is a huge expanse of parkland and gardens. It is not like some small private animal collection somewhere. It is a big outdoor event, and it is not opening any of its indoor attractions. My personal favourite, the bat house, as well as the camel house and the chimpanzee viewing area—all will be closed. Only the outdoor viewing areas will be open. The zoo has put in place very careful visitor management procedures regulating the flows within the zoo, but limiting, as my good friend the hon. Member for Romford talked about, the number of visitors outside the zoo, including by managing the car parks correctly, so that all visitors will be covid-safe.

Those procedures have been given the seal of approval by safety officers from the local authority, so Chester zoo is akin to so many others in the work that it has done to ensure that it is safe for visitors. The Government, I hope, will take that into account when they are considering further regulations or the relaxation of further regulations right across the patch.

[Christian Matheson]

Ah, yes, the story of Iggy and Flossie from the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham and the contribution of the Cheshire Regiment, as was then. His reputation is very sound in Chester, and it is well known in this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, would the House mind if I did not recount the story of Iggy and Flossie? It is perhaps best left for the bar when it reopens, knowing him, as we all do.

The work of the zoo is not simply as a visitor attraction. The hon. Member for Romford has talked about that. Chester zoo was founded by George Mottershead as a zoo without bars, but it has become a world conservation centre. In particular, I am always proud to talk about the work that it is doing on sustainable palm oil. Chester zoo is itself leading on the campaign to take palm oil produced in mass plantations in south-east Asia out of the food production chain and the consumer products production chain, and instead to use palm oil produced in plantations that do not completely destroy the rainforest in those areas, thereby conserving the habitats of many magnificent creatures, such as orangutans.

Let us be clear: as soon as budgets start to dwindle—the hon. Member for Romford is right that Chester zoo is losing hundreds of thousands of pounds every month and will make a loss this year—those conservation programmes are the first to go. The work that is being led in the United Kingdom and is being undertaken to maintain habitats across the world will therefore be very badly damaged. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that zoos are able to continue to bring in the income, which is providing not just jobs and tourism revenue, but a real difference across the world in terms of ecology.

In paying tribute to the work of the zoo, I have to say that the zoo’s management team has been absolutely outstanding in ensuring that the zoo is ready to open, and that the public will be protected, and I thank it for that.

[Justin Madders]

rose—

[Christian Matheson]

I was just about to turn to my hon. Friend and next door neighbour, so I will give way.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. One of the most important aspects of the zoo’s work is with the schools in my constituency, which is, no doubt, the case in his constituency. Does he agree that that kind of important ecological work needs to carry on, and that, given the difficulty we have with schools going back, we need to make sure that that work is given some extra focus in the months ahead?

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I visited Chester zoo many times as a child, as I am sure he and other hon. Members did. That link with the natural world ties in with our responsibilities as a human race not to destroy the planet, but to leave it in a better condition than we found it in. That can be done in practical ways, as I have talked about with palm oil and as the hon. Member for Romford has also mentioned. Talking to our youngsters and giving them an appreciation of the wider world is important. Of course, it is about the animals, but it is also about the biodiversity and the habitats in which the animals live.

I want to thank the public for their massive support for Chester Zoo. I had so many hon. Members asking me, “What’s happening with the zoo?” That was because they had received so many emails. In one of numerous conversations that I have had with the zoo management last week, they said, “Chris, we are going to set up an email campaign so that people can email their MPs to tell them that they want to keep the zoo open.” I thanked them very much, but I did not mean it. Hon. Members from right across the House have been touched by this campaign. I will not be begrudging with the Minister at this stage. The hon. Member for Romford was right on that. I am pleased that the decision was reversed. Much more needs to be done, but I am grateful that Ministers did listen finally and took the decision. I thank the public for their support for Chester zoo and their support for the work that Chester zoo has undertaken and will continue to undertake, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his leadership, which does have an effect in the United Kingdom and right across the globe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I believe that was probably a bid for a portrait of you to be provided in the House, Mr Speaker, so we look forward to that.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

2. To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress the Commission has made on implementing the independent complaints and grievance scheme.

[Tom Brake]

Good progress is being made on implementing the independent complaints and grievance scheme, and on the recommendations by Dame Laura Cox and Gemma White, QC, to improve the working culture of the House. Complainants with non-recent cases, and former members of the parliamentary community who were not previously covered by the scheme, were able to access it from Monday 21 October this year. A staff group is examining options for implementing the Cox recommendation on independent determination of complaints against Members.

[Justin Madders]

I do not believe that the Commission is making good progress. It has been a year since the Dame Laura Cox report came out, and historical cases were finally reopened only last week. Recommendation 3 makes it clear that there must be an entirely independent process for investigating complaints of bullying and harassment in which Members of Parliament do not take part. It has been a year; it has gone on too long. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand how important it is for staff to have confidence in the system and know that Members of Parliament are not involved in judging their peers?

[Tom Brake]

I agree that there should be a completely independent process, and I regret that 12 months on that has not been resolved. A group is making good progress on that, and it expects to report back to the Commission later this year. I hope that by the end of this year that issue will be resolved.

Restoring Nature and Climate Change

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, and to follow the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who has reminded me of some pleasant holidays in the New Forest. My wife always reminds me that I fell off a bike there—she will be delighted that that is now on the public record.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on his excellent introduction on behalf of the Petitions Committee. E-petitions have become a feature of this Parliament; they are an excellent way for the public to ensure that we hear their concerns and to press us to take action. It is fair to say that we have all received many representations on climate change in the past year or two, but today’s debate relates to a particular aspect that we have not touched on much. That shows that the climate emergency is moving up the agenda of the public’s priorities fast. In my view, we are not going far enough fast enough. How many of us can say that in our own lives we are doing all we can to tackle climate change?

Of course, change should come from the top. The Committee on Climate Change’s report in May led the UK to adopt a net zero target by 2050, but it also found that the Government are failing to prepare the country for the inevitable impact of climate change. That failure is putting our communities and infrastructure at risk. The consequences of our actions are with us already: over the past two decades, severe weather events across the country have cost an average of £1.5 billion a year—only this weekend, parts of Cheshire were subject to severe flooding. Those figures will be dwarfed in coming years by the overall cost and effect of climate change, including the cost to our environment and the human cost as swathes of land become uninhabitable all over the globe. If we do not take action now, the effects predicted in this country alone will include a trebling of heat deaths by 2050, far more frequent flooding, and food insecurity, which is a matter of national security. This is an emergency—and, of course, we may well be one of the more fortunate countries in respect of the impact of climate change.

We cannot and should not act alone, but that should not be an excuse for failing to take a lead. Why are we still financing fossil fuel projects overseas? According to Christian Aid, the UK Government are still spending more on fossil fuels than on renewable energy in developing countries. How does that set an example? It is not leadership. What does it say to the likes of China and India, whose CO₂ emissions dwarf our own? Will our desperation to seal trade agreements with those countries—should we ever leave the EU—inhibit our ability to talk candidly with them about their need to change tack, too? I have a particular regard to the United States in that respect.

We know that our homes, our workplaces and other infrastructure need to be prepared for unavoidable climate impacts, yet the Committee’s report also tells us that the Government funding to help to support regions, businesses and individuals has ceased.

There has been a failure to start the critical conversations that we need to have with the public about the changes to behaviour that are necessary. In those circumstances, how will we really be able to equip our communities to meet the challenges of reducing carbon emissions and removing carbon from our atmosphere?

We know that natural climate solutions, and carbon capture and storage, can play a very important role in getting us to net zero. Rewilding and other natural climate solutions can be used to draw potentially millions of tonnes of CO₂ out of the air, and to restore and protect our living systems. Indeed, new research estimates that a worldwide planting programme could remove two thirds of all the emissions that have been pumped into the atmosphere by human activities. Of course, to do that we need to really prioritise the environment.

There was a manifesto pledge from the Conservatives during the last election to plant 11 million trees. I do not know whether the Minister can update us on the figures today, but I think we are some way short of that at the moment. Also, tree planting targets have been missed every year since they were set in 2013. Tree planting in England fell short of targets in the last year, with less than 1,500 hectares of the Government’s planned 5,000 hectares being planted with trees. Only 13% of the UK’s land area is covered by trees, which is well below the figure for other European countries; on average, the figure is about 35% across Europe. So, 13% simply will not be good enough to meet the challenges we face.

We often trade numbers across the main Chamber: the number of operations carried out, the number of homes built or the number of police officers that we have. Perhaps the real sign of change here will be when we begin to trade insults over the number of trees being planted by each Government. That would be a real sign that there was a genuine commitment on both sides of the House to take this issue seriously.

That is why campaigners are calling the Government’s progress on this matter “painfully slow” and are calling for a new strategy to enable the Government target to be met. The Woodland Trust has called for much greater Government support and I echo that call. I am pleased that my own party has pledged to be more ambitious. I refer to the pledge made last month by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that a Labour Government would plant a million trees in hospitals throughout the UK, which is a very innovative and interesting way to look at things. Some departmental leads could be taken on this matter, too.

I was also pleased to put my name to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) in support of the Northern Forest. Again, that is an initiative spearheaded by the Woodland Trust that aims to plant 50 million trees in the north of England. It is said that this Northern Forest would generate around £2.5 billion of social, economic and environmental benefits, which would be at least a fivefold return on investment. That sounds like a win-win situation to me and I hope we can all support it.

In addition to these ambitious plans, I am pleased that the Labour party has pledged to ban all harmful pesticides, such as neonicotinoids, which we believe pose a serious risk of harm to honey bees and other pollinators. We should not underestimate the importance of wildflowers to the ecosystem; we know that if we do not get them right, there is a risk to the entire food chain.

In that regard, I congratulate my local authority, Cheshire West and Chester Council, on work that it has been doing in respect of bulb planting and allowing certain sections of the highway verges to grow wild. The aesthetics of that certainly work for me; it is not everyone’s cup of tea, but I think it adds a bit of colour and a bit of pollen to the ecosystem, which is something we can all learn from.

One of the chief recommendations of the Thirty by 2030 report, which was launched last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), the shadow Business Secretary, was sourcing 90% of electricity from renewables and low-carbon sources by 2030. This includes greater use of carbon capture and storage, with a goal of expanding it to become a “significant component” of the energy mix by the late 2020s.

On that front, I was pleased to learn about a carbon capture usage and storage initiative for the north-west that is based in my own constituency. The HyNet proposals would be based on the key industrial cluster around the Mersey estuary, alongside state-of-the-art hydrogen production in the long run. About 5% of the UK’s energy output comes from this area, due to the high concentration of energy-intensive industry there, but its location also brings with it an opportunity, because there is the ability to repurpose the Liverpool Bay oilfield and gasfield infrastructure, to divert around 1 million tonnes of CO₂ per year into those oilfields. That would be the equivalent of taking 600,000 cars off the road. Ultimately, these proposals have the potential to take over 10 million tonnes of CO₂ out of the atmosphere each year, which would make a huge contribution to reducing our emissions.

The plan would also have economic benefits. It has the potential to create around 5,000 jobs between now and 2025. The key is to finalise business models quickly, to bring forward some of the first stages of industrial development, so that we can start to realise the impressive ambitions for this project that a range of local players has come forward to try to realise.

I believe that these plans have a big role to play, not only in carbon capture but in taking us away from CO₂ and getting our economy more involved in hydrogen. I hope that we can discuss with the relevant Ministers—they are probably Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers, rather than the Minister before us today—how we can bring that plan forward as soon as possible.

I believe that this country has an opportunity to become a world leader in climate solutions, but that can be achieved only by strengthening policy to deliver emissions reductions across all levels of Government, including across Departments. Delivery must be regarded as being much more urgently needed, and we can also do our part at other levels of Government.

Let us take the example of planning, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) referred to. Planning is not normally a party political battleground, but I believe that, if used innovatively, it could drive forward this agenda. I have long held the view that we should be doing an awful lot more to require developers to future-proof developments in terms of not only the environment, but climate risk. However, we should not just look at the bricks and mortar of the homes; we should look at how estates are designed.

Planning decisions made decades ago can still affect things now. I say that because on some of the estates built in the 1960s I see how the trees planted as young saplings have grown out of all proportion to the surrounding houses. Such trees are often too unwieldy to be of use, and they can damage surrounding properties with their roots, which have to be cut. Then, the tree has to be cut down. Also, some trees become diseased. So, this is an issue on which, in future, we could probably show a little more forethought.

Let us make sure not only that developments being built now have a minimum number of trees planted in their common areas, but that the trees planted will grow in sympathy with their surroundings. Let us think about what those trees will look like in 20 or 30 years. Also, there is no good reason for new industrial developments or office blocks not to have trees and plants designed into their layout.

When we consider new developments, let us look at transport too, because that is a key factor. There is evidence that improved bus networks can reduce carbon emissions. A fully loaded double-decker bus can take, on average, 75 cars off the road, based on average vehicle occupancy for both buses and cars; one bus can move 10 times as many people as a car can.

The benefits of a renaissance in bus travel are very clear in reducing CO_2, but I wonder whether the people setting climate policy in London really understand that it is not quite as easy to get around on public transport in the rest of the country. Try getting a bus after 6 pm in my constituency, or on a Sunday, and it soon becomes apparent that if someone’s shift pattern is not 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, they need a car for work. So, we absolutely need to boost local bus services, which will help us to tackle CO₂ emissions.

I am sad to say that previous generations of politicians have failed to appreciate the enormity of what we now face. We are sleepwalking into a climate catastrophe, and unless we begin to face up to the fact that carbon reduction needs to be done now, we will be the last generation to enjoy the benefits of industrialisation and we will impose on the next generation the consequences of our indolence.

This debate is not about some theoretical future prospect; it is about something that is happening now. We see it all around us, and around the world, with increased fires, droughts and cyclones. The warnings from the scientists are crystal-clear: unless we begin to tackle these issues with urgency, we will only see more of these climatic events. We should not hesitate to call this an emergency. People say words can be spoken in here that do not really change anything, and maybe at the moment they have a point, but we must show people that we can do better and that we have a real commitment from the heart of Government to tackle climate change. A substantial British green new deal should be central to that. It would reduce emissions, create employment and show the rest of the world that economic benefit and climate benefit are not mutually exclusive.

We need to recognise that we are here now because there have been several centuries of relentless pursuit of economic growth without thought for the environmental consequences. There have been so many advances made in that time that it would be wrong to suggest that economic growth is a bad thing, but it is no longer tenable to consider economic advancement in isolation. The scale of the challenge we face from climate change should lead us to say that restoring nature is as much an economic imperative as a moral one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

4. What progress the commission has made in implementing the Cox report recommendations.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)]

Two of the three principal recommendations made by Dame Laura Cox have now been implemented. Implementation of the third, on the independence of the independent complaints and grievance scheme from MP involvement, is under way. The commission will be considering options in the autumn.

[Justin Madders]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, last week we debated the Gemma White report and the real concerns of staff about the process. Does he agree that only when we have a procedure that is truly independent of Parliament, with effective, transparent sanctions, will we get the confidence of staff?

[Tom Brake]

I agree with that point. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a staff team have been set up to look at the issue of independence and are considering the options. They have an independent challenge group, which will look at, for instance, the impact on parliamentary independence, the ability of Members of Parliament to operate, and ensuring that we have a system in which staff will have confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

4. What the timeframe is for the implementation of the recommendations made by Dame Laura Cox in her report on the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)]

Dame Laura made three fundamental recommendations. In response to the first, the Commission immediately terminated the Respect and Valuing Others policies. In response to the second, the Commission has been considering options for the investigation of non-recent cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct and expects to put a final proposal to the House before the summer recess. In response to the third, the Commission has agreed the establishment of a working group to consider how the process of complaints against MPs could be made fully independent, and we are in the process of agreeing the membership. Finally, the House service has appointed an independent director of cultural transformation, to translate Dame Laura’s wide recommendations into tangible, meaningful and lasting change.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the update. It is very important that the House is seen to be acting swiftly on this. Let us not forget that it is more than seven months since the report came out, and it is frankly damning that we are still talking about things happening in the future. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to get on with this and get the justice that victims deserve.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I can reassure him that the House of Commons Commission is considering these important recommendations at every meeting, but we have not made the progress that we should have done. These are complex issues, and we hope that the working group will be established soon, to process how to deal with complaints against MPs independently of Members of Parliament.

Wildlife Crime

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), on his excellent introduction. Like him, I have been contacted by many constituents concerned about the same incidents where foxes have been slaughtered in hunts. That has led me to question how well the Hunting Act is working because, despite outlawing that horrific practice, the images tell me there are people out there openly flouting the law, making a mockery of the police, Parliament and the vast majority of people in this country who rightly recoil from such barbaric practices. As we have heard, there are very real concerns that across the country foxes are being targeted and killed by illegal hunts, and grave concerns that the various exemptions within the Act are being used to legitimise the indiscriminate killing of foxes.

The Library briefing paper tells us that the successful conviction rate for offences under the Hunting Act over the previous five years is about 50% as opposed to a rate of about 80% for all criminal offences. That tells me that the Act is not working in the way that it should, and those figures are just for actual prosecutions.

Many constituents ask me why the widely available images that we have all seen do not result in more prosecutions. If the Government’s position is that the law should be observed, whatever that law is, they should ask themselves some serious questions about whether the Act is working in practice. They should ask whether the police and Crown Prosecution Service have the knowledge base and resources to deal successfully with the Act as it is, and what changes might be made to increase the number of successful prosecutions. If their view is, “We don’t like the Hunting Act. We don’t really believe in what it is trying to do, but we are content to allow things to trundle along as they are with a half-hearted adherence to the law because we are scared of a public backlash,” they should be honest and say so.

It is clear that there is little confidence in the law as it stands and the capacity of the state to enforce it, so we need a thorough review of the Hunting Act and how it works. Once that is done, let us have a debate and a vote in Parliament on what should happen next. If we did that, hunting with dogs, which has no place in a modem society, would be outlawed. Let us ensure it is banned: no ifs, no buts, no exceptions under the legislation, and no more excuses.

As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said, there needs to be a review of the high threshold. Perhaps using the word “recklessness” would give people more confidence in a law that the majority in this country want to adhere to. I appreciate that a review might take time, but I hope the Minister will respond positively when she winds up the debate.

In the meantime, I have some practical suggestions. The first concerns knowledge of the law by the police and Crown Prosecution Service. It is clear that some people are not experts in what is a specialist area.

Secondly, and this is perhaps the single most important action that can be taken to restore trust and confidence, the police must be seen to investigate and take action on any potential criminal offences that occur during the hunts. I am talking mainly about wider public order offences. We have seen lots of examples of threatening and intimidating behaviour, firearms being let off and vehicles being rammed into monitors and so on, giving the impression that some people are above the law and some are not. Everyone should be equal before law. At the moment some people seem to be able to get away with actions that in any other context would see them up before the magistrate, and that adds to the impression, sad though it is, that the authorities are not being even-handed in their approach.

To conclude the Hunting Act is not working. Let us reform it so that the cruel and vindictive practice of hunting with dogs is outlawed once and for all.

Fur Trade

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Like many other hon. Members, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on the way he introduced the debate and on the way that he kept the flow of the argument going, despite the many interventions he took. He did very well to get the main points across, which clearly reflected the great degree of consensus on the issue. He used the apposite phrase “outsourcing responsibility”, and he mentioned the complicity in cruelty that the current policy leads to.

As we have heard, more than 100,000 people signed the petition, which is why the debate has come to the Chamber. Although only 157 signatures came from my constituency, it seems as though every single one of those petitioners sent me an email in support of a ban—as hon. Members will not be surprised to hear, given that the position we are in does not make a great deal of sense.

As hon. Members have already said, apparently the practices that we have rightly outlawed in this country to protect domestic animals, on the basis that they are cruel and barbaric, are okay if they happen elsewhere. Of course, we cannot tell another country what to do with its domestic laws but we can send a message about the importance this country places on animal welfare.

When I read reports about animals chewing off their own limbs in an attempt to break out of the traps they have been caught in, I am sickened and appalled. I do not want anything that has been produced as a consequence of that to enter this country, and I am sure most people feel the same. It is positive that this country no longer tolerates such cruelty, but if we allow imports from other countries where that sort of sadism goes on, we wrap ourselves in a false comfort blanket.

I am aware of the counter-argument that suggests that the better way to deal with animal cruelty is to work internationally to raise welfare standards. The Government’s response to the petition stated that

“we are working at an international level to agree global animal welfare standards and phase out cruel and inhumane farming and trapping practices. We believe this is the best way to prevent animal cruelty and that this approach will lead to a much higher level of animal welfare standards.”

It is arguable that such an approach might be preferable, but there is absolutely no evidence that it will work within a reasonable time period—there is an almost touching naivety about it. In reality, nothing in that statement says why a ban on imports cannot happen; surely international work to improve welfare standards can be done at the same time as imposing a ban on imports.

With everything else that will be going on in our post-Brexit world, I fear that we will have to use up an awful lot of goodwill that we might have gained to secure new trade deals, and that we will have little flexibility left to push on other issues. The sort of issues that we have discussed today will be towards the end of a long list.

The rise of online traders makes it harder and harder to police welfare standards. We can buy almost anything from anywhere in the world, which is a great thing for consumers, but the downside is that it can be difficult to meaningfully establish how a product was made and its adherence to ethical and welfare standards. There is no practical way of enforcing that, which is why an outright ban is so attractive.

Lots of people believe that there can be no ethical basis for the purchase of fur products, which is why polling has consistently shown that a very large majority of the public favour an outright ban on fur imports, as we have already heard. That is why the Government need to come forward with a positive strategy. If something is wrong, it does not matter which country it happens in. The time has come to end the contradiction in policy and implement a full ban.

[Giles Watling]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Justin Madders]

I have actually just finished.

Domestic Ivory Market

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on the knowledgeable way he introduced the debate. Although some hugely important issues are being debated this week, the excellent turnout in the Chamber shows that ivory is also an issue about which future generations will ask whether we did enough.

We are the dominant species on the planet, but not necessarily the wisest. We have overseen the extinction of countless species over the centuries. We have abused our power, which we should be using to repair the damage we have caused. As we have heard, 30,000 elephants die in Africa each year to supply the ivory trade. The Government committed to ban the ivory trade in their two most recent manifestos, and announced new proposals to restrict the sale of ivory. There is a general concern, which has already been discussed, that the proposals do not go far enough, as they do not cover ivory products dated before 1947. Some people think they will not substantially reduce the amount of ivory bought and sold in the UK.

We want the ownership of ivory products to be considered socially, morally and legally beyond the pale, but by exempting items from before a certain date, are we not in danger of watering down the message that the objectification of these magnificent creatures is unacceptable? The Government may class pre-1947 works as antiques, but does someone with an untrained eye—such as me and, I suspect, the vast majority of the population—know what is pre-1947 and what is not? It is clear that very few people working in customs have the necessary skills and expertise to know the difference. The date seems arbitrary. A total ban was promised in not one but two manifestos. That is what we should aim for.

This is not the time to dilute messages or measures. This is the last chance saloon. Between 2007 and 2014, the savannah elephant population declined by 30%, largely due to poaching. Forest elephants are declining by 9% per year. The Great Elephant Census, which reported in August 2016, showed that the current rate of decline in elephant numbers is 8% per year, primarily due to poaching.

Evidence shows that more elephants are being killed each year than are being born. History gives us a pretty clear warning about where that leads. Man hunted the woolly mammoth to extinction, but at least we did not then have the global picture to help us understand what we were doing. Then it was a case of survival for the hunter gatherers, but now it is about not survival but personal gratification, trade, greed and sometimes even sport—motivations we should consider abhorrent when talking about the murder of sentient animals.

Let us not forget that, when elephants are slaughtered, they are not without feeling or thought. The Nayaka people, who live in south Indian forests, told of “the elephant who walks alone”. It had a reputation for being aggressive and one day killed a human. The Indian authorities wanted to hunt it down as they considered it a risk, but the Nayaka people refused to help. They said that the elephant had seen its partner captured, which caused it to become angrier. They told the authorities that if they had seen their partner treated the same way, they would have reacted similarly. We all know the pain of losing a loved one, so let us be clear that, when those animals are killed, there is an emotional as well as a physical cost.

With an estimated value of between $15 billion and $20 billion annually, the illegal trade in wildlife is a lucrative market for criminals. It is one of the highest-value illicit trade sectors in the world. I agree that the existence of a legal ivory trade serves as a cover for illegal sales of ivory, and continues to perpetuate the cycle of supply and demand. It has been reported that, in recent years, a surge in demand for wildlife products, including ivory, has largely come from east and south-east Asian markets. I would like to hear from the Minister about whether there is more we can do to deal with the countries that the demand comes from. As the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said, tackling the illegal activities in the countries in which poaching takes place is a huge challenge. Are we satisfied that we are doing all we can as a nation to tackle it?

I have to disagree with the hon. Members who spoke in support of the antiques trade. I do not believe that this can be described as a balancing act between the survival of elephants and the continuation of the antiques trade. The trade will carry on without ivory. It will adapt and survive, but elephants will not have that option if we carry on down this road.

There have been a number of speeches today, so I will be brief. I will conclude by naming several animals: the eastern cougar, the western black rhinoceros, the Japanese river otter, the Pinta island tortoise, the Cape Verde giant skink, the Formosan clouded leopard, the Scioto madtom, and the Bermuda saw-whet owl. It is not a particularly long list, but every name on it should serve as a warning to us that we are responsible for our actions—not just to each other, but to all other creatures on the planet. All those animals have been declared extinct in just the past five years. When advances in technology and understanding give us the power to do things that were unimaginable even 10 years ago, it is to our immense shame that there are still one or two extinctions every year. I do not want a list read out in three or four decades that includes elephants. This is our last chance. If it comes to pass that we read out a list of extinct animals that includes elephants in the future, the next generation will judge us harshly, and they will be right to do so.