Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

It is at the Minister’s discretion whether she appears in the Chamber. She could have been informed this morning about an urgent question and would have had to appear before the House. The motion was tabled last night at about 5 o’clock, so she has had almost 24 hours to prepare her speech. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), has been beavering away on his remarks.

Let me start by taking the House back to 2006 and a fresh-faced Leader of the then Opposition visiting the Arctic circle. We all remember the Prime Minister hugging a husky, as well as “Vote blue, go green”. The Tory manifesto told us,

“That is why we have put green issues back at the heart of our politics and that is why they will be at the heart of our government.”

Several megatonnes of carbon dioxide and hot air were emitted by a variety of Conservative MPs confessing their green damascene conversion. In opposition, going green was an essential part of detoxifying the Tory brand, but in the 18 short months that the Government have been in power we have seen progress stall on the environment. As their disastrous economic policies take hold, with confidence failing, unemployment and inflation rising and growth flatlining, the green talk has not been matched by green action.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had a disastrous settlement in the comprehensive spending review—the second-biggest spending cut of any Department—taking £2 billion in cash out of the environment over the next four years. The Secretary of State was bounced into a disastrous plan to raise £100 million by selling England’s forests, and we await the review of the Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the parliamentary private secretary is distributing lines to take from the Government. It is always good to see the briefing machine in action. We hope the brief has been printed on Forest Stewardship Council paper.

The Government have abolished the Sustainable Development Commission, the Government’s watchdog on sustainable development.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Would not the Government do better to try to close the tax gap and stop people hiding their money in foreign accounts, rather than cutting valuable budgets?

[Mary Creagh]

Yes, I agree, and I know that the Government are working to close tax loopholes, as we did in government.

DEFRA published its “Mainstreaming sustainable development” strategy in February—just seven pages to cut across the whole of Government. Its sustainable development programme board has not met since December last year and the sustainable development policy working group has not met since November. We got those answers in June 2011, so we can see that sustainable development is clearly no longer at the heart of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

What does this add up to? The Government have a plan for cuts but no plan for the environment, yet at the Tory conference the Environment Secretary told her colleagues:

“I passionately believe going green is both a moral and economic imperative.”

The very next day the Chancellor told the conference:

“We’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”

It was the day the husky died. The greenest Government ever were not even the greenest Government in 2010.

Our Labour Government were the greenest Government, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who makes a welcome return to our team, for the progress that he made on the environment when he was a Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The new partnership scheme will end the problem of communities failing, year after year, to get just above the line needed for their schemes to go ahead. There will now be clarity in the system, so that people can see exactly where they are on the scale and what needs to be geared up, by whatever means, for their scheme to get above the line.

May I express my admiration, in a perverse way, for the nerve of the hon. Member for Wakefield for mentioning the word “broadband” in the motion and in her speech? That is masterful chutzpah. I could ridicule her for it, but part of me secretly admires it from somebody in a party that did so little in government. This country was at the bottom of every conceivable league table, and the previous Government had a scheme that involved raising huge amounts of money from some kind of telephone tax that nobody thought would work. This Government have made the issue an absolute priority.

The hon. Lady is right to make broadband an issue in a green debate. Broadband allows people to work and learn from home, which reduces congestion. The Government also believe that this is a social inclusion issue, however. Broadband will assist people who are old, ill, mentally ill, out of work or on a low income, particularly those who live in remote communities, out of all proportion to any other factor in their lives. It is therefore absolutely right to include it in this debate, and I am very happy to talk about the investment that we are making, including the £530 million that is being spent through Broadband Delivery UK and the £20 million that has been geared up from DEFRA’s funds for the hard-to-reach in our most rural communities, as well as the £150 million recently announced by the Chancellor to assist the roll-out of mobile 4G access, which can provide coverage for broadband on mobile phone networks. That is also very good news.

The hon. Lady also made some interesting points about the five-point plan for growth and jobs, but it would simply add to the scale of debt. How can we deal with the debt problem by adding to it? Nothing should add to our debt. The shadow Chancellor’s five-point plan would not be a way of gearing up jobs and growth in the green economy or in any other. As in so many areas, Labour Members have absolutely no credibility when they talk about the economy.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Spending more, particularly in labour-intensive areas such as those we are debating today, would generate far more, through the multiplier effect, than the original investment, which we would get back through taxation.

[Richard Benyon]

I do not want to get into a long economic debate, but the hon. Gentleman is right in one sense. Green growth, if we do it right, could create jobs. I am afraid that I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that this is an entirely binary issue involving either growth or the environment. The Government firmly believe that the two go together, and our policies reflect that.

The Government have an ambitious programme to protect and enhance our natural environment. Given the unprecedented financial difficulties, we cannot simply pull the financial levers to deliver change. Instead, we are committed to leading by example, being the greenest Government ever, mainstreaming sustainable development and enabling the value of the natural environment and biodiversity to be reflected when decisions are made. In the past 17 months, we have made good progress. We have a strong track record of environmental leadership, at home and internationally. We have published the national eco-system assessment, the first analysis of the benefits that the UK’s natural environment provides to society and to our continuing economic prosperity. This is ground-breaking research from over 500 UK scientists and economists, and the UK is the world leader in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has drawn attention to the supermarkets, because I am disturbed by the fact that the Government have failed to listen to the concerns of farmers and consumer groups, who want the groceries code adjudicator to have sufficient powers to tackle any abuses by major retailers. The Government have already delayed Labour’s plans for a supermarket ombudsman, and it now looks like a groceries code adjudicator will not be in place until 2013 at the earliest, about which some of my constituents are very concerned. If we addressed the problem of packaging and waste in supermarkets, and if supermarkets were as efficient as industries such as the steel industry in avoiding waste and recycling materials such as grey water, our situation would be much more sustainable.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I very much support the idea of a supermarket ombudsman. Would the ombudsman also look at how supermarkets use their purchasing power to force down producer prices, particularly in British agriculture, and use the savings to inflate their profits rather than passing them on to consumers?

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Those are the concerns that a Government who are attempting to be the greenest Government ever should be addressing. Sadly, this Tory Government are out of touch on the environment. The rows over planning, the forest sell-off, a 27% cut in flood defence investment, delays to the water White Paper and a complete lack of ambition on recycling, which the Minister seemed almost proud of, show that the Government are behind the curve on environmental protection and green growth. Their claim to be the greenest Government ever has unravelled in just 18 months. The Tories have a plan for cuts, but no plan for the environment. DEFRA cannot even ban wild animals from circuses, which is not a great deal to ask.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Lady claims that Waveney is a Tory area. At the moment it has a Conservative MP, but it had a splendid Labour MP for the previous 14 years, and it currently has a hung council, which is effectively Labour-controlled.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. My point is that aspirational targets may be set by the Government, but councils deliver. Waveney was Conservative-controlled when making that change, and is still Conservative-controlled.

Common Fisheries Policy

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I share his concern and with many issues relating to fisheries I always start by thinking, “I would not have started from here.” We have these so-called slipper skippers—although we do not have quite as many as are sometimes declared—because many of the trades of fishing opportunity were done privately. We have never created a clear right; we have created a deemed right of access to a national resource. That is why I hope that a rights-based management scheme, as I have outlined, will offer the opportunity for clarity. I believe the work we are doing in DEFRA and through the Marine Management Organisation to identify who owns quota will go a long way towards dealing with the urban—or aqua—myths about quota being held by football clubs and celebrities.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The CFP has been an unmitigated disaster and during my 14 years in this Chamber I have called many times for its abolition and for Britain either to seek its abolition or to give notice that at some point we will withdraw from it and reclaim our 200-mile historic fishing limits. Will the Minister keep that possibility open in any negotiations?

[Richard Benyon]

My priority, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, is to deal with an industry in crisis. I could spend all my energies trying to unpick treaties and this House might collectively decide to do that at some point in the future, but we are dealing with an industry with genuine problems that are affecting coastal towns socially through jobs, people’s livelihoods and processing industries as well as affecting our food security. That is why I want to put all my efforts into trying to get the right result out of these negotiations. I hope I have the support of the House in doing that.

Fisheries

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who brings a great deal of expertise and experience to this and other fisheries debates as well as to DEFRA parliamentary questions dealing with fisheries issues. I do not have the same amount of personal experience. Indeed, I believe that I was one of the only three Members who spoke during a fisheries debate in Westminster Hall in December whose constituencies did not contain fishing fleets; the others were the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain).

I note that many more such Members are present today. That may demonstrate the power of television in focusing attention on the issue of discards, which those who are involved in fisheries issues have been discussing for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) mentioned the action that has been taken by fishing fleets around the United Kingdom. That too has been happening for many years, although it is in danger of being overlooked in the debate. It is assumed that the issue has only just come to public attention and that people are now suddenly caring about it, but that is far from being the case.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park on tabling the motion and initiating the debate. He has hit on an issue that many of our constituents have raised. However, we should not see dealing with discards as a panacea for all the problems connected with fisheries, especially as we head towards the period from July onwards when the Minister will be discussing reform of the common fisheries policy.

In the fisheries debate in December, I said that about 10 years had passed since I worked at the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the same arguments are being made now as were made then about the pressing need for reform of the common fisheries policy.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says that there were calls for reform many years ago, but nothing has substantively changed. I think we should abolish the CFP and return to having national fisheries, but in any case is it not time that we got rid of the word “reform”? It is used by Front-Bench spokesperson after Front-Bench spokesperson as a get-out for doing nothing in reality.

[Tom Greatrex]

I share some of my hon. Friend’s frustrations about the lack of progress over many years. Often in European discussions, issues get traded off against each other; certain issues that should have been dealt with are not addressed, as other issues are seen as more pressing concerns. Fisheries have suffered as a result. Perhaps because I am slightly younger than my hon. Friend, or perhaps because I am a little naive in this respect, I am more hopeful than he is that the documentation from the Commission and some of the comments from the commissioner may give us cause to think that we have a serious chance of getting decent reform of the CFP on this occasion.

We will certainly have further discussions on this topic, but it is right to offer the Minister who will handle it in Europe our encouragement. We all understand that the negotiations will be very complex, as they will involve various different states and lots of different interests. One of the consequences of the increased interest in discards and other issues is that that has provoked the commissioner into saying some interesting things recently. While just saying things is not necessarily an indication of future action, there is now an opportunity, and we would be foolish not to try to take it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We also need to find new technologies, and there are technologies available that sieve fish and pass the smaller ones through the nets so that they are not captured.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I broadly support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is not the problem not that individual fishing boats are catching too much fish but that too many fishing boats are fishing? Overfishing can be regulated only by a nation managing its own fishing waters and what is landed from the sea. That can be achieved only with a national approach to fishing.

[Mr Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Standing in this place, with history around us, I wonder what such characters as Drake and Nelson would have thought of the way in which this country has given up its territorial rights to our waters. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which Drake would have tolerated French and Spanish ships coming 12 miles off the shore of England and done nothing about it.

We need to take control of our waters. All this happened when I was at primary school—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who was absolutely right to conclude by emphasising the importance, if we are to move forward effectively, of reducing the need to discard any dead fish in the sea. We need a more sophisticated package of measures, rather than the same blunt response to the blunt instrument of quotas, which caused the problem in the first place.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), before he leaves the Chamber for a no doubt well-deserved comfort break, on having brought forward the issue and on his persistence in raising it. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the motion.

I also pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for having brought her great knowledge to bear and, in significantly difficult circumstances, raising the issue. She has warm support across the entire House for her contribution, and the House very much appreciates her widely acknowledged knowledge and expertise on the subject.

I was born and brought up in west Cornwall in my constituency. My family had a fishing boat, but my father was primarily a market gardener, so I have some experience of the issue, although far less than my hon. Friend. Many members of my family are engaged in the industry around the coast of my constituency, and I do my best to keep in contact with them in order to understand the pressures of the industry, but that certainly does not compare to my hon. Friend’s expertise.

A number of essential elements are required to move the issue forward and to make significant progress in addressing the concerns that have rightly been highlighted as a result not of only the Fish Fight campaign but of the many other campaigns that went before and highlighted precisely the same issues. I hope that the current process of reform, and the debate about the reform, of the common fisheries policy leading to 2013 will be more successful than the last.

We have inched our way forward, but the EU is like the United Nations when it comes to treaties: trying to reach an agreement across states requires tremendous diplomacy as well as the campaigning skill and zeal of many people in order to ensure that messages are properly understood, and that there are constructive proposals as well as attacks on and criticisms of the existing scheme’s failures.

In order to make such changes, there are a number of essential elements. First, we need to get right the management framework of the common fisheries policy, and it helps that we have moved the debate on in this Chamber from where it was five or six years ago, when my beloved coalition colleagues used to take the rather different view that we could unilaterally withdraw from the policy. The whole debate became a legal argument, which meant that we never had the right kind of environment—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew George]

I will in a moment, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is simply going to go back over that debate, and I just want to make this point to him. We did not have the environment that we needed to be able to have the kind of constructive debates that we now have about the management, technical and other measures that are required and can be delivered, although it takes some time. Because we could not legally withdraw from the common fisheries policy while remaining in the EU—it was technically impossible, and no one was proposing that we should withdraw entirely at that stage—we could not make that kind of progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

This is turning into a more partisan debate than I intended.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It’s your own fault.

[Andrew George]

I know; I blame myself. I apologise for having drawn myself into the very cul-de-sac that I was saying was the reason why we failed to make progress before.

As a result of the regional advisory councils, we were able to develop measures such as the Trevose ground closure, around the north coast of my constituency, each spring, which ensures that large numbers of vessels are not going in and plundering the stocks in that area. We have seen a significant improvement in the health of several species following that measure. The proposal was originally made and instigated by local fishermen, but rolling it out required international agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Luton is land-locked and nowhere near a fishery, but I have a passionate interest in and concern about fishing and fish stocks. Indeed, the first question I asked of the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time concerned the common fisheries policy—he said that he had expected the question to come from his side of the House, rather than mine. However, I have been pursuing unashamedly the abolition of the CFP, and if not that, we should at least give notice that we plan to seek a derogation for Britain, because the fact is that our seas have been overfished. We have had possibly millions of tonnes of discards—certainly hundreds of thousands.

It is impossible to monitor what is done by fishing vessels from other countries. The only way to overcome that problem is to get back Britain’s historic fishing waters within the 200-mile limit—the median line. British vessels could then fish in those areas, French vessels could fish in French areas and Spanish vessels could fish in Spanish areas. They could have their own fishing grounds the same as we do. The contrast, of course, is with Norway, where there are no discards and no overfishing, all vessels and landings are monitored and there is no problem. It manages its fish stocks properly.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that Norway does not have such mixed fisheries as we do in UK waters, so the conservation measures that the Norwegians pursue often would not work in the mixed fisheries in UK waters.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I defer to the hon. Lady, who obviously has an advantage over me in having knowledge of the detail of fishing. However, I am confident that if there was less fishing in British waters, there would not be a problem with shortages and overfishing, and that the need to disaggregate fishing would not be so great if there were plenty of fish, no overfishing and no diminution of fishing stocks.

The general point, however, is that member states ought to be able to manage their own fishing waters and protect them from the depredations of other nations. I have been reading in the Library that there is a multibillion pound industry in pirate fishing across the world. I am sure that we are a law-abiding country and fishermen know that their catches are monitored, but can we trust other nations to do the same even within the EU? There is the suspicion that other nations do not monitor their landings and their catches like we do, and it would take a long time for me to be persuaded that some of those nations do it as well as we do.

[Oliver Colvile]

Is one of the problems not that although we are very good at imposing and policing regulation, places such as Spain are not as good because the regulators are some way away from the ports?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. I was going to say that I agreed with every word of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. It was a very good speech. I should also compliment the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who moved the motion, which I hope we can all support, and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who made a brave and wonderfully informative speech. I felt that I was being educated about the fishing industry while listening to her. It is a rare privilege for us to have someone with her expertise in the Chamber.

I believe that we are considering reform—we have tried it before, and no doubt incremental changes will continue to be made—but we will not win the battle against overfishing until the CFP is history. As I have said before in the Chamber, I think that the Government should give notice that at some point Britain will seek a derogation from the CFP if it is not abandoned altogether. Our nation has possibly the largest coastline and fisheries in the EU, and decisions are being made about our fishing industry and livelihoods by land-locked nations such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Austria that have no particular interest and can be easily bought off in any European Commission vote.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as well as this having splendid motion it is equally important, whatever the consequences of the vote, that we ensure we apply our own sovereignty if the Government, the European Commission, the European Union and the European Court of Justice are not prepared to heed the message that the House sends out? We must assert our sovereignty and override the European legislation where necessary.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I personally agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman, but we might have some difficulty persuading a majority of the House to agree with us. I believe that the European Commission and the European Union will not shift until they have the sense that Britain is serious about wanting to abandon the common fisheries policy or seek a derogation.

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

My hon. Friend will know that I am quite a strong pro-European, but fishing gets me nearer to his camp than I might normally be. My constituency is right in the middle of England, nowhere near the sea, but my constituents care about this issue. They certainly care about discards and about the quality of the sea and of the fish in it. Why can we not get an agreement that works for this country within the European Union? Let me remind my hon. Friend that before the European Union existed, it was a total dog-eat-dog mess. It might not have been dogfish, but it was dog eat dog and it was worse than it is now.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Going back to what happened before the common fisheries policy might not be the best idea. We are now living in an age in which we are more sensible about these things and I would like to think that we would have an industry that was properly regulated by our Government on behalf of our consumers and our fishermen.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the latest device from Europe to get their hands on the fish from our seas—I am speaking particularly of Scotland? The internationally tradeable individual transferable quotas will mean the slow buying off of fishing rights for future generations by big industry fishing, which would mean that future generations on the Scottish coast might see fishing happening around the coast but would have no right to go near it. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of the approach, which is new today from the European Union, and it must be resisted by all quarters of this House at all costs.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I have the BBC news sheet in my hand, which is headlined, “EU fisheries reform would ‘privatise oceans’.” Things will be handed over, no doubt, to Spanish and French fishermen who will have long-term quotas and who can do what they like outside our control.

This is not about nationalism. It is about every nation being responsible for managing its fisheries. The only way to guarantee that they will be managed properly will be for each nation to know that it has to look after and husband its own stocks and fishing industry. If people know that they can cheat by stealing fish from other countries, possibly not even doing discards, doing secret landings and cheating the system, I have no doubt that they will do it.

Just recently, the British public have shown themselves to be strongly incensed by any kind of cheating. Members of the House, some of whom have suffered the penalties of the law, have known the anger of the British people. I think that the British people can be just as angry about cheating on fishing, and the only way to overcome that is to re-establish national fishing waters for all nations in the European Union and for each nation to manage its own fishing stocks, its own fishing industries and the fishing boats that fish within those waters.

Billions of pounds of fish have been lost to Britain. Being in the common fisheries policy has not only had an economic cost to Britain but has been an environmentally damaging experience. One does not necessarily want to push for a nationalistic view, but the reality is that we have been ripped off by the common fisheries policy and we have a massive balance of trade deficit with the rest of the European Union. I would like to think that the motion could go someway towards helping to redress that balance.

I am doing this not because I am a little Englander, or even a big Englander or a big Britisher. I care about fish stocks, and I care about the fishing industry and about making sure that the marine environment is protected for the long term. The only way to do that is by having countries manage their own fisheries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very pleased to do so. There are three key areas of discards, which are often not well understood: over-quota discards, which are calculated to be about 22%; undersized discards, which are calculated to be about 24%; and non-commercial discards, which are calculated to be about 54% of discards. I will deal with each of these in turn, but first I want to talk about the importance of the ecosystems-based approach.

The ecosystems-based approach is fundamental to sustainable environmental management. It establishes a strategy for the management and sustainable use of natural resources by considering them in the context of their role in the entire ecosystem. The current EU common fisheries policy and the EU marine strategy framework directive already commit the EU, in principle, to this ecosystems-based approach. The tragedy is that that has not been reflected in practice.

True ecosystems-based fisheries management would require systemic reform through the introduction of a regionalised management framework. A regionalised management system within Europe would divide the EU fisheries into management regions according to ecosystems, rather than nations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested. Unfortunately, fish do not carry passports about their person. They do not know when they are travelling from one nation’s waters into another’s. Therefore, one must look at the ecosystem and not simply the national boundaries.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My simple point is that nothing will happen in terms of the proper management of fisheries without self-interest—the self-interest of the member states and of their fishing industries. If a simple regional and scientific basis is used, that essential self-interest will not be built into the system.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because that is exactly what I wish to challenge. It seems to me that we can assure the fishing industry and fishers that there is real self-interest in promoting this approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

The answer has to be yes. Of course we feel responsible for public service workers who, to a degree, put themselves at risk from dogs on private property. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the discussions, but I can tell my hon. Friend that what is important is that, since the end of the consultation, the Home Office has announced a review of all antisocial behaviour tools. DEFRA is represented on that working group, which is reviewing all antisocial issues, including the law on dogs.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am sure I am not the only Member who has been bitten by a dog while election campaigning. More importantly, several of my constituents have also been bitten or had their dogs bitten by aggressive dogs. It is clear that dogs are being bred and kept for aggressive purposes. The Government have to get that under control. I suggest to the Minister that we need compulsory licensing, chipping and muzzling of dogs, especially for those known to be aggressive.

[Mr Paice]

In my experience, most letter boxes are dangerous enough on their own without the dog behind them. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point entirely—this is a serious issue. I can only repeat that we have been out to consultation, and that the results of that consultation, including the most popular outcomes, are all on the website. The Government are considering the matter now and, as I said, are working with the Home Office, and will make an announcement shortly after Christmas.