Dangerous Dogs

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. It always has been, and I hope today will be no different. I see we are completely packed out this afternoon, with standing room only. We are discussing a serious issue, and the fact that parties have a one-line Whip on a Thursday probably does not help with attendance.

It is often said that the UK is a nation of dog lovers. As more than 9 million of us are dog owners, it is not hard to see why. Dogs are a huge source of love, comfort and companionship to so many of us. It is also good to see postal workers and others in the room. While we love our dogs, we have to remember that many workers have to come into or close to our homes, and we have to ensure that our dogs are under control. All those things need to be taken into consideration.

That love for our dogs is why it is so heartbreaking when relationships go wrong with dogs, when dogs are not treated with the care and compassion they deserve, and when they are not trained properly, or worse, when they are forced into aggressive and violent behaviour. Each year, thousands of dogs are seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Hundreds are subsequently put down. That might once have been described as a price worth paying to save people from vicious dog attacks, but I was concerned to discover that since the Act was introduced, injury and fatality rates from dog attacks have increased, not gone down.

More than 200,000 people are attacked by dogs each year in England alone. Between 2005 and 2017, the number of recorded hospitalisations rose by some 81%, from 4,110 to 7,461. It is heartbreaking to look at the hospital data, which shows that children under nine are statistically the most at risk. Metropolitan police figures for 2015-16 indicate that legal breeds accounted for 80% of section 3 offences under the Act, which relate to dogs dangerously out of control. Sixty-seven people have died following dog attacks in the UK since 1991. The issue is not only dogs on the dangerous dogs list; many of the bites are from dogs not on that list. We have to consider that, however well intentioned the 1991 Act, it is not addressing the totality of the problem.

The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs therefore launched an inquiry on 11 May 2018 into the adequacy of the Government’s approach to tackling dangerous dogs. It is good to see the new Minister in his place. We focused on the effectiveness of the breed ban and examined the actions needed to improve public safety and safeguard animal welfare. We received more than 400 written evidence submissions to the inquiry and held three evidence sessions in June and July last year. We are grateful to all those who gave us evidence in person or in writing, as well as to the substantial number of people who contacted the Committee in relation to our report and the Government’s response. Many were keen to help address the problems we face, and for that I thank them.

We have a great opportunity today to discuss how the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to incorporate the Committee’s recommendations on dangerous dogs and make the system better for everyone, owner and canine alike. The lessons we learned during the inquiry and the themes I want to highlight today can only be summarised as legislation, trepidation and education. The existing legislation does not deliver the protection that society needs, and I will discuss that in a minute. The trepidation is that of the Department to change the status quo and act decisively in a number of ways. Education could save adults and children alike from dog attacks.

First, I will talk about the legislation. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was introduced to protect the public from dangerous dog attacks. The Act made it an offence to keep four types of dog traditionally bred for fighting, unless the dog was placed on the index of exempted dogs and kept in compliance with certain requirements. The dogs were the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, Fila Brasileiro and Dogo Argentino. As of May 2018, 3,530 prohibited dogs were on the index, of which 3,514 were pit bull terrier-types. Only 16 of the dogs were not pit bull types.

Dogs suspected of being of a prohibited type may be seized by the authorities and held in police-appointed kennels pending examination by a qualified expert. Most dogs seized under section 1 are suspected pit bull terriers. If a dog is found to be a banned section 1 type, an owner wishing to keep the dog must go to court to determine that they are a fit and proper person and that the dog will not pose a risk to public safety. If successful, the dog is placed on the index of exempted dogs and the owner must comply with certain conditions, such as that the dog is neutered and microchipped, the owner purchases third party insurance and the dog is leashed and muzzled in public.

Section 3 of the 1991 Act makes it an offence for any dog to be dangerously out of control, regardless of its breed or type. That includes a dog injuring someone or an animal, a person believing the dog might injure them, and a person believing that the dog would injure them if they tried to stop it attacking their dog or animal.

During our inquiry, we heard substantial debate about the effectiveness of this breed-specific legislation and the impact on dog welfare. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 30 people died between 1991 and 2016 in dog-related incidents. The RSPCA told us that 21 of those dog-related incidents involved dogs of breeds not prohibited by law. One person dying from a dog attack is one too many. The Government are responsible for protecting the public from dangerous animals, so it is essential that the laws evolve alongside our understanding of what works. We investigated whether the Government’s current approach is having the desired effect and whether any changes are needed to ensure that the public are properly protected and that animal welfare concerns are adequately addressed.

The Committee looked at the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation, and identified several areas for improvement to protect the public more effectively. One of the saddest consequences of the 1991 Act is that, when someone has to give up a section 1 dog, the law does not allow the dog owner to be changed; the dog can be transferred only if the owner dies or is incapacitated. If a section 1 dog strays or was abandoned and is being kept in a rescue centre, or if its owner cannot care for it due to a change in circumstances, it cannot be rehomed and is liable to be put down. The dog will also be destroyed if the owner is judged not to be a fit and proper person.

At Battersea dogs home, I saw a dog that had been brought in because its owner could no longer look after it. As far as I could tell, it was a very good-tempered dog, but because it could not be rehomed it had to be checked by the police to assess whether it was of a pit bull type. When the policeman saw the dog, he decided that it was of a pit bull type, and it was put down. I felt that that was one dog too many put down, because its temperament was good. I will talk a little more in a minute about how, with proper care and attention, such dogs can be placed with an owner who understands the type of dog, can handle it and complies with the regulations regarding taking it out in public.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I apologise for being unable to stay for the whole debate; I need to speak in the House. As the Committee inquiry highlighted, the prohibition on the transfer of dogs is utterly ludicrous. There was a very high profile case in Bristol on this matter. The dog can be transferred if the owner dies, but not if they move abroad because of work, as happened in one case, or if they lose their home and have to move into a flat where they are not allowed animals. It seems completely ludicrous that in some situations the dog then has to be destroyed when it might be, as the hon. Gentleman said, a perfectly well-behaved, acceptable dog.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady is a very good member of the Committee, and I am delighted to see her this afternoon, even if only for a short while. She makes a really good point. We should look at the dog and its temperament. If the original owner could keep it, and take it out muzzled and on an a leash in public, why can it not be rehomed? As she stated, such a dog can be rehomed if its owner dies, but not if it goes into a rescue centre either because it was left to stray or its owner could no longer look after it. I am sure that the Minister, being a very sympathetic and thoughtful man, will give that due consideration, because that is an anomaly. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

This is an unfortunate situation, which is surely simple to resolve. The Government have the opportunity to improve the lives of these innocent animals. Our report called on the Government to avoid imposing an unnecessary death sentence on good-tempered animals. We therefore call on the Government to remove the ban on transferring section 1 dogs to new owners. That simple amendment could be accompanied by adequate checks and balances at animal rescue centres and appropriate safeguards to ensure that the rehoming of section 1 dogs is conducted responsibly and safely. They say, “It’s a dog’s life,” but in this case it really is. Good-natured dogs are being killed under section 1 of the 1991 Act. I understand that they have to be rehomed carefully, but if a dog can be rehomed after somebody dies, why can it not be rehomed when it has been brought in for other reasons? Two dogs could have the same temperament, but one would be destroyed and the other rehomed.

The Government’s response noted that

“it would be irresponsible to amend the breed ban immediately without adequate safeguards”

and stated that the prohibition

“should remain in place for reasons of maintaining public safety.”

When we began looking at the matter, I originally thought that the Committee would call for the repeal of the breed-specific legislation. However, we fell short of that because, although 80% of dog bites and attacks come from dogs outside those specific breeds, the number of pit bull type dogs that bite is quite high given their total number. We therefore do need to have legislation in place regarding those dogs, but it has to be fairly administered.

What we want is for the legislation to be amended. Unfortunately, the Government told us that they do

“not consider that it is a priority to amend legislation at this time.”

We understand that any change in the law would have to consider the implications for public safety, the potential increased burden on the courts, and the extra work for rescue and rehoming centres. The Committee was clear that any amendments to the legislation would need sensible safeguards to be put in place to protect the public. However, those are achievable goals. Too often in politics we are faced with what appear to be insurmountable problems—heaven knows we are at the moment—but this is not one of them. This problem can be sorted. A simple change to the law would ensure that a good-natured dog, such as the one that I saw, could be kept safely. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to reconsider the Government’s position.

From looking at evidence against breed-specific legislation during our inquiry, the Committee was not convinced that there was enough independent evidence to justify the current approach to controlling dangerous dogs—something that we all want to see done more effectively. It was clear to us that, in order to do that, DEFRA needed more information. One of our key report recommendations was that

“the Government should commission an independent review of the effectiveness of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and wider dog control legislation… We expect this review to take account of the concerns and recommendations raised throughout this Report.”

Particular breeds are potentially very dangerous, but they account for only 20% of the bites and attacks. The Government need to review how we protect workers and others who enter homes where there may be other dogs that are potentially dangerous. Just sticking to the four breeds on the dangerous dogs list is not working.

Our second recommendation was:

“Defra should commission a comprehensive independent evidence review into the factors behind canine aggression, the determinants of risk, and whether the banned breeds pose an inherently greater threat… These results must then be used to inform the Government’s future dog control strategy.”

Any dog can bite, but the larger the dog, the more chance of the attack being a vicious one. Should we therefore ban every large dog that we come across? The answer is that of course we will not. In that case, do not just pick on particular breeds.

We were pleased that in their response to the Committee’s report the Government committed to commissioning research to review the effectiveness of current dog control measures. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to give a timescale for that. In November 2018, DEFRA commissioned Middlesex University to conduct research to assess the effectiveness of current dog control measures, and to identify and examine the causes of dog attacks, how to address dog behaviour problems, how policy might need to develop, and how to promote responsible dog ownership.

DEFRA committed to updating the Committee “later this year”—I wonder how late in 2019 that might be. I welcome the excellent news, but we cannot let the Government off the leash too quickly—sorry for that one. I ask the Minister to give us more details today about the review that he has commissioned of the dog control measures. What are its terms of reference, when will it be completed and who will be consulted? Will it examine whether the current Dangerous Dogs Act is fit for purpose?

There is much work to be done to create a truly fair system. I assure the Minister that the Committee will follow progress closely, and I promise that we will co-operate in any way to make the situation better. There needs to be more focus on the owner, not the breed. The destruction of a dog based purely on its breed is cruel and often unnecessary.

My second theme is trepidation. Although the Government’s response recognises the importance of improving the identification and control of dangerous dogs, they have so far lacked the confidence to take any decisive action. A degree of trepidation is understandable—some might even call it wise. It is always difficult when a dog is of good temperament but a potentially dangerous breed, because it might turn. When a dog turns after being allowed to live, there is always a big inquiry. I understand the trepidation and even have some sympathy for the Minister, but I still think that we need to take action.

No one wants to make the situation worse. The Metropolitan police told us that they would be open to a new approach to addressing dangerous dogs, but they stressed the importance of having a full system in place before any of the legislation is amended. Things are difficult for the police under the current legislation, because when they inspect a dog at Battersea, Blue Cross or any of the rescue centres that do good work, they have to decide whether it is of good temperament; if they say it is, but then it bites somebody, the responsibility will come back on them. That is why it is so important that the re-homing of these dogs be proper and thorough.

Our inquiry heard compelling evidence from the RSPCA and animal behaviourists, who argued that dogs should be judged by deed, not breed. The Government must do more to recognise in legislation the temperament of the dog. We also know that human safety is paramount, so we need effective dog control measures that focus on the deed, not the breed—I repeat that 80% of dog attacks are not carried out by any of the four dangerous dog breeds—and put reasonable safeguards in place for dogs that are judged to be dangerous. I emphasise that such measures need to address dangerous owners as effectively as they address dangerous dogs. Dogs are not born dangerous; they are made dangerous by not being cared for, and sometimes by actually being brutalised. Sometimes we do not recognise that enough.

That brings me to my final theme: education. A common theme throughout our inquiry was the need for a fundamental shift towards a more holistic approach to dog control that prioritises prevention through education, responsible ownership and early intervention. Witnesses from animal welfare charities felt that existing efforts fall short of what is required, and they called on the Government to develop a new approach—a call that our report echoes. It is clear to us from the evidence that human factors play a prominent role prior to the majority of dog attacks and that any systematic attempt to reduce the number of incidents needs to place a greater emphasis on education.

There are now charities that take dogs into schools, particularly primary schools. That should be encouraged, because some children do not have access to dogs and do not know how to handle them; they may approach them too quickly, grab their tail and ears or do things that they think are fine but that make the dog react badly. Unfortunately, there are some homes in which dogs are treated cruelly, but the charities that go into schools can make a real difference by showing children how dogs should be properly treated.

There is no requirement for schools to make use of the readily available materials on dog safety. That is a missed opportunity. Although education is not the Minister’s responsibility, I know that DEFRA works with the Department for Education and I think more could be done. Young children are at the greatest risk of dog attacks, and many suffer injuries that are horrific and in some cases avoidable. That is unacceptable, when education could help to prevent such life-changing injuries. I accept that we can never stop all dog bites, but we must do all we can to reduce the number of avoidable incidents. Teaching children how to stay safe around dogs is essential to that.

Our report further notes:

“A consistent approach is needed across the country to avoid the current post-code lottery of intervention.”

Naturally, resource implications differ among councils. Some councillors, of whichever political party, may feel that dealing with stray or potentially dangerous dogs is an essential part of a council’s work, while others may not feel the same. That inconsistency needs to be addressed.

Our witnesses told us that targeted initiatives to educate children on safe human-dog interactions are key. Some of them advocated adding such information to mandatory childhood education. The RSPCA said that having a Government policy would avoid the

“piecemeal and sometimes duplicated approach”

that is currently being delivered by the charitable sector across the country. Our report therefore calls on DEFRA to

“commission a childhood education plan from experts and charities to determine the most effective education measures and how these could be implemented consistently across the country.”

We also concluded, based on the wide-ranging evidence we received, that DEFRA

“should introduce a targeted awareness campaign to inform dog owners and the general public about responsible ownership and safe interactions.”

Most people who have dogs are good owners who know how to handle them, but there are some who choose to treat them badly. There are also some who, because of a lack of education, just do not have the ability to look after their dogs properly. Those are the people who need our help.

We recommend that DEFRA

“should further develop proposals to help local enforcement bodies increase engagement among hard to reach demographics. This should involve a thorough assessment of the merits of mandatory third party liability insurance and training classes for dog owners.”

We were struck by the evidence that third-party insurance is not actually that expensive. It could certainly greatly help to compensate workers and others who are bitten. Responsible owners act responsibly. We need to reach out to those who are not responsible.

The Government’s response stated that they

“will develop a plan of action with stakeholders on the most effective way to reach children across the country”.

I am aware that the new Minister is keen to bring sensible change in this area. I and the Committee will very much support his endeavours. Will he update us on the progress that the Department has made since January? The sooner we teach children how to be safe with dogs, the better. We could save a life. We could save many lives. It is worth taking action.

With young children at risk of serious injury, Ministers should support wider dog awareness training for schoolchildren. The report recommended a targeted awareness campaign for dog owners and the general public on dog safety. New dog control legislation should be introduced to consolidate the existing patchwork of legislation, with dedicated dog control notices to allow for early intervention in incidents. All dogs can be dangerous, and we cannot ban all dogs that might one day bite someone, but we can take every sensible step to ensure that the law and Government policy is fit for purpose and effective. That means recognising the threat and dealing with it comprehensively.

The Government’s current strategy for tackling dangerous dogs is well intentioned, but in some cases misguided. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and that DEFRA’s policy will be revised so that it is truly fit for purpose. I hope to meet the Minister and charities to facilitate a way forward, and to look at ways that a dog can be rehomed when the owner can no longer look after it. I do not want to hound the Minister, but we really need to see some action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The House has made clear the basis on which it would be prepared to accept the deal negotiated with the European Union, and that will necessitate some changes to the backstop arrangements. That is what is being negotiated at the moment and it will come back to the House in due course.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

17. This country’s public sector institutions spend £1 billion a year on food, and there have been many warnings that food price inflation in the event of a no-deal Brexit will make that unaffordable. What is the Minister doing to protect not just jobs in the food sector, but the people who depend on those meals?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is right to raise an issue that relates to our tariff policy in the event of a no-deal Brexit. We have made it clear that we will carefully balance this, protecting consumers from unwanted price rises at the same time as using our tariff policy to provide appropriate protection to vital elements of the economy.

No-deal EU Exit: Public Sector Catering

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is the worry. As Bidfood worked out, the cost will have to go up by 69p a child just to stand still. In areas that are trying to keep the price as low as possible, that initiative disappears, but in other areas that are already paying £2.30 or £2.40, what will happen? Parents cannot afford to pay much more than that, so the quality of the food, children’s health and the health of the 10.5 million people who rely on this food every day will suffer as a consequence.

If the Government do not cover the shortfall, menus may have to be reduced so that providers do not overspend. As my hon. Friend has just said, that will compromise the nutritional value of the meals given to service users. An increase in the costs of public sector meals could therefore see an increase in poverty, childhood obesity and malnutrition in hospitals and care homes, which could have serious implications for the health and wellbeing of service users.

The affordability of food post Brexit, especially in the event of no deal, is an incredibly alarming issue. That is the case for all our constituents, but even more so for those who rely on public sector catering for their food. General food shortages due to panic buying or an impact on deliveries due to fuel shortages are of particular concern, especially for public sector catering in hospitals and care homes. The Government should communicate openly and factually about the food challenges ahead and encourage the food industry, caterers, institutions and organisations to do so too.

One person wrote to me to say that the Government had given them

“no real guidance, other than to stockpile food”.

One local authority caterer told Food for Life that it had invested more than £1 million in stockpiling ingredients, including 250 tonnes of meat. However, the caterer is concerned, as that food will only last for a short period. Not every caterer has the capacity to stockpile food. What advice have the Government given to suppliers and caterers? Is advice being updated clearly and regularly?

The Federation of Wholesale Distributors has expressed concern about the continuity of food supplies to schools and hospitals in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It has suggested that food supplies should be triaged and prioritised for those most in need, but that could happen only with Government intervention. Is that something the Minister has considered? Concerns have also been raised with me about products being diverted to more lucrative customers, rather than being prioritised for vulnerable people. Will the Minister address that point too?

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 does not deal directly with food—probably nobody ever thought that we would be in this position—and nor does it identify responsible agencies with a food remit. Has the Minister had any conversations with his Government colleagues about including food in the 2004 Act, particularly for vulnerable people?

The meals distributed in schools, universities, hospitals, care homes and prisons each day are crucial to those who eat them. Caterers are already beginning to remove higher quality produce from menus, with some school caterers considering a move from hot food to cold meals. That could result in a reduction in the nutritional value of meals, which would be detrimental to children or to service users in the case of the other provisions.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend does amazing work on schools through the all-party parliamentary group, and through the children’s future food inquiry, which I am pleased to be involved in. She will know that there is real concern about children living in food poverty. Indeed, the Food Foundation assessed towards the end of last year that around 3.7 million children are living in households that would have to spend 42% of their annual income to meet the guidance of the “eatwell plate”. That is simply unaffordable and if food prices rocket because of Brexit, it will become even more so. Does she share my concern that we are reaching crisis point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is another very good point. Often, those who supply local authority caterers are some of the best for supplying food banks and FareShare. When they have to trim and trim again, that will be one of the charitable aspects of their operations that will sadly have to go. Again, that will have a knock-on effect on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend is being very generous. I am involved in something called Feeding Bristol, which is an offshoot of Feeding Britain—an organisation that aims to eradicate food poverty. We were discussing this matter at a meeting last week. Food prices going up will create an affordability issue, and if people stockpile and panic-buy food and the supermarkets run dry, donated food to hostels and food banks will dry up completely. Not only will people be more likely to have to go to food banks because they will be unable to afford food—and they might not be getting such good quality food through public sector catering—but food banks will run out as well.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I hope that the Minister acknowledges the picture being painted of the potential knock-on effects. I appreciate that this is the worst-case scenario—a no-deal, catastrophe scenario—but, given that there is no deal on the table that the majority of the House can vote for, a responsible Parliament has to prepare for it. These doomsday scenarios could become the reality for many people’s lives, despite none of us in this room wanting that to happen.

Does the Minister share my concern about a reduction in the safety and nutritional quality of food served to those using public sector catering, especially given that those meals are, as we have heard, the main source of nutrition for millions of people—10.5 million people, day in and day out, up and down the country? Equally, public sector caterers must provide food that meets specific health or cultural needs, such as kosher, gluten-free, vegetarian or allergy-specific food. There are many other examples. For some, it could be a matter of life or death. For others, a failure to provide nutritionally complete meals would slow down their recovery and increase the risk of malnutrition, or result in a deficiency in other nutritional values.

I received a message from the National Association of Care Catering that reads:

“We have 60 plus residents in our home, so have to provide 60 meals three times a day, with the average age of 86, how do we ensure regular supply?”

That is of great concern across the industry. Even where contingencies can be made, it may involve people eating very bland or repetitive menus, which I know goes against the entire ethos of public sector catering.

Finally, the workforce are crucial to public sector catering. Have the Government engaged with the catering sector to understand the challenges that a disorderly Brexit might pose to its workforce and services? The public sector employs a considerable number of EU nationals, and I am told that some are already returning home. The threat of a no-deal Brexit will only make the situation worse, thereby posing a threat to the services that the sector provides, and having an impact on safety.

Although new members of staff can, of course, be recruited, it takes time and money to train them. A workforce gap in the event of a no-deal Brexit would limit the effectiveness of public sector catering, which is already facing all the challenges that I have highlighted. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the public sector catering workforce are trained, equipped and funded to provide vital services in the event of no deal?

Public sector catering is fundamental to the care provided in schools, universities, hospitals, care homes and prisons. A delay in food deliveries, an increase in the cost of food and a decrease in nutritional standards or safety could be detrimental to service users and, in some cases, a matter of life or death. When we talk about the impact of no deal on our health and wellbeing, we must also consider the availability of food to the most vulnerable in our society, which a number of my hon. Friends have spoken about.

What about those who cannot afford to stockpile or lack the capacity to do so? What about those who are in hospitals, care homes or prisons? They cannot stockpile food in their little bedside cabinet. I do not have time to discuss this issue fully now—thankfully others have mentioned it—but we must remember that a surge in food prices could mean a reduction in donations to food banks from public sector caterers, some of whom are very generous to not only food banks but to holiday provision. I know that Bidfood supports holiday clubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke in glowing terms about Bidfood’s support for her holiday clubs at the last APPG meeting. All of that will have implications for families already living in poverty.

Brexit should not be the reason that millions of people go hungry, and I hope that after the debate the Minister will have considered another aspect of a no-deal Brexit that perhaps the Government had not already considered. I hope that he will urgently relay what I have said back to his Government colleagues. In closing, I reiterate that no deal should not mean no meal. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). She is a hard act to follow, and I have had to do so twice today—I was on the Delegated Legislation Committee with her this morning.

To be perfectly honest, I had not really thought about this subject in any great depth until I was asked to sum up for the SNP in this debate. I have learned so much listening to the hon. Lady, and I congratulate her on her speech. Having now considered the issue, I realise that a worrying, appalling impact may result for the most vulnerable people in our society.

The hon. Lady talked about three main areas—cost and availability, quantity and quality of food, and workforce retention. They are all points that the Minister must take on board. I hope he will be able to reassure all of us, and the wider public, about these issues in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

I have some wonderful organisations in my constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw. My office and I run a poverty action group, which meets quarterly. The next meeting, due in the next month or so, is sure to have this issue very high on the agenda. We deal with carers and people who work in the public sector, and mainly with organisations that help the most vulnerable. It is really important to consider the point that was made about how, at present, 40% of some household budgets is spent on food. If there are food shortages, which are a possibility with a no-deal Brexit, that percentage is going to rise, and could rise significantly. That will also affect the nutritional value of what can be done in the home and in public sector catering.

North Lanarkshire is a Labour-controlled council, and I frequently comment on whether it does well or badly, according to my lights. In this case, it does a wonderful job through its running of an organisation called Club 365 that provides nutritious meals for those children in primaries 1 to 7, aged 5 to 12, who receive free school meals during the school week, at weekends and in school holidays, with the aim of ending holiday hunger. I know many Members across the Chamber have been working hard to prevent that for quite a long time.

Although there are fewer public sector care homes than there used to be—that has been forced on many local authorities—it is appalling to think that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, many older people could finish up with poorer quality meals, at a time when for many of them a hot meal is the main part of their day, especially if it is provided through meals on wheels or other similar organisations. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made a good point about food banks and other organisations that rely on donations also being affected in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The knock-on effect of a no-deal Brexit on food is quite appalling to consider. I am sure the Minister is going to reassure us that it will all be all right on the night and that there are contingency plans already prepared and that no one will go hungry, but I do not think the United Kingdom is ready to dig for victory, as it had to do in the second world war. We need to know that people will still be able to access nutritious, fresh food. Perishable food being held up at channel ports does not bear thinking about.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The point about perishable food being held up at ports is really important. I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fruit and vegetable farmers. We have heard such scare stories, but they are not scare stories, because they are rooted in reality. This is a combination of two things. About 90% of our mushrooms now come from Poland because it is cheaper to grow them there, and those products will be held up at ports, and, obviously, they go off very quickly. There is also a real shortage of workers to pick the fresh fruit and veg in this country now. A crisis is looming—the fruit and veg farmers have been warning of it for a long time. We may find that even though food might be growing in plentiful quantities, it will still be rotting in the fields.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Only last summer in Angus in Scotland, many fruit farms could not recruit the workers who traditionally came from EU countries and a lot of the fruit lay rotting in the fields. This is a really serious issue.

This is perhaps slightly off key—I apologise, Mr Hollobone. I was thinking of EU nationals and public service catering, and I like to think that I provide a public service in being a Member of Parliament! I started to look around at the number of people who were serving me. So many of them are EU nationals, but because of the almost hostile environment—there is a current story in Scotland of a woman who has been here for 47 years and does not understand why she has to register because this is her home; what else is she going to do?—there are real difficulties for the many EU nationals who are here and who might stay and register. In Scotland, they are very welcome. There will also be many who are completely put off even thinking about coming to work here.

For example, so many EU nationals work in care homes. It is all very well for the Government to say that those jobs could be done by UK citizens, but they are not being done by UK citizens. I do not think that anyone is going to suddenly change their mind and make a career in catering or in care homes, just because there is a job available.

I hope the Minister is able to answer some of the fears that have been expressed here today. Leaving with no deal is a serious and worrying prospect. The SNP is against the United Kingdom exiting the EU, but nevertheless we put forward suggestions on how compromises could be made so that there would not be such a brutal disruption to life in this country after we leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate, for her contribution and for all the hard work she does in Parliament on these and related matters.

Let me reassure hon. Members that the continued provision of nutritious, high-quality and safe food in the public sector is a top priority for Departments across Government and for the devolved Administrations. I shall go on to explain the steps that are being taken to ensure that is the case. The best way to avoid a no-deal exit is to secure a deal, and hon. Members will have an opportunity to have our say on that next week. Securing a deal with the EU remains the Government’s top priority. However, as a responsible Government we have a responsibility to actively prepare for the possibility of a no-deal exit and to look at other scenarios as well, as has been recognised by Members of different parties in this debate.

We have a highly resilient food supply chain in the UK, with access to a range of sources of food. That will continue whether we leave the EU with or without a deal. There would continue to be an adequate supply of food to ensure people continue to have a balanced diet. The food industry in the UK is highly diverse, competitive and well versed in dealing with scenarios that can affect food supply, from adverse weather damaging crops in other countries to transport issues abroad. It is a resilient sector.

Prior to this life, I used to run Asda’s home shopping business. As a Minister, I work with the industry and attend high-level meetings with representatives every week—I will do so after this debate—to ensure that we are prepared for any eventuality. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been contributing to cross-Government contingency planning, which has involved working with the food industry to understand the potential impacts of a no-deal scenario and to support such planning by the industry.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) asked about contingency planning, and I can assure him that there is a lot of it going on. We are working very closely with industry, which has led most of the contingency planning—we are providing support and direction. The industry has the expertise and capacity to help ensure that we minimise any potential disruption to supply.

We have been working through various forums, including DEFRA’s long-standing food chain emergency liaison group, which has been through many experiences in the past. As a result of extensive engagement with the food industry and cross-Government discussions, as previously stated, in a worst-case no-deal scenario consumers and businesses will continue to have access to a wide range of food products. We are working to mitigate possible disruption in availability and choice of certain seasonal products in that case, which I think it is fair to say would indeed be a worst-case scenario.

DEFRA is working with the Department for Transport and with industry to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal scenario, goods can continue to be transported on existing trade routes, including across the Dover straits, as quickly as possible. That includes securing extra freight capacity across the English channel, and ensuring a functioning customs, VAT and excise system from day one, to facilitate the flow of goods. To have that consistent supply is vital.

We are working closely with the industry and across Government through the border delivery group—a co-ordinated effort across Government to tackle that vital issue. We have also been working with the Cabinet Office and lead Departments in their work to ensure the resilience of food supply in public sector settings, including schools, hospitals and social care settings, as well as prisons and the military. Some of those have been mentioned in the debate. The lead Departments include the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence. We have been working flat out to ensure that we have robust contingency plans in place for public sector food provision. We are reviewing catering services and contracts and have engaged with providers of food, such as hospital trusts and schools, to identify the risks and contingency measures for their sectors.

That has included working closely with catering suppliers to ensure that contingency plans are in place. Suppliers have been looking at a variety of contingency measures to ensure the continued provision of food that meets standards—for example, looking at alternative suppliers and adjusting menus in line with product availability while continuing to meet school and hospital food standards. It is vital to continue to meet the requirements of those standards. Lead Departments are confident that the public will continue to receive nutritious meals in public sector settings. If time permits, I will go into some more detail about the various sectors.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked about prioritising between public and private sectors. In the contingency plan, we want to ensure that food is available to all sectors but, as he rightly stated, for many public sector services and vulnerable groups we need to ensure food provision. We believe that, even in a worst case scenario, customers will continue to have access to a broad range of food, and that will extend to those services as well. Different choices of food types might be necessary, but there will be enough food to ensure the balanced diet that people need.

Another question was about food prices. Clearly the best way to ensure against any impact on food prices is to get the deal, but in a no-deal scenario it is again to minimise the disruption to food supply. We therefore need to work across Government to find ways of ensuring that the food supply is available. DEFRA officials are working with the DFT to find ways over potential hurdles and challenges to ensure that continuity of supply. As we do that, we will ensure that any potential price rises are kept to a minimum, and of course we have mechanisms in place to help those who are most needy if prices were to rise significantly. Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions are aware of the potential impacts, and we are working with them on that. I hope that addresses some of the concerns expressed today.

Moving on to the Department for Education and schools in particular, a number of points were made about schools. The DFE is confident that schools will continue to be able to provide pupils with nutritious school meals no matter what the outcome of EU exit is. It expects schools still to meet the school food standards in a no-deal scenario. Schools have a great deal of flexibility in the foods that they can deliver under those standards. If a particular product is not readily available for any reason, the standards allow schools a wide range of freedoms to substitute similar foods that are available.

In January, the Department for Education published a technical notice on no-deal preparations for schools in England, including information on food supplies. The DFE is also engaging with leading school food suppliers, local authorities and schools as part of its preparations. We will continue to monitor that and work with the Department.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked about school meals. Schools and their suppliers have considerable freedom to source food that offers the best value for money. When considering the potential for any price rises, it is important to note that the UK has a high level of food security built into a diverse range of sources, including strong domestic production and imports from other countries, as I said before. We do not envisage a scenario in which the Government would need to provide additional funding to support schools with rising food costs, for the reason I set out earlier: the UK has a high level of food security. We are confident that schools, colleges and other settings will continue to be able to provide pupils with nutritious school meals whatever the outcome of Brexit.

Another hon. Member asked about the Civil Contingencies Act. It does cover food supply, but it is designed for a national emergency. In a worst case Brexit scenario, we do not believe that overall food shortages would be such that it is necessary to invoke the Act. In the scenarios that we are working to, that would not be required. None the less, as I have said several times, we are working with and speaking to colleagues across Government to minimise disruption and to consider the possible impacts on vulnerable groups.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned the potential impact on food banks. Again, we do not expect overall shortages of food, but we speak regularly to retailers—in fact, I will be speaking with a group of them after the debate, so I can re-emphasise concerns expressed in this Chamber—and our aim is to ensure that we can continue the food supply so that consumers do not need to alter their shopping patterns.

The hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) mentioned watering down standards. The hon. Member for Bristol East holds my feet to the fire on this issue regularly, and she has a consistent record on it across Government. We respect her views—no question—and she knows that, but it is important to recognise that, no matter the future challenges, there are also opportunities. However, we do not want to see the watering down of food standards in any way. I think she is aware that protections are in place as far as chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef are concerned—I cannot resist mentioning that.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister is appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee tomorrow afternoon, so he can expect a little more of that treatment then.

[David Rutley]

I look forward to it with glee. I am sure that I will get more of that treatment. We can talk in more detail then, but I hope the hon. Lady understands the reassurances given consistently in various settings in the House.

I will move on to health and social care. The DHSC is confident that its contingency plans for ensuring the seamless supply of products and services after we leave the EU are comprehensive and robust, and that food supply for patients will be protected in a no-deal scenario. The Department is working with food providers and suppliers to understand their contingency planning and mitigation activities. That work covers both social care and NHS providers.

The DHSC is working closely with Public Health England and nutritional specialists to ensure that nutritional standards are maintained in hospitals and care homes. Standard guidelines are being finalised for health and adult social care providers to support the continued provision of a balanced diet, in line with the Government’s “eatwell” guide. The DHSC is also working to ensure that it has the necessary resources and contingencies in place to continue to protect patients and to have uninterrupted supplies of any specialist nutritional products, including infant formula. It is important to note that, because a lot of the focus has been on ensuring the continued supply of vital medicines—or vet meds, for that matter—but we will also protect key nutritional products such as infant formula.

We are working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that local authorities are able to support vulnerable people such as the elderly and vulnerable families. Hon. Members are probably aware that we are working very actively with local resilience forums. Local authorities need to work with their local resilience forums to plan and prepare for localised incidents, identify potential risks and produce emergency plans to prevent or mitigate the impact of any incident on their local communities. We are doing that at a local level. We meet regularly with key contacts in LRFs to share intelligence on the impacts that a no-deal EU exit would have on local areas. DEFRA and MHCLG have provided advice to LRFs on food supply impacts, to support their preparedness for a no-deal exit, and particularly to consider any impacts on vulnerable groups if they should arise. We are working closely to mitigate issues with vulnerable groups at a local level.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West was assiduous in mentioning workforce retention, which is vital across Government. We rely very heavily on those citizens in many public services, and in services that are provided in the public sector for the public. I share her concern; we want to continue to make them feel welcome, whatever the scenario might be.

The Government have been clear that we will protect EU citizens’ rights, including in a no-deal scenario. All EU citizens resident in the UK by 29 March will be able to stay. They will have until 31 December 2020 to apply for settled status. We want them to feel welcome and we recognise the contribution they make. DEFRA will continue to work with the Home Office as the future immigration system is fully developed, to ensure that we have a clear strategy for those who work so hard in the food supply chain, often in critical sectors—slaughterhouses, meat processing and vets. It is uppermost in our mind.

As we leave the EU, the Government are committed to securing the best possible deal for Britain that works for farmers, food producers and consumers, and ensures strong public services. Although we do not want or expect a no deal, the Government are taking sensible measures to prepare for all scenarios.

Sport in the UK

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

Basketball is a sport that has been helped by the aspiration fund, which makes it possible to turn the dial, become medal winners and so continue to inspire. I am delighted about the fund, and I, too, pay tribute to my predecessor.

I was talking about harder-to-reach groups, and some of those have just been described. We want more women; more black, Asian and minority ethnic women and men; and more disabled people taking part in sport, as well as those who might have a hard time finding the cash for exercise and wellbeing. We want everyone to have the opportunity to take part, including those who struggle to find a family activity that they enjoy—we have heard about that this evening as well. These are often the people facing the biggest hurdles to being active, and they are the people we need to support most. I want to tackle those hurdles and make sport fun.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the work being done by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association not only with seniors—I think I qualify as a senior, but then so does Ronnie O’Sullivan—but with people with disabilities, particularly people with autism? Despite that, Sport England does not give snooker any funding. It gives a lot of money to bowls, archery and angling but none to snooker. Would she be prepared to look at that?

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Lady makes a great point. We need to work with Sport England to reach everyone who can take part in sport in whatever way possible. I was lucky enough recently to speak at an event marking the 30th anniversary of the Paralympics, and it made me think of my young children, who do not see any barriers to participation because of London 2012, which changed so much. It is absolutely right that where there is an opportunity for people to take part in sport we give them that opportunity. That is the focus of my speech this evening.

Fashion Industry

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend, who is also an enthusiastic participant in this inquiry. I had to do a bit of convincing, but this has been quite a revelation for us as a Committee. To have a nil response from Kurt Geiger is extraordinary. It is not too late for it to give us its response. I hope it will listen—its public relations firm is probably writing it a desperate note at the moment—and I hope its chief executive will take this issue on board. I will make one other point to the House. This House passed the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is not clear to me which brands have or have not submitted modern slavery statements. I hope journalists listening to this debate do their own research into that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Trying to make ethical choices as a consumer can be really difficult, whether for food or fashion. I must admit that after sitting through one session I came to the conclusion that we would all be walking around in brown paper bags—recycled paper, of course—because there seems to be a problem with almost every type of clothing. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the onus cannot just be on the consumer to shop around? We must require manufacturers and retailers to step up to the mark and make sure that what they put on the market is ethically sourced, whether it be in terms of labour, materials or the way they treat their workers and so on.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for her incredibly dedicated leadership in the Committee, particularly on food waste on which she is a real national expert. She is right that it is impossible for the consumer to pick their way through this situation. The supply chains need to be guaranteed by retailers right down to farm level. That is very difficult because cotton is a global commodity. We heard that some retailers are attempting to do that by working with small-scale cotton traders. We live in a digital world where we have blockchain sustainability and sourcing. Some supermarkets can tell us more about the sourcing in their sausage supply chain—the factories and the abattoirs where their animals were killed—than they can about the lives of the women and in some cases the children working in factories. The International Labour Organisation definition of a child is someone under 15. There are 15 and 16-year-olds working in factories to make our children’s clothes. I want much more transparency in the fashion supply chain, so there is a real movement towards people having an answer to the question of who made their clothes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

That is one of the reasons—rising demand—that we have put extra money into the NHS: up to £20 billion per year. But as part of the spending review we will be looking across the board to make sure that services are integrated and we are investing to get the best possible results for people.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

9. What plans he has to tackle child poverty.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

We are working to tackle the root causes of poverty by getting people into work and giving children the best possible education. A record number of children are now in working households and there are 630,000 fewer children in workless households than there were in 2010.

[Kerry McCarthy]

A number of Members have been involved in the children’s future food inquiry, and we have heard some shocking stories recently about children going to school hungry, packed lunches consisting of maybe two slices of white bread with nothing in between and worse stories. What is the Treasury doing to help the UK to meet the sustainable development goal on zero hunger because it seems at the moment that it is doing very little?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I point out to the hon. Lady that 1 million fewer people are now in absolute poverty than in 2010, including 300,000 fewer children, but of course we continue to look at the best way to help children in school—I know that the Department for Education is looking at this—to make sure that children are properly nourished.

Draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

[John Glen]

As I say, text messages are not the subject of these regulations, which relate to the PECR. I am relying on box notes to clarify the point. I will have to take this away and write to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the specific example that he has raised, and I will not leave him in any ambiguity on that point. Currently, my understanding is that one cannot opt in to receive cold calling by text message, but I will write to him as soon as I can on that matter.

The hon. Member for Oxford East raised issues relating to the ICO and the FCA. I will not rehearse those points again, as we have already have discussed them, but I will respond to the concern about the effectiveness of the ICO as an enforcement body. The ICO will enforce restrictions on unsolicited electronic direct marketing under PECR, and it is appropriate that the planned ban is enforced through that existing framework. As we have discussed, the ICO has tough enforcement powers, including a fine of up to £500,000. There would be a risk of confusing consumers and industry if we had different cold calling enforcement regimes for different sectors. If the Committee agrees to introduce the ban, the FCA will work closely with the ICO where breaches of the rules by FCA-authorised firms are identified and, crucially, the ICO will be able to enforce bans on introducers that are outside the FCA’s remit, because they are not FCA-authorised firms.

The hon. Member for Oxford East also talked about the telephone preference service. This statutory instrument would change it from an opt-out to an opt-in regime, which makes restrictions on pensions cold calling much tighter. In addition, although not all consumers are aware of the TPS, those listed on it would still be protected by the ban.

The ICO’s guidance is indeed clear that consent under PECR is to be understood in accordance with GDPR. Although the FCA is not prohibiting the use of personal data collected by third parties through cold calling, the Government and the FCA will keep the proposal under review as the effectiveness of the ban is monitored. An authorised firm that accepts business from an introducer must meet the FCA’s regulatory requirements, including carrying out due diligence on the introducers they transact with. If customers are given unsuitable advice by an introducer, the authorised firm may be held responsible and subject to regulatory action. The FCA has alerted investment advisers and authorised firms to their responsibilities when accepting business from unauthorised introducers or lead generators. Organisations are already required to process or handle personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR.

I assure the hon. Members for Oxford East and for North Ayrshire and Arran, and the Committee as a whole, that the Government are engaged in an ongoing process. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not “job done”. I recognise that there are a range of concerns from consumer organisations and different parts of the industry about whether further restrictions or bans should be in place. One of the reasons for the draft instrument is that, in future, we can introduce additional restrictions more speedily should they be required.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On a slightly different topic, in 2015, a constituent of mine, 92-year-old Olive Cook, committed suicide by throwing herself over the Avon gorge. That hit the national headlines because she had been inundated with calls from charities. She was on the databases of 99 different charities, and a lot of them would trade in her details. To stop cold calling now, has the Minister considered the lessons that we tried to learn and the work of the Charity Commission to try to stop cold calling following that incident?

[John Glen]

I am extremely sorry to be reminded of that case. The regulations introduce a ban on pensions cold calling, but I would be happy to look into the matter and see what the collective conclusion of Government was on that particular case and its implications. I am happy to examine that in the context of my previous remarks.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about a more comprehensive cold calling ban. As I tried to indicate, pensions cold calling is a special case where levels of consumer detriment are particularly high. The Government are committed to taking action. I accept that, for some, action has not been taken as quickly as it could have been, but a balance has to be struck between ensuring that consumers are adequately protected and providing the right conditions for legitimate direct marketing industry to operate.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I thank the Members staying for my Adjournment debate this evening at the early hour of 11 pm.

For those of us who like to be clear about definitions, I should start by making it clear that my Adjournment debate today is on intensive farming operations in the United Kingdom. I say this because concentrated animal feeding operations has a legal definition that is used in the United States but is also relevant to this debate. In the United States, concentrated animal feeding operations describe farms over a certain size that farm animals in extreme confinement. We do not have an equivalent definition in the United Kingdom, but we do have intensive farming of animals, which is defined by the Environment Agency as a farm housing at least 40,000 birds or 2,000 pigs. This form of intensive farming increased in the UK by a quarter in the six years running up to 2017.

As reported in The Guardian newspaper, a recent investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that we now have a large number of intensive farming operations in the UK, many of which would meet the definition of concentrated animal feeding operations used in the United States. These so-called megafarms have at least 125,000 birds for meat, or 82,000 birds for eggs, 2,500 pigs, 700 dairy cattle or 1,000 beef cattle. We now have 789 megafarms in the UK, according to that investigation.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We know that there are many more megafarms in the United States. Does my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour share my concern that if we open our markets to lower-standard imports from the US post Brexit, our farmers will feel that they have no choice but to move to megafarming in order to compete on price?

[Darren Jones]

I agree entirely. I do not think British consumers will accept that position, not least because they enjoy the high-quality standards that we expect of many of our food producers in the UK. If that is exerting a pressure on home-grown produce, they will not accept it either.

Seven of the 10 largest poultry farms in this country already have a capacity to house more than 1 million birds, with the biggest farm holding up to 23,000 pigs and the largest cattle farm 3,000 cattle. These are all numbers, but to give an example to the House, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism study showed that a megafarm in Herefordshire had four 110-metre by 20-metre industrial warehouses, each with 42,000 chickens in them. There were so many chickens in these warehouses that the journalists could not see the floor. These chickens live for only a short period, and the process is repeated up to eight times each year, so that is a turnover of over 1 million birds every year in these confined settings.

These conditions are bad for animals and bad for our food. Confinement can lead to the stress-related death of animals; self-mutilation of animals due to mental health conditions; ulcerated feet, breast blisters and hock burns due to ammonia-filled litter; sudden death syndrome from unnaturally quick growth; foot and leg damage from slated or concrete floors; and in the case of lots of dairy cows, bacterial infection, mastitis, anaemia, stomach ulcers and chronic diarrhoea. These are not things consumers wish to have associated with the food they eat. As a consequence, I will be writing to Tesco, Sainsbury, the Co-operative, Marks and Spencer, Morrisons, Asda, McDonald’s and Nando’s, all of which, I am told, buy the products I am talking about for their customers.

These stressful, illness-inducing environments also lead to the excessive use of antibiotics in animal feed and water to try to limit the risk of disease from intensive farming settings. According to Compassion in World Farming, there is strong evidence that the overuse of antibiotics in animals is contributing to the antibiotic resistance we are now seeing in human medicine—something this country is, thankfully, working hard to try to prevent.

To make matters worse, these extreme farming conditions can lead animals to become stressed. Again, that is bad for food, but it is also bad for animals. I am told that stress-induced aggressive animal behaviours have led to chickens being de-beaked, which involves a hot blade cutting through a bird’s beak, bone and soft tissue. Chicken toes are also removed to discourage fighting, and the tails of pigs and cows are removed to prevent tail biting. Again, these are conditions I am sure many British consumers would not want associated with the food on their plates.

However, this is not just about the quality of food or the quality of animal welfare; it is also about the environment and our efforts at tackling climate change. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said we have 12 years to limit post-industrial levels of world temperature growth to 1.5° C—the subject of a separate debate I will be leading at 9.30 tomorrow morning in Westminster Hall.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on the detail of that, but I assure him that we have no desire at all to water down our standards. Talk of importing hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken is not where we want to go and it will not be contemplated in any of the trade deals that we have going forward. If he wants to explore that in more detail, I will gladly get into that level of detail.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I appreciate that the Minister is not the farming Minister, but when we tried to introduce a non-regression clause in the Trade Bill, we were told that it was not the place for it. We are now trying to introduce it in the Agriculture Bill, and we are being told that the place for it is the Trade Bill. We need something enshrined in legislation, rather than just the warm words of Ministers, to say that we will not accept imports with lower standards than those required from our farmers in the UK. Does the Minister agree?

[David Rutley]

As I said, I will come back on those technical points, but there is no attempt or desire across whichever piece of legislation to water down standards. I have been very clear on that in other debates and I am very clear on it here as well. I will come back to the hon. Members on the points that they have raised.

Other points were raised about labelling and marketing terms. We will look at ways in which we can ensure that consumers have a clearer understanding of the animal welfare standards applying to products. Terms such as “free range” for poultry and eggs are already enshrined in law, but other such as “pasture-fed” or “outdoor-reared” rely on voluntary agreements for their use. It is important that consumers have complete confidence in the way that these terms are used and that their use is clear and consistent. We will therefore review, after we leave the EU, the use of these terms to build consumer knowledge and confidence in these terms and concepts. Leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to shape the future of our farming industry and to help our farmers to grow and sell more world-class food, but as I have said, we will not compromise on the high animal welfare or environmental standards, and we will always protect our proud and varied farming traditions.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West made an important point about antimicrobial resistance. Another example of the UK agriculture sector’s responsible approach to food production is its recent concerted efforts and action against the globally recognised threat of antimicrobial resistance. Last month, the Government published a report showing a reduction for the fourth year in a row in the sales of veterinary antibiotics. This has brought us to a 40% reduction in veterinary antibiotic sales over the course of the UK five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy, with levels now the lowest that we have seen since we started recording them in the early 1990s, so real progress is being made there.

Behind this success lies close, collaborative working between the Government and the livestock sector, including the beef sector, which has developed and published targets for the reduction, refinement and replacement of antibiotics. These targets apply across the whole sector in farms of all sizes. With all that we have achieved, we want to make sure we continue to have a world-leading beef sector going forward with the right welfare standards in place, and that applies to other sectors as well.

We heard talk also of the agri-tech strategy in the years ahead. Research, development and technological innovation are key if we are to compete globally. By pioneering the use of more innovative and efficient farming techniques, we can also use our resources more sustainably and reduce the environmental impact. For example, the Centre of Innovation Excellence in Livestock, established under the 2013 agri-tech strategy, aims to support, promote and deliver industry-led innovative livestock research, a key asset being its beef grazing systems unit, which assesses feed efficiency and productivity at pasture. Our future research and development proposals will build on existing investments to enable greater take-up of innovation on farms.

We are a proud trading nation. We have talked about trade, but I want to reiterate for the record where we stand. The UK enjoys food from diverse sources of supply as well as our strong domestic production industry. There is no reason to believe that other third countries cannot meet our high standards, and this will be a condition for any market access granted as part of future trade agreements. The Government have been clear that any future trade agreements must work for consumers, farmers and businesses in the UK. I want to be clear that we will not water down our standards on food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection as part of any future trade deals.

Future reform is critical. We need to take the opportunity that being outside the common agricultural policy will give us to use public money to reward environmentally responsible land use. We know that good environmental practice, high standards of animal welfare and profitable business strategies are not mutually exclusive. We believe they run hand in hand. We will work to ensure that UK agriculture prospers for future generations by designing an approach that works for our farmers and that high environmental and animal welfare standards are a badge of quality.

The UK produces some of the best quality food in the world, and that is the basis on which we intend to sell our produce at home and abroad, promoting and enhancing the reputation of British food and drink through the Food is GREAT campaign. We now have an unprecedented opportunity to redesign our policies to ensure our agricultural industry is competitive, productive and profitable and that our environment is improved for future generations, while at the same time working to improve animal welfare, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his remarks.

We are working closely with the industry and the public to drive agricultural and environment policies. We are rightly proud of the high animal welfare standards that underpin our high-quality British produce, and we will not only maintain but work to enhance these standards through our future policy framework. Once again, I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate on such a vital subject and for conducting it in such a considered way. I look forward to working with him through correspondence and future debates—no doubt—on this vital subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Leaving the EU: Central Counterparty Clearing

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend rightly takes us to the more contemporary story about what is happening with these, because Brexit has put everything in limbo. Will these CCP operations be able to continue to service the vast majority of euro-denominated interest rate swaps or derivative products? The European Union had been developing new supervisory arrangements that would have included the UK. Brexit came along and of course those have all now been put into abeyance because the UK may be taken out of those jurisdictions. Time has ticked on and we are now five months, perhaps less, away from the moment of change, yet we still do not have any certainty about what will happen. However, we have heard various rumours.

Last week, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, highlighted £41 trillion-worth of outstanding contracts that could be forcibly voided—that could fall out of legal certainty—if we do not get some sort of arrangement put in place. Earlier in the week, EU Commissioner and Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis indicated that the EU might allow the UK CCPs after Brexit to operate on a temporary basis, with some strict conditionality. Of course we saw the report in The Times today that perhaps in the negotiations there was some sort of sense in which UK financial services companies, including these CCPs, would be able to operate on an equivalence basis, which is not as good as the arrangements we have, where we are around the table and able to make the rules on regulations. We would be a rule taker, but of course we may be allowed access to European markets—and, potentially, vice versa. The danger with that is that it is precarious and it could be switched off at a moment’s notice if policymakers fell out, for whatever reason.

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, today Commissioner Barnier poured a big old dose of cold water all over that, saying, “You should not believe everything you read in the paper.” He reiterated that it was really in the hands of the EU to decide whether equivalence continued. This would not be an ideal situation at all, and the risk is that we would need to see CCP clearing services develop rapidly in other jurisdictions in Europe. Of course the Americans will have their arrangements, but that could start to undermine the centrality of the UK. That would be a great pity, because the UK has expertise and a relatively good regulatory approach, working with our European colleagues.

So the main question I want to put to the Minister is: what is the Government’s attitude to the future, long-term, stable, permanent regulation environment? Are we going to align ourselves closely or in harmony with the EU regulatory framework for central counterparty clearing arrangements? If that is the case, it would be useful to know that that is British Government policy at this stage, because that might then enable something to be built on equivalence. We could possibly move to a position in which the UK still has a say in the regulatory arrangements.

In my view, the public should be given a chance to think again about this whole thing and, if they want, there should be a people’s vote so that the option to remain is still viable. Nothing has been decided that should prevent that from happening. If we are to leave the European Union, it would not be a good thing to do so and put all these things up in the air. We should not fragment the financial safety regulatory arrangements and potentially put businesses, jobs and livelihoods at risk.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I used to do this sort of thing for a living as a derivatives lawyer, although that is not something to which I own up very often these days. I was working in the City at the time of preparations for the millennium bug, and when the euro came in I was involved in cleaning up the mess after the Barings collapse. With the millennium bug in particular, people said afterwards that it was a big fuss about nothing and that it was totally alarmist and exaggerated for people to say that it was going to cause chaos. What they did not realise was how much work had to go on behind the scenes to make sure that that chaos did not happen. There is a real danger of complacency with situations like the current one, with people thinking that it will all sort itself out. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Leslie]

I do agree, and I do not think that the work is being done. Frankly, there should be more leadership. We are in a rudderless situation right now. We have a lot of regulators—the Bank of England, the European Securities and Markets Authority and others—but they are of course subservient to the political policy makers, and although I hope that those policy makers are apprised of these issues and know the scale, I am not that confident that they are or that it is high up their agenda. I am not sure that I have heard the Prime Minister talk about these issues, let alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that.

I shall come to an eventual conclusion by explaining why there might be a number of problems. Firms are currently discussing a lot of contracts that are not yet cleared. If we do not have the option of central counterparty clearing—in particular from the European side in respect of whether they can access London—what stability risks will be generated in those scenarios? Will we lose liquidity? If we do, will we see costs going up for businesses? When costs go up for businesses, will they be passed on to customers? That would have a drag effect on the worldwide economy.

The issue for those contracts that are already cleared—that are already in existence—is whether they will still be extant after 29 March, because if a whole load of existing contracts are in place, whether in Europe or wherever, many will have clauses that require notice to be given if their legal validity is due to expire. It could be six months or nine months, but we are now certainly coming into the period in which the holders of those contracts will have to start to give notice and to say, “We are not certain that these existing financial contracts will be viable or in place, because of the risk of falling into legal no man’s land after 29 March.” There is a clear and present risk to the stability not just of our economy or Europe’s economy, but of the worldwide economy. Although this can seem a very dry topic, everybody should stay focused on the hundreds of trillions of pounds-worth of value that might have an effect on the wider economy.

Will the Minister say what we are going to do to come to a swift conclusion—certainly within the next few weeks—on this issue? I know that the UK has made an offer to the EU to allow temporary access to UK firms. The question is obviously whether that is going to be reciprocal, but if we are to offer that, are we going to legislate for it and put that guarantee into law? That could be done right now. I really want to find out the Treasury’s plan. Do we know that the Government care and are taking an interest in the stability of the UK and EU economies, and in businesses, jobs and the livelihoods of all our constituents, who will undoubtedly be affected by this issue?

World Menopause Day

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield]

Absolutely, and I am grateful for that intervention. I will come to the matter of the medical profession in just a moment.

The report that Michelle is promoting is intended to increase understanding of symptoms and, in particular, the age at which the menopause begins. Too frequently, it is considered a condition of a certain age, which is so far from the truth. Indeed, when the symptoms start to show, we need to educate not just the general population but health providers in particular so they understand what is being presented.

Just yesterday, a colleague from the Scottish Parliament, Monica Lennon MSP, lodged a motion requesting “equal access” to the menopause clinics that exist up there. I compliment her and the unions for their work up there. They raise the issue that employers have been slow to recognise that those experiencing menopausal symptoms may need special consideration. For too long it has been a private matter. As a result, it is rarely discussed. Many managers will have no awareness of the issues involved, which means that many workers feel they have to hide their symptoms and are less likely to ask for the adjustments they need in order to work. I agree with the motion when it says that this must change. The menopause is an occupational health issue that rests on the desks of managers—male as well as female managers, and managers who are frequently younger than the person who presents before them. There needs to be education about this so that it can be dealt with sensitively but positively, as it will affect 50% of our population at some stage.

Gender equality is not just a women’s issue, it is an issue for society as a whole. We should all wish to live in a society that is fair and equitable for all. There is nothing equitable about a large proportion of our workforce being forced to suffer these health issues in silence. Women are often not comfortable disclosing these difficulties to managers, particularly if they are younger and particularly if they are male. Women still sometimes require time off work to deal with the symptoms, and many are not comfortable with disclosing the real reason for their time off, so it goes unnoticed by employers.

The menopause should be recognised as, among other things, an occupational health issue. With all due respect, employers have been far, far too slow to take on board the requirement to recognise those who are experiencing symptoms. Today is World Menopause Day and a number of things are being asked for, all of which are based on the simple hashtag that has been adopted today: #makemenopausematter. It is a simple request, and it spans schools and education, the workplace and our health professionals, who have a duty and obligation to understand the symptoms presented to them by women who are finding the menopause frightening and challenging and who often find it difficult to discuss the matter within their own families. Today is an opportunity to look at that and address the educational needs that the whole of society requires.

I stand here introducing this debate as a man, and it has to be said that it is time for men to show their solidarity and to break a taboo about talking about the menopause. I ask every man in this place, every man who is watching on and every man in the UK—let me go further and just ask all men—to be brave enough to have the guts to say, “Can you tell me? Can you explain? Will you please share?” I ask them to do that while listening with sympathy and empathy. Sadly, I am all too convinced that if the menopause affected men, it perhaps would not be the problem it is today and we would not be having this debate—it would have certainly have been first raised in this House before July 2018.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My mother has six daughters, the eldest of whom turns 55 tomorrow—happy birthday, Claire. The youngest turns 44 at the end of the month—happy birthday Aimi. I am clearly intervening just so that I can say happy birthday to my sisters in the House. I get plenty of discussion about this issue at home, but I want to thank my hon. Friend for making the point that men need to talk about it, too. He has been brave in bringing this debate forward today.

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is true that men need to discuss this, but not dominate. It is also important that they listen. I have often stood here and been critical of social media, but if we examine social media today, we see that the support for World Menopause Day out there is very positive. A huge amount of work is being done; there is a huge amount of medical and academic research, and it is good to see people drawing attention to it. Today has also been an opportunity for women to share their experiences on television, radio and social media, which in itself is a huge step forward in breaking the taboo, and it is for men to listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Yes, I completely agree. The hon. Gentleman must be psychic, because he has made a point that I was going to make. Before I do so, however, I want to speak about the workplace.

Let me pay tribute to some organisations that are doing an absolutely fantastic job in this regard. I have had quite a lot of contact with West Midlands police through various women who have championed this issue in the workplace. There is a lady called Lesley Byrne—Lesley, if you are watching, keep going! Yvonne Bruton has been running menopause awareness workshops for the police. Imagine the West Midlands police—a very male-dominated and, in many ways, traditional organisation. Female police officers are incredibly brave to say, “I have these experiences. I am not supported and I need adjustments to my working patterns.” They are working through the issues and finding ways to support their female colleagues. At the end of the day, we need good police officers and we need them to stay in the police force, to be motivated and to progress to higher levels.

That work is absolutely brilliant, and there is no reason why every single police force in the country could not talk to West Midlands police, find out what they are doing and disseminate the information among themselves. Indeed, there is no reason why other organisations cannot have a menopause policy, just as they have policies on childcare and maternity leave. It does not cost anything; it is a question of saying, “We’re here and we will listen to you if you need support.” That is my first ask.

My second ask is about education, which the hon. Member for East Lothian just spoke about so eloquently. We of course talk to young girls and boys—I presume this still happens; it is a long time since it happened to me—about puberty, periods, where babies come from and so on. We educate our young people about all those important issues to equip them for life and relationships; why can we not educate them about what happens at the end of their reproductive lives? It is very simple. I spoke to a male colleague earlier who said, “I have no personal experience of the menopause, so how can I talk about it?” I said, “Well, okay, your mother went through it,” but then we did not talk to our mothers about these sorts of things. This needs to come into the school curriculum and to be part of what schools are talking about. Let us look at how we can do that, because surely it is not that hard.

The third aspect of my campaign is around access to advice in GP surgeries. This is where we really do need to do more. I have been absolutely inundated with people contacting me. I have heard quite horrific stories from women who did not get the treatment that is medically proven to be effective, which is hormone replacement therapy. HRT is available on the NHS and actually advocated for women in the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. However, it seems that there is—I don’t know—a lack of awareness, a lack of information and a lack of empathy among GPs who are not prescribing HRT for women when they need it. I have heard story after story from women who went to their GP, saying, “Look, I am suffering these symptoms.” Again, the reason might be that they are not having hot flushes or night sweats, but they have the other symptoms that are associated with the menopause, and they are just not getting that treatment. GPs are sending them away. Why do some women battle for years to get HRT?

I am delighted to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), has already met me to discuss this issue. We very much hope to move things forward with the all-party group on women’s health, which is led by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), and obviously with any other Member who wishes to take part. We really need to do more.

If I may, I will draw my comments to a close by quickly paying tribute to a few campaigners who have given me so much support and information.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Lady has been very brave in speaking out. So far our focus has been on dealing with the symptoms and the problems. Has she had the opportunity to look into whether diet-related changes could help to alleviate some of those symptoms rather than just medical solutions? In Japan and China, for example, there seems to be much lower incidence of things such as hot flushes, and some suggest that that might be because of the consumption of soya, which has oestrogen in it, although I am not quite sure how it works. Has she looked at that at all?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention. I am certainly aware that my research has only scratched the surface. She is absolutely right to say that diet has a strong connection with wellbeing and health at any point in life. In fact, I am seeking help from a nutritionist myself to try to tackle some of these issues, because they are all interlinked. Perhaps that illustrates some of the lack of understanding that we have generally.

In my list of people to whom I wish to pay tribute, I will, if I may, mention the menopause chef who came to my Menopause Café in Redditch. The Menopause Café is an amazing national organisation. It is about bringing women together to have conversations about the menopause. I held mine in Redditch a couple of weeks ago. I encourage anyone to host a Menopause Café in their constituency. The experience was really moving. Women said that they had learned more about the menopause in that time than they had learned over five years. The menopause chef works out diets that meet women’s dietary requirements.

Diane Danzebrink, a fantastic consultant, tutor and coach, is very active in this space and does a lot of work in the area—I believe that other Members have met her. Dr Louise Newson, a GP, set up the country’s first menopause-only clinic, which is a fantastic innovation. We would all like to see such clinics more widely spread. Lynda Bailey, the co-founder of Talking Menopause, is one of the pioneers in the West Midlands police. Then there is the incredible Hot Flush, which describes the menopause as a club that no one wants to join. It does a lot to demystify some of the symptoms of menopause and to talk about them frankly. Let us just be honest about some of the things that can happen at menopause. Let us just be comfortable talking about things such as vaginal dryness, loss of libido, incontinence and pelvic floor weakness. These are not easy things to put on record standing here in the House of Commons. If women experience these things, it can negatively impact on their ability to form a relationship, to have a relationship with their partner and a whole host of other things. All those things can be connected to the menopause. More importantly, they can be alleviated with the right information and support. Why should women not have the right to a happy, healthy later chapter of their life in all aspects, including in their intimate life? I believe in that very passionately and think that it is so important.

Very quickly, let me mention Detective Chief Inspector Yvonne Bruton, who has pioneered this work in the West Midlands police. Liz Earle, a health magazine and beauty product founder, is also a passionate champion of this issue. Obviously there are many more people involved, but I do not have the space to mention them. Needless to say it is a space that is well populated by passionate women who are just keen to share their knowledge with others.

I will draw my remarks to a close. I could probably talk for hours, but I am aware that I am detaining the House. Let me thank again the hon. Member for East Lothian. I am so delighted that he contacted me and that he applied for the debate. I very much look forward to the Minister’s closing remarks.