Oral Answers to Questions

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the provision of food aid in the UK.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the provision of food aid in the UK.

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

The provision of food aid ranges from small, local provision to regional and national schemes. There are no official figures for the number of food aid organisations or the number of people using them in the UK. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned research to assess publicly available evidence on food aid provision in the UK, and that work will be made available in due course.

[George Eustice]

There are a number of complicated reasons for those changes and nobody is quite sure. That is one of the reasons we commissioned this report. The use of food banks has been going up for some time, and it also increased dramatically under the previous Government. This is a good example of the big society in action, and we are seeing some good organisations stepping up to help people.

[Luciana Berger]

I welcome the Minister to his new post, but I hope he will have time to refer to the facts and figures of the matter. Under this Government, the use of food banks has rocketed, and I hope he will read carefully the report from Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty that came out in May and shows that, this year alone, half a million people will access emergency food aid. I think that is a national disgrace. Does the Minister agree?

Dog Control and Welfare

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

A very warm good afternoon to you, Mr Turner; I welcome you to your place. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). My hon. Friend is not just an hon. Friend but a reasonable man, and I am sure that he will respond warmly and enthusiastically to our debate.

The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is pleased to have this opportunity to debate the issues addressed in our two recent documents: the report “Dog Control and Welfare” and the draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, which we have tagged on to the report and which encompassed the Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of draft clauses that now form part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.

Dog control and welfare issues have been central for the Select Committee over the past 12 months. Out-of-control dogs are an increasing menace: hospital admissions due to dog attacks doubled from 3,000 in 1997 to more than 6,000 in 2010, and a conservative estimate of the cost to the national health service is approximately £3 million a year.

Not all episodes are reported. I was bitten in a rather tender place at the top of my thigh—I still bear the scar—but I chose not to report the attack, as I was out canvassing and the dog was owned by a Conservative supporter. There are many reasons why people might choose not to report attacks. Dog offences might go under-reported.

Sadly, nine people have been killed since 2007 by dog attacks in the home. Five of those victims were under the age of four. Opposition Members here have had constituency experience of such cases, and I commend how they have represented those who have suffered such losses. Offences relating to dangerous dogs increased by 39% in one year alone—from 855 in 2009 to 1,192 in 2010. As we know, some eight guide dogs a month are attacked by other dogs. We also know that there are countless attacks on other dogs and protected animals, such as cats, horses and livestock. That has huge implications for rural constituencies such as mine, particularly for livestock—there are sheep-worrying incidents at this time of year, for example.

In May 2012, we launched an inquiry on the Government’s policies for tackling irresponsible dog ownership and improving dog welfare, particularly those linked to breeding approaches. I pay tribute to the charities doing work on the issue, including Blue Cross in my constituency and Battersea Dogs Home in London.

We were fortunate to be able to launch our inquiry at Battersea Dogs Home, see at first hand the impact of policies on dog welfare and hear about the impact of poor breeding practices and irresponsible ownership on individuals and communities. A leading charity, Blue Cross, talks at great length about stray dogs and shares the Committee’s concern about the impact of this financial climate, particularly on dog warden services across the UK. A recurring theme throughout our inquiry was resourcing and ensuring that dog wardens have sufficient resources.

I believe that one event leading to the increase in the number of stray dogs on our streets was the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which transferred the responsibility from the police to local authorities, not all of which see it as ring-fenced and obligatory. That must be tackled.

Sadly, since we launched our inquiry last summer, four more people have lost their lives in dog attacks, including, most recently, the teenager Jade Anderson, who was attacked just before Easter by four dogs in a private home. A pensioner was also attacked in Liverpool last month. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who represents Jade’s parents, for initiating in May an Adjournment debate on dangerous dogs. I had the opportunity to meet Jade’s parents through her, for which I was grateful. I thank her and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for all that they have done to raise the issue in the public domain.

During our inquiry, we were moved to hear from a constituent of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree —the mother of John Paul Massey, another child killed by a dog. He was just four years old when a relative’s pit bull attacked him at his grandparents’ home in 2009. His mother, Angela McGlynn, and the many others from whom we received evidence want urgent Government action to tackle out-of-control dogs.

We reported in February this year, with a number of recommendations for Government on what improvements could be made to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and other legislation. The Committee has also had the opportunity to scrutinise draft clauses on dangerous dogs, published as the draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill on 9 April. Subsequently, the Government published the measures with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill on 9 May, and we published our pre-legislative scrutiny report on 16 May.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know that all the families affected will welcome this debate. Does the hon. Lady share my concern and regret that the Government, as she outlined, published the Bill before receiving the Select Committee’s response? Does she share my sentiment that that was highly regrettable?

[Miss McIntosh]

I think that the Committee would like to record our disappointment that it took so long to produce the draft legislation yet the Government were unable to wait. As Members will know, the one time when a Select Committee cannot meet is during Prorogation, between the House rising to represent the end of one parliamentary year and it reconvening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend reinforces the Select Committee’s point that the microchip is a tool but not the whole answer. We fear that we will find out which are the unmicrochipped dogs when they are left abandoned as strays on the street, when it is impossible to bear down on the irresponsible dog owner. Each and every one of us has a role to play if we see dubious breeding activities or dubious behavioural activities in dogs. I hope that goes some way to answering my hon. Friend’s point.

The Committee agreed with the Government’s proposed amendment of the 1991 Act, which makes attacks on private land the same as attacks on public land, and we welcome the fact that that loophole will be closed. It will go some way to reassuring people, such as the parents of Jade Anderson, that such horrendous attacks will not happen in the future. However, we warned that police and prosecutors must distinguish between intruders and those who are lawfully on a person’s property when enforcing the law. That is reflected in the representations we received for today’s debate from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust and other such charities.

Having seen the details of how the measure would be enacted, we recommended in our May pre-legislative scrutiny report a number of changes to the proposed clauses. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the key recommendation that the proposed clauses be amended to enable the exemption from prosecution for someone whose dog attacked an intruder to apply to sheds and other enclosed buildings associated with the home and not just to the main home. That relates to the vexatious argument of curtilage and other appendages. Perhaps he can update us today on that matter.

The Government give assurances that mitigating circumstances for dog attacks in gardens and other open spaces around the home will be taken into account by the courts and enforcement agencies. To safeguard legitimate visitors to a property, such as postal and health workers, we thought it reasonable for the householder exemption from prosecution to apply only to buildings, not to open spaces around the home. The briefing we have had from the Communication Workers Union highlights the staggering number of attacks on postal workers in any one month, and in any one year.

[Luciana Berger]

As the hon. Lady rightly highlights, the CWU makes that point strongly, because of the number of people who have to go to the front door of a property, whether they are a postman or woman, social worker, health visitor or meter reader. In Liverpool just a few weeks ago, Clifford Clarke tragically lost his life when two out-of-control dogs attacked him while he was cooking a barbecue in his garden, so I very much welcome and support the hon. Lady’s comments.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Committee and I welcome what the hon. Lady says. When I visited the Blue Cross home in my own constituency, which looks after stray cats and dogs, I saw how massive a bullmastiff is. It would easily have pushed me over if it had leapt up. It is a worrying issue, especially for those who cannot enjoy the safety of their own home and garden. We need to distinguish between responsible dog owners, who, for example, secure the gates to their back or front garden, and those who are negligent over whether their dog is allowed to cause injury.

We also recommended that the definition of an assistance dog be amended to prevent the erroneous application of the assistance dog measures to dogs that are not genuine assistance dogs. We are pleased that the Government amended the draft clauses to allow the exemption from prosecution for householders whose dog attacks a trespasser to apply whether or not someone was home at the time of the attack.

The Committee believes that the current legislation before the House has gaps and needs to go further. We concluded that the Government’s proposals were insufficient and that a comprehensive overhaul of the legislation is needed, including the consolidation of the several dozen statutes that impinge on the issues, and that remains our view. I am talking about not just the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 but the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 and a whole host of legislation that pertains to that area.

On Second Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill on Monday, there was unanimous support for our recommendation that targeted dog control notices such as those in place in Scotland be introduced to give police and local authorities effective measures to tackle irresponsible dog owners before their dog inflicts harm. It is that preventive measure that is the key to controlling dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous behaviour.

[Miss McIntosh]

I welcome the intervention by the hon. Gentleman; I am tempted to call him my hon. Friend. On a number of issues, this Government have proved that they listen. As I have mentioned, my hon. Friend the Minister is indeed a deeply reasonable man and I am sure that he will pass the test of reasonableness as the Bill goes through. It is, of course, a Home Office piece of legislation, but the clauses that I have referred to relate to DEFRA.

In our pre-legislative scrutiny report, we made a recommendation that a dog attack that injures any protected animal—such as other dogs, cats, horses or livestock—should be deemed an offence. I pay tribute not only to the dog charities but to Cats Protection, which supports this recommendation. It is very important that attacks on other animals—such as other dogs, cats and horses, whose riders might be seriously injured, and especially livestock—should be addressed.

The Committee was also concerned about the provisions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that currently ban certain types of dog, regardless of temperament, while excluding other aggressive breeds. In our pre-legislative scrutiny report, we called for a focus on the owner rather than on dog type, given that any dog can cause harm if it has an irresponsible owner—deed rather than breed.

To tackle stray dogs, we need to have a properly resourced dog warden service in all local authority areas. We also need to be aware of the increasing number of aggressive dogs that are being abandoned and of the additional burden on local authorities and dog charities, which are already overstretched. I have mentioned the provisions of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 that might be leading to more stray dogs coming on to our streets.

On dog breeding, we criticised the Government for doing too little to tackle poor breeding practices. Relying on voluntary action has not delivered sufficient reform, and the Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding should be given a formal regulatory role to enforce standards.

[Luciana Berger]

The hon. Lady has been generous in allowing me to make many interventions. On the point about breeding, she might be aware that in recent weeks an online petition has gathered almost 20,000 signatures from people who are urging the Government to look seriously at the issue. The petition specifically wants to ensure that when people buy new pets they should, first and foremost, get them from rescue homes wherever possible and, secondly, not buy them from breeders that separate a new pup from its mother. There is a big campaign, “Where’s Mum?”

[Miss McIntosh]

Indeed. That was one of our conclusions. One hesitates to use the word “bitch”, but in this debate it is appropriate. No puppy should be sold without the mother—the bitch—being present. That is so important, and I pay tribute to those who have done so much to highlight it.

Again, things should be done on the basis of deed not breed. However, we need to look at the ban on certain types of dog in the 1991 Act. That Act has not prevented attacks. There have been ways of “breeding round” the ban, which should be addressed.

We were especially concerned about the poor welfare of puppies and dogs, due to common breeding practices among puppy farmers and some pedigree breeders. Our report calls for any breeder producing more than two litters per year to be licensed and subject to welfare checks; I hope that goes some way to addressing the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady. That simple change could help to prevent irresponsible breeders from producing more animals than they are able to manage effectively, which are then sold on to unsuitable owners for profit.

To sum up, we welcome the extension of legislation to attacks on private property and to attacks on assistance dogs. However, we believe that it is something of a wasted opportunity not to have pursued a fuller, wider, more comprehensive consolidation of all the laws in this area. Also, I urge the Minister to introduce dog control notices and to persuade his colleagues in the Home Office that those are a much better tool than some other measures.

On sentencing, it has been put to me by a constituent that a sentence of two years is insufficient for a fatal dog attack. Death by dangerous driving carries a 14-year prison sentence, whereas death by careless driving carries a five-year prison sentence. Where prosecutions under these new laws on dogs are brought, perhaps somewhere between a five-year and a 14-year jail term would be a more fitting tribute to those loved ones who have been lost rather than the two-year term that is being proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I start by saying how much I welcome the two reports on this issue from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I congratulate its Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and her Committee on all the work that they have done on this issue, their excellent campaigning and the reports that they have produced.

In addition, I echo the Chair’s commendation of the charities that have also been involved in campaigning on this issue. I also commend the Communication Workers Union, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Veterinary Association and all the other organisations that have joined together to urge the Government to take action, and particularly to introduce dog control notices, which I will talk a little bit about in a moment.

I share the Committee’s disappointment that the Government are not introducing holistic legislation to cover the issues of dog control and dog welfare, because the two cannot be separated. This debate is about control, but fundamentally it is about dog welfare, because the fundamental question is, “Why do dogs attack?” They attack because of how they have been trained, or not trained, and how they have been socialised and educated.

As someone who has tried to get the authorities to take action on a number of occasions, I believe that it would be much more straightforward to have one source for action—one consolidated Bill—rather than having to rely on different pieces of legislation, including some that go back 150 years.

The House is, of course, aware of the tragic death of 14-year-old Jade Lomas-Anderson, and I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for meeting Jade’s parents and for her kind words. Jade was attacked by four dogs—we believe that they were two Staffies and two bull mastiffs—in her friend’s house, where she was staying overnight as a special treat because she had done so well at her new school. By all accounts, Jade was a very bubbly girl who was loved by many people. Her parents, Michael and Shirley, are campaigning for a change in the law—as they say, Jade would have wanted them to—so that no other family has to suffer as they are suffering.

I cannot now say, as I could the first couple of times I spoke about her, that Jade was the last person to die because of dangerous dogs. Since Jade’s death on 26 March, 79-year-old Clifford Clarke has been killed by two dogs in Liverpool. There are 210,000 dog attacks each year and more than 6,000 people are hospitalised each year because of them, so there have been many attacks since Jade’s death.

In Bolton, six-year-old Abigail Boyd was attacked in Farnworth. She was sitting in her garden when a dog that had already been reported to the authorities for being loose came in and bit her. Her eyelid had to be stitched back on and she has deep wounds under her eye. She was lucky not to lose her sight. Two-year-old Ryan Magee was left terrified when he was bitten by a dog tied up outside a community centre, as he and his father were walking past to go in.

Last week, in Atherton, Jade’s home town and mine, there were three attacks by dogs. Even following the attack on Jade, the police’s attitude has not been as one would have wanted, in terms of taking such attacks as seriously as they should be taken. It is fortunate, although I am sure the victim does not feel fortunate, that one person who had to go to hospital after an attack was a young man in his 20s. Had he been a child, it is likely that the dog would have attacked his face.

After every attack, no matter how small or large, there are terrible after-effects and the victim is left traumatised. Earlier this week, I spoke about a farmer who signed my petition. After her cattle were attacked, she was deeply traumatised and unable to sleep for a week. People are left with a lifelong fear of dogs. People suffer life-changing injuries—often children, who have the most terrible facial scarring. I read of somebody recently who lost a foot to a dog attack. In the worst situations, family and friends are left mourning loved ones.

The Government have said that they want to retain remedies under statute and common law, but I encourage them, again, to bring those together under one dog control and welfare Bill, because it is difficult to get action under myriad legislation.

I started doing a little bit of work on this, even before I was elected, when one of my volunteers was attacked by a dog while delivering leaflets for the election. He had gone into the owner’s property to put a leaflet through the door and, as he was bending down, another bull mastiff attacked him, latching on to his arm. Fortunately, it was a man who was attacked, not a child, a woman or somebody of smaller stature. Pat managed to stay on his feet, with the dog still latched on to his arm.

The police could take no action, because it was private property. The owner said, “Of course, we’re going to have our dog put down because of this terrible attack.” The dog is still alive and living in the garden and people are still able to enter it. We asked about the paper boy and the owners said, “Oh, it’s all right. The paper boy knows not to come in.” That is fine, as long as it is that paper boy, but what about a different paper boy, or somebody else—whether a postal worker, the nurse, or some other worker who needs to enter that property?

The ex-mayor of Blackrod lost two cats to attacks. Eventually, we managed to get the police to take action, but initially the response was, “There is nothing that we can do about it,” which illustrates the need to bring legislation together. The ex-mayor of Westhoughton was walking his dog nicely in the park when it was attacked by a loose dog. When he took his dog to the vet, the vet was able to describe the dog likely to have attacked it, because he had seen a stream of people whose dogs had also been attacked. To date, we are not aware of any successful action taken against that owner. Clearly, the authorities have to sharpen up their act.

I was contacted by a constituent soon after Jade’s death who said that, close to Jade’s house, no more than 400 yards away, there is a dog loose in a shared communal garden. We struggled to get anybody to take action about this, because it is supposedly private property, but—hang on a minute—everybody else walks through this garden as well. The police have now instructed the owner to keep the dog muzzled when it is out of the house, but we have still failed to get the housing authorities to take proper action.

We need all the legislation to come together, so that it is easy for action to be taken, but most importantly we need dog control notices. We need that early intervention mechanism, so that when a concern is expressed about a dangerous dog, action can be taken.

[Luciana Berger]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government’s proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which they say will deal with this problem, just introduce a new layer of bureaucracy, adding to a lengthy process involving the courts? Conversely, a dog control notice could be issued on the spot and could adequately and properly deal with prevention.

[Julie Hilling]

I agree, and because the proposals are subsumed in antisocial behaviour legislation, not enough priority will to be given to dog attacks. I understand that the police are, potentially, dealing with drugs or other issues, so when somebody is just complaining about a dog barking, for example, how much attention will that get?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling]

Absolutely. I agree that people may be concerned that it is cruel to keep a dog muzzled. However, that is only in specific situations and with specific instructions about what to do with a specific animal. There is also concern that the proposed legislation will get rid of dog control orders as well. Such an order is a good, simple mechanism whereby local authorities can introduce exclusion orders in parks orders about clearing up after dog fouling, orders about keeping dogs on leads in particular areas and orders about people having to put their dog on a lead, if instructed to do so by a responsible person. I am concerned that, again, we may lose those measures in a much larger piece of legislation that does not allow such detail.

I agree with the hon. Lady that we should extend this welcome legislation to other protected animals, including assistance dogs. I see no reason why it should not be extended to other protected animals. If someone’s dog, or other animal, is attacked while they are behaving responsibly, they have to face all the trauma and expense of an injured animal. One indicator of a dog being dangerously out of control is that it attacks other animals. We should take account of that and extend the legislation.

I agree with what has been said about breeding. A dog is much like a child, in that it needs to be properly educated and know its place in the hierarchy. It needs a proper beginning in life, and should not be taken away from its mother too soon. I appreciate that there is now consensus that people breeding more than two litters a year should be registered, but I was interested to hear the comment from the ex-chief vet of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who believes that anyone who breeds a litter should have their dog registered, even if it is an accidental breeding. That is his personal view, not the RSPCA’s.

[Luciana Berger]

May I correct the record? I previously said that 20,000 people had signed the petition, but the figure is actually more than 30,000. Does my hon. Friend wish to join me in congratulating Pup Aid, which put together the petition, and Marc Abraham, who is the vet leading the charge? I hope the Government will sincerely respond to the need to consider dog breeding, particularly the need not to separate pups from their mothers too soon.

[Julie Hilling]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the people involved. Dogs are similar to children, and early intervention, early training—I do not know about early training of children—early socialisation, and all those sorts of thing are crucial to ensuring that at the end we have a well behaved dog and owners who understand what to do.

There is lack of education, starting with which dog people should have in their particular domestic circumstances. The trend now for many people to go for bull breeds is worrying. Thinking back 30 years, people on estates such as Hag Fold, where Jade and I lived, would have walked around with a Heinz 57, which is a mongrel; now people choose big, powerful dogs that need a lot of exercise, which they will not necessarily get in their environment, and a lot of care, and they are not necessarily safe around children. I am not castigating all the bull breeds—I am not castigating Staffordshire bull terriers or anything else—because we know that some of those dogs are well socialised, well trained, well cared for and well controlled, but I am worried by the proliferation of such big breeds in areas where they are not suitable.

Blue Cross and other animal charities offer good training to school children at both primary and secondary level to teach them how to be around dogs, how to behave around dogs and how to understand the signs that dogs give out so that they know whether it is, “Yes, you can come and stroke me,” or “No, please stay away.” We need children to understand how dogs behave and the signals that they give. The training also teaches children how to care for their pets, particularly dogs, and how to train and look after them. Again, part of the problem with dangerous dogs is the way those dogs are treated, whether accidentally because people just do not know enough or, as I said in my earlier intervention, because people deliberately train dogs to be vicious and aggressive.

We need adequate enforcement, even of the current legislation. Michael Anderson, Jade’s dad, did a bit of research and found that there are just two dog wardens for the whole of Wigan, which is a large borough where more than 300,000 people live. Goodness knows how many dogs live in our community, so having two dog wardens feels inadequate. We somehow need to provide adequate resourcing.

Michael Anderson talks of dog attacks being of epidemic proportions, and I agree. With so many dog attacks each year, we need concerted, dedicated action to address them. We need to promote responsible ownership and early intervention measures. When I was out with my petition, many people said that it was not dangerous dogs but dangerous owners that were the problem. Our focus needs to be very much on ensuring that people treat dogs properly; it is very much about dog welfare.

I hope the Minister will consider not only the Bill that is going through the House, and how it might be amended, but further action on the whole issue of dog control and welfare. Even if we get the amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill that we want, they will still not go far enough in addressing dog control and welfare. I hope he will say something positive about what DEFRA will do to bring all that legislation together.

Responsible Dog Ownership

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on an excellent opening contribution to a wide-ranging debate, and I also thank all other hon. Members who have taken part in it. Let me point out not only the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck, but the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). Although my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) was not called, she has taken part in many of these debates before. They are all fine campaigners on the issue. Hon. Members on the Government Benches have also been in these debates before. We have been here before. The need to tackle irresponsible dog ownership has been a consistent theme during the past three years.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) rightly said that it is not the case that dog attacks never took place before the current Government came to power, but we do know that in the final months of the Labour Administration, a consultation was set up specifically to consider the issue. It reported on 1 June 2010, and here we are now, nearly three years later, almost going into the fourth year of this Government.

I genuinely say to the Minister that I welcome the announcements that have been made. We do. We want to support him, but we sometimes feel—to stretch the analogy a bit—like a trusty old Welsh sheepdog, trying to herd the Home Office and DEFRA Ministers through the gate that is clearly identifiable at the other end of the field. The darn sheep keep wandering off into the long grass; they keep being distracted. We want to get the measures implemented. We want to move away from the good words and away from what I have to say are re-announcements. Many of the things we heard a couple of weeks ago were re-announcements.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for kindly giving way. Is it not the case that it is not just Labour Members who feel frustrated? Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel frustrated because we have not seen any movement since the consultation closed in June 2010. We are speaking on behalf of all our constituents who are affected. My constituent, Angela McGlynn, lost a child. She desperately wants action from the Government and instructed me to come here today on her behalf, to say, “Please—when is this action coming forward?”

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly on behalf of her constituent and all the others. We are talking about families who have lost loved ones, in her constituency and elsewhere, in traumatic situations; families who have been attacked and owners of guide dogs and companion dogs who have been attacked. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned dogs that are out of control in rural areas. All those issues have to do with irresponsible ownership, rather than the type of dog. That is why, although we welcome the announcements and, indeed, the re-announcements that have been made, there is an element of frustration, which has been relayed in the debate today. We are saying, “Get on with it.” We will support the measures. We will rally behind the Government to the nth degree to get things done.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who has great experience of the issue, raised the possibility of the Minister beginning discussions on the overall issue of the dog legislation that is in place—a theme that was picked up by other hon. Members. I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury, but we are in year 3 and going into year 4 of this Government. We would have preferred to be doing things now and getting on with it. It is not as though we have been quiet on the issue. It is not as though the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, the CWU, the Royal College of Nursing, the Police Federation and others have been quiet; they have all been very streamlined on the issue.

One of the big problems previously was that Ministers would say, understandably, “Well, there isn’t any agreement.” Actually, there has been a tremendous amount of agreement. It is rare to get this level of agreement, and it extends to such things as dog control notices. It extends to saying that we should have a fundamental look at the overall complexity of the legislation and whether it should be overhauled. There is agreement on microchipping. I say to the Minister, “Go on. We’ll rally behind you on this. We need to do it. Let’s keep the cost low and the burden minimal. Let’s ensure that it works, that it’s efficient, that the technology is right and that the databases are secure and actually talk to one another.” Yes, there are technical issues, but let us get on with it. Let us deal with the internet trading and backstreet trading. Let us deal with the strays and the resulting kennelling costs for local authorities, the police and others. Thousands upon thousands of dogs are euthanised every year. That is appalling in a society that purports to love its animals—a pet-owning nation.

What is going wrong? It is a classic market failure in many ways. There is demand for the breeding of dogs and for the selling of dogs on the internet. There is demand for illicit trading in dogs. We must step in and take control. We must ensure that resources are in place and that there is enforcement. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, in his very good contribution, made the point well about enforcement, but enforcement carries resource implications. Whether local authorities, police or charities are doing the work, we need to find a way to do more with less—to pick up the phrase of the day—but also to ensure that enforcement is happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck did a tremendous job of highlighting the challenges ahead. He talked about the £57 million a year of kennelling costs for local authorities. He talked about the cost to the police of kennelling dogs. More than 100,000 dogs stray, or are lost or stolen every year. Six thousand dogs are put down every year. What a tragedy that is in terms of animal welfare. There is also the impact on local authorities and others. There are attacks on communication workers, social care workers, home visitors and so on. It is an absolute tragedy. There are 5,000 attacks on postal workers every year. There was a 12% increase in the number of warnings issued by the RSPCA to dog owners last year because of poor welfare.

What is going on? It may be a result of the economic times we are in. I do not know. Certainly when I visit Battersea Dogs and Cats Home or other organisations, they tell me that more dogs are being abandoned, and it is not just breeds that are perceived to be dangerous; dogs across the board are being left. They are being tied to lamp posts; they are being left at shopping centres for someone to come along and pick up. There are major implications in what is happening, but I say quite genuinely to the Minister that he has our support in taking action, as well as saying the words.

We need to get on with it. There have been calls from hon. Members today for the Government to set out a timetable. As a former Minister, I am familiar with the form of words, “When parliamentary time allows”, but I am also familiar with Ministers then coming to this Chamber or to the main Chamber and saying, “What I mean by that is that we will do it within this parliamentary Session. We’ll have to work with the Whips; we’ll have to work through the usual channels, but we will do it.” That is the sort of commitment we are looking for. We want to know that action will be taken and when. We want to know when the Minister will ask us for our support—to wade in on his side.

Food Poverty

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, Sir Alan, to serve under your chairmanship for the second time. I thank the Speaker’s office for the opportunity to raise this serious issue. It is less than two weeks until Christmas, which should be a time for people and their families to celebrate and relax. I want to speak on behalf of the thousands of households throughout the United Kingdom that will be worrying about whether they can feed themselves and their children.

We have seen the longest double-dip recession since records began in 1955, and we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis. We have seen an explosion in food poverty as households struggle with higher living costs, frozen wages, reduced working hours, and changes in welfare. The rising food poverty scandal is a national disgrace. I shall refer to two headline figures that I will talk about in more detail in a moment. Last year, the food redistributed by FareShare contributed to more than 8.6 million meals, and fed 36,500 people every day. The Trussell Trust, which operates a network of food banks throughout the country—I will speak about it in more detail in a moment—estimates that it will have fed 230,000 people in 2012-13. That is nearly double the number of people it fed in 2011-12, and the trust warns that Christmas is looking even bleaker for families on the breadline.

I want to speak about the extent of the problem, having given two headline statistics. What is the problem? FareShare states:

“Food poverty is suffered by people with low or no income with poor access to affordable nutritious food and who lack the knowledge, skills or equipment to ensure food is safe and prepared properly.”

We know from the latest Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures that 13.2 million people in the country live in poverty. A recent shocking report by Save the Children, which was released in September, just a few months ago, found that well over half of parents in poverty—61%—say that they have cut back on food. More than a quarter—26%—say that they have skipped meals in the past year.

Another serious issue that I will come to in more detail is that four in five parents in poverty say that they had to borrow money to pay for essentials, including food and clothes, in the past year.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She referred to the Save the Children report, which states that one parent said:

“A year or so ago, we literally relied on any money we raised at car boot sales to pay for food for the week. Some weeks weren’t too bad, others were dire. The British weather decided how we lived that week (when it rained, the turnout at car boot sales fell).”

Is it not a tragedy in 21st century Britain that people must go to car boot sales to raise money for food to feed their family?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I am sure is the first of many that will share personal stories about people’s experiences. I called for the debate because it is a national scandal that in the 21st century, in one of the world’s most industrialised nations, there is an explosion in food poverty and the creation of food banks. That is why I and many other hon. Members have raised the matter in Parliament, and will continue to do so.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. It was a great pleasure to join her on a visit to a food bank that serves both our communities. Aintree fire station in my constituency has asked local people for donations because, despite there being several food banks covering our area and the amount of food coming in, it is going out just as quickly. Does she think that it is an indictment of the Government’s policies that people must rely on handouts for healthy living?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We went to that food bank together, and we have been to many others. I will speak in more detail about my concerns for the future, but I have a snapshot of where we are at the moment. We have just had the autumn statement, and reports show that the poorest 10% in our communities will be hit even harder. I worry about the future, and that the figures will become even worse.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and on the excellent work she has done over several months. She is right to look to worsening times. Last week, I was told about a constituent who currently has £12 a week left with which to buy food after paying his bills. That is less than £2 a day, which is about to be wiped out by the bedroom tax, and means that he will lose £12 a week in housing benefit.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. There is so much I could have included in my speech that I did not even reflect on the bedroom tax. It is a good point. I know many constituents who are affected. The problem on Merseyside, which is replicated throughout the country, is that the Government want people to move into smaller properties, and if those properties do not exist, our constituents will be hammered every week and will struggle to put food on the table.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and on her work. On welfare reform, I draw her attention to the impending localisation of the social fund, and the impact on the very people we are talking about who, in times of crisis, have nowhere else to turn. Many of the changes facing us with the localisation of the social fund will make it more difficult for those people because the money is not ring-fenced, and a postcode lottery will develop throughout the country with different standards and approaches.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising another point that I could have included, but did not have space. The issue will disproportionately affect the councils that have the least to spend. My council in Liverpool has been hit hardest of any council in the country. We have a 52% cut in controllable spend by 2015. When there is no ring fence, the council will have less money coming in and will have to make difficult decisions, essentially doing the Government’s dirty work. The social fund will fall by the wayside, particularly in areas where it is most needed.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way to many hon. Members who are rightly identifying the causes of the problem, and it is right that she will address some of those causes. I hope that she will also talk about some of the great work by local community and voluntary organisations, such as the brilliant food bank in Corby. I was pleased to welcome her when she visited it recently. Co-operatives do great work, and have a fine tradition of trying to reduce travel miles, improve sustainability, and help to drive down food costs. For example, 30% of their healthy products are on promotion at the moment, which is brilliant. We should welcome such initiatives, and perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for raising the vital work done by many organisations in our communities. However, I do not think we should have food banks. The country has 270 under the Trussell Trust umbrella, and we know that there are many more independent initiatives, such as that at the fire station in Aintree, because food banks cannot deal with the pressure they are facing. What has happened in 2012 that we need them? I hope that the Minister will address that.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Hackney has a food bank under the aegis of the Trussell Trust, as have many constituencies, and Magic Breakfast works in many of our schools. A primary and a secondary school have spoken to me recently about the problem of young people being able to afford lunch. At the secondary school, the head dips into her own pocket to help fund lunches in some cases, and in the primary school, when parents come in to say, “We cannot afford £9 a week per child for the school meals,” which are nutritiously cooked, good-quality food, often grown on site in that particular school, the head tries to find a way of funding at least one or two of the children, so that they do not lose out on those hot meals. Along with that cost, the bedroom tax is a big issue that will hit hundreds of families in my constituency. They are not all aware of that, so the case will get much harder.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example of the vital work done by Magic Breakfast. The fact that schoolchildren in our country are coming to school having not eaten any food, and are therefore less able to concentrate, is a very worrying and difficult state of affairs. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

Before the fantastic contributions of my hon. Friends, I was talking about the extent of the problem. It is worth expanding on that, because it is important that the Minister hears about many of the different studies that have been made. A recent report by Netmums found that one in five mums is regularly skipping meals to feed her children. Tesco did research recently, finding that 10% of people interviewed have suffered from some form of food poverty in the last 12 months. Tesco had some interesting and startling figures:

“Almost one in ten people in the UK have skipped meals, gone without food to feed their family or relied on family or friends for food in the last year.”

Nearly half of those who said they had skipped meals—48%—said they had done so

“for the first time this year.”

I would like the Minister to reflect on that in his response. More than 51% of people who had skipped meals said that they

“were forced to go without food for two days or more.”

I remind Members that we are in 21st-century Britain.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alan, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on a crucial subject. She was speaking about the impact of missing meals, but I am sure that she is also aware of the effect of families downgrading what they are eating. She may be familiar with the statistic that low-income families are eating 30% less fresh fruit and veg than they were in 2006. In his comments, I am sure that the Minister will want to address the hidden health costs to the whole population and to individual families.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention about the quality of food that people are able to purchase. One reason for that is food inflation, which I will talk about in a moment. We need to acknowledge that it is a contributing factor. It is restrictive, particularly when the cost of fruit and veg has gone up significantly, and it means that people have less access to healthier food.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that although it is wonderful that we are able to stand up and give examples of what is happening in individual constituencies, it is sad that organisations have to undertake those roles. In my constituency, the Moses Project has two food banks, one of which targets hungry, homeless young men who have no hope for the future at all. Another organisation, A Way Out, is working to open several more food banks in the constituency. Charities and Churches seem to understand the problem. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Government do not seem to?

[Luciana Berger]

I hope that we will hear from the Minister in his response that he understands the extent of the problem. I will refer later to a debate that we held in January, when it is fair to say that the responses were pretty weak. I was able to ask the Chancellor about it yesterday and his response, which I will come to in a moment, was not very strong either. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the responsibility of the Government to deal with this growing and exploding problem.

I want to extract one more point from the work done by Tesco. It looked at why people said they were skipping meals. The main reasons given—they are replicated by other organisations—were the rising cost of living or low income; 56% of people said that. Twenty per cent of people said it was because of an “unexpected bill or expense.” People just do not have the cushion if something comes up, perhaps damage to their property or if a landlord does not make some urgently needed repair; they have to fill in and they do not have the funds to pay for food. I am sure Members have anecdotal evidence from their visits to food banks, when they encounter people who have to access emergency food aid.

Other reasons were “paying off debts.” That was 15% of people. One thing that struck me was that 12% of people were skipping meals because of

“a reduction in working hours.”

What conversations has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the changing profile of work in this country? We know that people are increasingly moving to part-time work or they are on zero-hour contracts. From week to week, they cannot budget or plan. People are really struggling. From speaking to a trade union representative, I know that in one Tesco store alone, there have been 30 requests for an increase in hours, specifically as a result of the change in working tax credits. Those extra hours do not exist, so people are really struggling to get by.

[Stephen Doughty]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Trussell Trust said that less than 5% of its clients are homeless—on the absolute breadline; in fact the vast majority are working families who are struggling to make ends meet.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, as I was about to make the same point. It is not the profile of people that we would expect; as he said, only 5% of the people accessing emergency food aid are homeless. It is the 95% that people just do not know about, and the Government need seriously to address that problem, as well as those who are homeless.

The problem has grown and exploded; I use the word “exploded” because the Trussell Trust’s figures show that the problem has increased tenfold since 2008-09. As I mentioned, close to a quarter of a million people are expected to have accessed food aid through a Trussell Trust food bank by the end of this financial year. FareShare, which is an organisation that I will explain more about in a moment, distributes food to what they call community food members, which are not only food banks, but hostels, old people’s homes, and breakfast clubs. It reports an average increase of 59% in demand for its services this year alone. At some of its depots, the increase in demand was as much as 90% or 100%, which builds on a 40% increase in the previous year. The Salvation Army has doubled the number of food parcels that it is giving out from food centres over the last two years, and Magic Breakfast, which I will talk about in more detail, has delivered more than 1 million free breakfasts. It reports a sharp rise in pupil hunger, and that working families are running out of food.

A number of Opposition Members have come to contribute to the debate, and I acknowledge that there are two Government Members. The issue does not just affect “poor areas.” It is a national scandal, as we have seen from the number of food banks across the country. It is a national problem. An article in The Guardian said:

“Foodbanks are thriving not just in Britain’s most deprived areas but in some of its wealthiest areas, like Poole in Dorset. The seaside town boasts some of Britain’s most expensive property but in April its local foodbank supplied food parcels to nearly 300 people—more than twice as many as in April 2010.”

We know that there are many food banks in counties such as Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire, where people would never normally expect food banks. I hope we shall hear contributions from Members on both sides.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The food banks around the country were initially set up in 2002, because the issue arose at that time. According to stats provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, food prices have risen in real terms by 12% over the last five years. This is not simply about now; it was going on under the previous Government as well.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I use the word “explosion” again to reinforce the point. If we look at the figures, which I have in front of me too, there is an explosion in the numbers that have been created. I am not proud of the fact that 26,000 people accessed emergency food aid under a Labour Government—don’t get me wrong—but if we look at the figures now, it is 10 times as many in two and a half years. The Government need to take some responsibility for that and acknowledge that this is an explosion of the problem, and it is only set to get worse.

[Stephen Doughty]

I endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. There has certainly been an explosion in the use of the provision in my constituency. We would not expect there to be a 100% increase in the use of food banks month on month in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales.

In Penarth, the more affluent part of my constituency, I visited a food bank collection point in the local Tesco and asked whether the parcels were going to other, more deprived areas of Cardiff; in fact they were for the Penarth area. That is deeply shocking. I am concerned that the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) appears to be muddying the picture somewhat.

[Luciana Berger]

I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. One of my largest local landlords has 250 families who will be hit by the bedroom tax. People are doing their best to help such people to get jobs and so on, but there will be a number of families with a shortfall. That is just one landlord in one constituency. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on any analysis that she has done, or thinks should be done, to assess the impact of that Government policy, which will have a direct effect on people’s ability to pay for food?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I share her concerns—concerns that have been raised since the start of the debate—about the bedroom tax. I reiterate that the Government want people to move into smaller properties, but in many places across the country such properties do not exist and people will be penalised as a result.

I am very concerned about the cumulative impact of people having to pay the bedroom tax and everything else. I will talk in more detail about the impact of the autumn statement—the cumulative impact of everything. Many hon. Members have called on the Government to make a proper assessment of the impacts that their changes to taxes and benefits will have on the poorest in our society and on child poverty. It is very disappointing that the Government have refused to do that.

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

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the debate and on the fantastic YouTube video that she made—it is a must-watch, particularly for those on the Government Benches.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), in my constituency there was a clothing bank that did some food provision. The circumstances of people using that provision before 2010 were incredibly different from those in which people are now using it. Yes, food banks, clothing banks and other provisions were in place before 2010, but through the recession, people did not need to access it. It is as a direct result of this Government’s policies on things such as cuts to local authorities that 260,000-plus people need these food banks.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that intervention. I concur with all the points that he made.

I have talked in depth about the scale of the problem; now it is important to examine the causes. Many hon. Members have intervened to allude to the relevant points. I will reflect on a number of the causes. As I mentioned, rising food prices are a contributory factor. In the past five years, food prices have gone up by 12% in real terms, with the cost of essentials such as fruit, milk, cheese and eggs rising by as much as 30%. Last year, food inflation in the UK was the highest in the EU outside Hungary, putting an average of £233 a year on the average household food bill.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Does she agree that food price fluctuation is almost as difficult and dangerous to deal with as a steady rise in food prices? We have been subject to great fluctuations in food prices—certainly over the past five years, if not longer.

[Luciana Berger]

I acknowledge that food prices are a problem. I have given the figures: they have gone up by 12% in real terms. That obviously has an impact on household budgets and on the choices that people can make about the food that they eat.

[Meg Hillier]

The issue of food prices is important. Sometimes in government, especially from this privileged seat in Westminster, it is possible to forget what the real choices are for families on the ground. In my constituency, four pints of milk cost £1.35 in the Co-op, because it gives farmers a fair deal, £1.08 in Tesco and £1 in Iceland. There are people who will step across the road to save 8p on four pints of milk, because that is the margin that they are working on.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I can also share a story with the House; this may be something that other hon. Members have experienced. A number of us travel back to our constituencies on a Thursday, and I often do my shopping in my local Asda on a Thursday night. I am sometimes there at 10 or 11 o’clock at night if I have been to an evening engagement and I see people waiting for the knock-down-price milk. They wait there for the price of the milk to go down to 11p. People know what times to come in for the different items, and I have seen people fighting over items in the knock-down-price section. That breaks my heart, and there are other such examples. More Ministers need to see what that is like and why people have to make those choices.

[Kate Green]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but I have one final point. The issue is not just the financial hardship, but the humiliation—the degradation. People feel demeaned by the fact that they are forced either to accept handouts or to buy low-priced, cut-price, poorer-quality food. They do not have the dignity of participating in the way the rest of us can.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The knock-down-price items are not necessarily things that I would like to eat, but for some people that is the only choice that they have.

When a food bank voucher is issued, people have to tick a box to explain why they are going to that food bank. I will talk more in a moment about the vouchers, but there were two main reasons why people were referred to food banks in 2011-12. The biggest reason was benefit delay: 30% of people nationally gave that reason when the Trussell Trust aggregated the reasons why people were going to food banks. It is higher in my own constituency; I will come to those figures in a moment. Low income was the second main reason, at 20%.

I will say a little about DWP figures. I know that this matter is not directly under the Minister’s control, but it is particularly relevant to this debate. The DWP has something called the AACT—average actual clearance time—target. It says that it aims to ensure that people get income support within nine days, jobseeker’s allowance within 11 days and employment and support allowance within 14 days.

If someone has no money and suddenly finds themselves in a desperate situation, those waiting times are difficult enough, but we know that 45% of professionals referring families and adults for food packages cited troubles and delays with benefits, that that figure was up from about 40% the year before and that it had more than doubled since the recession began.

The DWP has issued a response to the figures; this was in The Guardian on 16 October 2012. It stated:

“In response to the figures, a DWP spokesperson cited the fact that 80% of benefit claims were turned around in 16 days,”

so it is not even meeting its targets.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luciana Berger]

Could I finish? Forgive me.

I asked the question: what about the 20% of people who do not get their benefits within the 16 days? Those are the very people having to access emergency food aid. I know from speaking to many of the volunteers who run the food banks, not just in my own constituency but in other places, that their anecdotal evidence is that when the food banks opened a few years ago, people had to wait two weeks for their benefits, but now it is up to six to eight weeks. I reiterate the point that if someone has no money for six to eight weeks, they have no money. How on earth are they expected to live?

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again—and feel chastised as well. To be serious, that tremendous delay in people receiving their money is a tragedy, and of course it drives people into the arms of the loan sharks, both legal and illegal, which sucks even more money out of their purses and wallets when they want to be feeding their children. Does my hon. Friend agree that the work done by our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is essential as we go forward to protect people who are hungry?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that intervention. I will come to the point about the amounts that people have to spend on emergency finance. I mentioned before that four out of five people who were struggling to eat also took out a short-term loan. That is adding to their costs, which means that they cannot spend money on food.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend is being most generous with her time. I am thoroughly enjoying her speech. Before she moves on from the delays in getting benefits, I want to mention the growing problem of people who have been on employment support allowance and are told, “Sorry, you no longer qualify.” Their higher level of benefit suddenly drops and they can be waiting not months, but a year or more for the decision to be reversed, which most of the time it is.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. A number of hon. Members here will have had constituents come to see them in clear need of employment support allowance. They have to go through the whole tribunal process to get the result they were expecting in the first place. While all that is happening, months go by and they have literally nothing. If they have no support structures, family or friends, they will struggle to eat.

I reinforce the point about delays in benefit payments because people say that it is the main reason why they struggle to eat, but the issue is also about income. The incomes of low and middle-income families declined by 4.2% between 2010 and 2011 and, according to the autumn statement, people are expected to face a 1.2% reduction in their post-tax income in 2015-16. There is a cumulative effect and a negative impact on people’s income, the choices they can make and the food they can buy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned payday loans and their cost. The number of payday loans has grown by 300% in the past two years, according to figures from the debt counselling charity, StepChange Debt Charity. About 5 million people now have to rely on legal loan sharks to make ends meet. I find that staggering. Legal loan sharks make huge profits off the back of lending to people at excessive interest rates of up to 16,000%. We have all heard of Wonga. This year, it made £45 million in pure profit and its main director took home a salary of £1.6 million.

I shall give just one story: a constituent got themselves into trouble trying to make ends meet and their repayments are now more than their take-home salary. That is a tragic state of affairs. Research last month from R3, the insolvency organisation, found that 8% of consumers said that they expected to take on a short-term loan to meet their costs over the coming weeks, which is particularly significant in the run-up to Christmas. Its research also shows that over the past six months, one in 10 had prioritised paying back a payday loan over paying for food.

I spoke a little about the extent of the problem and why people are affected, and other Members have mentioned it too. I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made about the kinds of people who have to access food banks; it is not only the homeless or the out-of-work, as we might expect. I am sure we all have stories about when we went to food banks and heard first hand from those who have to access emergency food aid—there are as many in work as out of work. For many, food poverty is the product of a toxic combination of low wages, austerity economics, spiralling food prices, lengthy delays to benefit payments and cuts to working tax credit.

Government figures show that lower-income households are being hit hardest by price rises. They now spend about 15.8% of their income on food, which is nearly 3% more than the average household. Jobseeker’s allowance for a single adult is currently no more than £71 a week, leaving little over £1.50 a day for food. What happens if there is an emergency and someone has to pay for something? It leaves them with little or nothing to pay for food.

The picture is not much better for those in work. Apply the same calculation to a full-time worker on the minimum wage, and, after tax, they are left with just £4.66 a day for food. It is very difficult to eat healthily and properly on such small amounts.

Hon. Members have mentioned Magic Breakfast. I want to labour this point because food poverty is hitting children at school—children are going to school without food in their stomachs. Magic Breakfast is the largest provider of free healthy breakfasts in England. Last year alone, it provided more than 1 million healthy breakfasts, in 205 schools, to children who would otherwise have started the school day hungry.

With The Guardian, Magic Breakfast surveyed 600 teachers in June on their experience of pupil hunger. The figures are so distressing: 83% of teachers said that they saw evidence of pupil hunger in their classes in the mornings and 55% of them said that they had seen an increase in hungry children in their classes. When asked why more children were arriving at school hungry, they said that they believed that the biggest factors were general poverty, pressure from the cost of living and a lack of cookery skills and nutritional knowledge.

I shall reflect a little on my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made some points about the food bank we went to in north Liverpool. I shall look at the scale of the problem in my locality; other hon. Members will talk about areas and communities that they represent. North Liverpool food bank serves my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend. Until 11 December—not even the whole year—it had issued 1,644 vouchers and fed 3,470 people, 1,272 of whom were children. The most common reasons for going to the centre were delays in benefits, 32.1%, and the refusal of a crisis loan.

I have not talked about the refusal of crisis loans yet, and other hon. Members may have stories of their constituents trying to access a crisis loan because they found themselves in crisis. I have heard stories from constituents who have spent all day on the phone trying to get through to the crisis loan number—they can no longer apply at the job centre—but they could not get through, so they had no money and could not eat.

Central Liverpool food bank, in my constituency, issued 2,051 vouchers and fed 3,900 people, 1,307 of whom were children. Comparing November 2011 with November 2012, the bank has seen a 114% increase in the number of vouchers given out a month. It is striking.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

This has proven to be an excellent debate so far. In Bristol, the police are giving out vouchers to people caught shoplifting. Some might criticise that as being soft on crime, but I think it is an excellent initiative. They realise that people are shoplifting because they simply cannot afford to feed their families any other way. It is terribly sad that we are in a country and a society where such things have to happen, but does my hon. Friend agree that the police should be commended for that scheme?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We all have stories about the increase in shoplifting for food. The police in Bristol are running that initiative and I wonder whether other hon. Friends have examples of the police doing that in other cities. I do not know whether they are doing it in Merseyside. I will ask my chief constable.

I reflected on food banks in my area; I have used a lot of statistics and I will talk in a moment about the stories. I am conscious of the time. My speech is taking quite a while. No one walks into a food bank with their head held high. If anyone has heard their stories, they will know that people go to food banks feeling ashamed. We must acknowledge and recognise that.

I have been to the Merseyside depot of FareShare, which I mentioned. FareShare is a fantastic organisation that collects food at the point of production if it is a bit damaged or there is surplus. It distributes it to a network of not only food banks but other organisations, such as Churches, community groups and homeless shelters. FareShare Merseyside alone is redistributing 18.5 tonnes of food every month. It has seen a 50% increase in demand for food since July. I have seen it for myself. I have seen the board; it has a very long list of groups waiting to sign up, but it does not have the food to provide them with.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because I know she is under time pressure. One initiative, piloted in Bristol, worked with organisations such as FareShare and FoodCycle, to develop a database of exactly where food waste was, so that it could be linked with the outlets and donated to people in need. It was initiated after a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs summit. The supermarkets agreed to take part, because they were worried about legislative action—my Food Waste Bill—compelling them to give such food to charity. Now that the threat of legislative action is receding, it seems that supermarkets are less willing to participate in the pilot. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a great shame and that we need to make sure that food that is going to waste is linked up with people in need?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to raise the point in my conclusion, but I will reflect on it now. A good trial is going on in her area, and we hope it will be replicated across the country when the results are complete. Yes, all supermarkets have a responsibility to do everything not only to minimise the food they waste but to ensure they waste none whatever so that people can benefit. That is a separate issue, which needs to be dealt with by itself, and it will not necessarily address all the issues of food poverty. However, I wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friend said, and I hope the Minister can respond.

I want to take a moment to share some stories about constituents who are in this predicament, because it is important that we personalise the issue, rather than just using figures. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for referring to my film about food poverty, which I made because I was so distraught after January’s debate; indeed, now is perhaps a good time to reflect on what happened during that debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has responsibility for the natural environment and fisheries, singled out myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—I do not know whether my hon. Friend recalls this—saying

“it is ridiculous to say that the rise in the need for food banks is attributable to this Government”—[Official Report, 23 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 80.]

I contest that 100%, and that is what motivated me to make my film, to carry on campaigning and to have this debate, although I should add that several other Members also called for it.

I want to reflect on people’s stories about why they have to access emergency food aid. In my film, I spoke to Patricia, who had been employed her whole life after leaving school. In her last job, she had worked for 22 years as a bookkeeper. She has only ever contributed and only ever wanted to play her part and to work. Having been in her post for 22 years, however, she was made redundant because of the cuts to local authorities. Of the past 13 months, she has worked for just two, despite making literally hundreds of applications. She cannot afford the internet, but she is in the library every day trying to seek employment, and she goes for interviews and all the rest of it. I went to Patricia’s small flat, and I saw at first hand that it was cold, that the cupboards were bare and that there was nothing in the fridge. She had £3.60 in her wallet to last her for the week. It is people such as Patricia—the strivers, who want to make a contribution and who have worked all their lives— who have to hang their heads in shame and go to a food bank.

I met a man who had been in hospital having heart surgery when his benefits were stopped. When he came out, he found that his electricity pre-payment meter had run out; he had left a light on, but someone had burgled his home anyway. A district nurse issued him with a food voucher because he had no food in his stomach and had not eaten for two days. Although still recovering from heart surgery, he walked four miles in the freezing cold and rain to access emergency food aid.

In addition, I met a single father of three who was trying to do the best for his family. Someone had said, “Here’s a food voucher so you can feed your children.” He had gone without food for more than two days to feed his kids. That is the reality that too many of our constituents face. I hope the Minister will not give us a similar response to his colleague, who told us that it is “ridiculous” to say this problem is attributable to the Government. I do attribute the blame to this Government, and the fact is that all those charities have to step in and fill the gap.

I was looking through the press, and I want to mention some of the stories and headlines. In just the past three months, we have seen headlines such as “Desperate people facing 20-mile hike for food” in the Metro. The Sunday Express—these are papers we would not expect to talk about these stories—had the headline, “3m people starving in the UK: Parents having to choose between eating or heating.” In the Daily Mail, we saw the headline “Schools teach cookery on Fridays so hungry children from families too poor to eat have food for the weekend.” Another headline referred to the fact that 10% of families do not have enough food. Other headlines included, “Mum starves herself to feed kids—and re-wraps their toys as Christmas presents” and “Demand for food parcels explodes as welfare cuts and falling pay hit home.” The Yorkshire Post ran the headline, “Rising food prices raise fears of a ‘hidden hunger epidemic.’” The list goes on. It is a really sad indictment.

I have mentioned some of the organisations involved. FareShare does a fantastic job of providing food to 722 community food members. The Trussell Trust has 270 food banks, and there are other food banks that are not included in that figure. The trust provides three days’ worth of nutritionally balanced non-perishable foods, and 90% of the food given out by the food banks is donated by the public.

I reiterate that people cannot just turn up at a food bank and ask for food; they need a food voucher issued to them. I and a number of other MPs are in the difficult position of being able to issue food vouchers to our constituents if we feel that they are in need. It is a difficult and sensitive situation to broach; sometimes when I meet constituents I feel that I really have no choice but to softly ask whether they want food vouchers. I can tell that constituents are ashamed and embarrassed, but they take the voucher because it means they will get to eat properly.

[Stephen Doughty]

If I might reflect on what my hon. Friend has just said, food parcels are extremely basic: they include basic rice and basic pasta—there is nothing glamorous in them at all. Other charities are doing equally important work in offering hot, nutritionally balanced meals, with meat, veg and everything else, rather than just what we find in a food parcel. I note that the audience includes colleagues from the Salvation Army, which runs a fantastic community café in my constituency called Grub In A Tub. The café provides nutritionally balanced meals for £3, and people go there every day to get warm and to get a hot meal inside themselves. I commend the work that such organisations do on top of the work being done by the food banks.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for commending the work of the Salvation Army. I mentioned Magic Breakfast. He is right to suggest that the food from a food bank is non-perishable and not fresh; it is tinned fruit, vegetables, meat and fish, as well as pasta, cereal and UHT milk, so it is nothing glamorous. I also commend the work of FoodCycle, which provides fresh meals for people across the country. Its network of three cafés is growing, and it does a great job using food that would otherwise go to waste.

I know that supermarkets have to play their part, but I would like to take a moment to commend their recent work on making food collections, which several of us will have been involved in. At the start of October, Sainsbury’s, in partnership with FareShare, did a national collection, collecting 2 million meals from its customers. As customers came into its stores, they were given a list of things to collect, and they donated them afterwards. Six hundred volunteers helped in that exercise. Only last week, the Co-operative group teamed up with the ITV breakfast show “Daybreak” and the Salvation Army for the “You CAN Help” food campaign. I went to my local Co-op store and saw the cans being collected, and I made a contribution myself. The final figure for the collection is not known exactly, but it is expected that more than 110,000 cans will be redistributed across the country.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I commend the work supermarkets are doing in partnership with charities—I had hoped to make this point later—but they must make sure they are not part of the very problem she talks about by paying people poverty wages or giving them zero-hours contracts and only part-time work. Obviously, it is commendable that supermarkets are doing something to try to deal with the problem once it is created, but they must make sure they are not part of the problem in the first place.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree. Some supermarkets are a lot better than others in terms of the contracts they give out. Not every supermarket has taken part in food collections. It is important to add that Sainsbury’s and Tesco both made sure that they did not make any profit from the collections that they made. Of course supermarkets have a massive role to play in many ways, including ensuring that their staff are not living on poverty wages.

I was at the Tesco collection in my constituency last week, at the store that collected more than any other in the country. People were incredibly generous. We collected 15,000 meals at the store in Allerton road. Tesco collected 2 million meals and gave a 30% top-up. The public have shown tremendous generosity, but we should not have to have such collections.

I want quickly to reflect on the future. I have spoken about people in work who are in poverty and mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures of the other week. There are in this country more people in poverty who are in work than there are out of work. That is important, and the Government should reflect on it. We have had the autumn statement; we did not get an answer from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but we know from analysis done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that 60% of the people who are most affected are those in working households and that the poorest 10% of the population will have the biggest percentage drop in their incomes because of the autumn statement. Many organisations have raised serious concerns about how that will affect what happens. Barnardo’s talks about families that currently exist on only £12 per person and are worried about the future.

Yesterday, as reported in column 152 of Hansard, I asked the Chancellor whether he was ashamed that by the end of this year, on his watch, 250,000 people would obtain emergency food aid. I was disappointed that he did not want to reflect at all on the substance of my question and the serious issue that people face. He referred only to having to deal with the economic challenges. I urge the Minister to think long and hard, particularly now that we are in the run-up to Christmas, about what the Government can do to help not only the people in our society who are most in need but the people we least expect to find suddenly in desperate and difficult circumstances.

I do not know whether the Minister has visited a food bank. Perhaps he will tell us whether he has been able to see one at first hand and speak to people who must obtain emergency food aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made a good point about the role that supermarkets should play in redistribution and in preventing the waste of food. That important issue needs to be dealt with. However, I would like to know what the Minister is doing and what conversations he has with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, particularly about delay in benefit payments, which is the largest contributory factor in the need to get emergency food aid. What conversations has he had or what representations has he made to his colleagues in the Treasury, in the light of the autumn statement, about the fact that the poorest in society will be hit hardest? My concern is that the situation will only get worse if the Government do not do something serious about it soon.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

We have had a full debate so far, and the hon. Lady was generous in giving way more than 20 times. The subject is important, and five hon. Members have written to ask to take the floor. I must call those Members, but the two Front-Bench Members must also speak, so if there are any interventions, can they be brief, and will those called to speak try to leave a little time for their colleagues to make their points?

Dangerous Dogs

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

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

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the challenge not that, under the Government’s current proposals, microchipping will happen only to new puppies and, therefore, millions of dogs will not be microchipped? We will have to wait years until the entire British dog population has a microchip.

[Chris Evans]

That is why it is important that we follow the Northern Ireland example and have compulsory microchipping.

From speaking to groups such as Dogs Trust, it is clear that their favoured way of introducing legislation is as a preventive measure. They believe that improvement notices should be issued to dog owners rather than notices being linked to pieces of land. Such notices work preventively to ensure that owners take certain steps to control their dog in public, and allow local authorities to force owners to use a muzzle or lead if there is a risk to public safety. A breach of a dog control order is an offence that risks a fine of up to £1,000 and disqualification from owning a dog, but there was nothing about that in the Government’s recent proposals.

Stray dogs are an important issue in any discussion of dangerous dogs legislation, as they are linked directly with dog attacks. Despite that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs considers the control of strays as a local authority matter. With local authority budgets feeling the strain and more local services being cut, the budget for animal welfare is not high on many councils’ list of priorities. Some have merged their animal welfare function with pest control, while others claim that they have no budget at all to deal with stray dogs. The issue has not been dealt with adequately by the Government.

All those major problems still exist despite the Government’s recent proposals. The charities concerned with dangerous dogs legislation that I speak to have been left frustrated by the reluctance of the Government to go further. This was a chance to reform the legislation on dangerous dogs and include preventive measures to stop dog attacks before they start. By introducing compulsory microchipping of all dogs, recorded on a single national database, owners will be encouraged to take responsibility for the behaviour of their dogs. Banning the sale of dogs in newspapers and on the internet and introducing a list of approved breeders would help to prevent the illegal breeding of dogs. With more than 5,000 people hospitalised due to dog attacks in the past two years, it is time the Government realised that the law must change. Sadly, the Government’s proposals look like a missed opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)on securing today’s debate, which is timely given the Government’s recent announcements. I apologise, Ms Dorries, because I will not be able to stay for the end of the debate; I have to leave early to attend a meeting with a Minister on a constituency matter.

All hon. Members in this Chamber know about irresponsible dog ownership: we see it at first hand in our constituencies. The British Medical Journal estimates that every year in the UK, 250,000 people are bitten by dogs. Since 2006, six children have tragically lost their lives in dog attacks, including the tragic death in 2009 of John Paul Massey in my constituency. Some 400 telecoms workers and more than 6,000 postal workers are attacked by dogs every year in the course of their work.

It is not just people who are victims. Hon. Members have mentioned dogs attacking other dogs. Some 100 instances of guide dogs being attacked by other dogs were reported to the Guide Dogs charity last year, affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I shall ask the Minister three questions in the light of the recent announcement by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and of the announcement by the Home Office yesterday on antisocial behaviour. First, I welcome DEFRA’s statement on extending the law to cover attacks on private property. With 70% of dog attacks taking place in a private home or garden, it is important that the law is extended. However, I am keen that the Minister should say when those measures will be put into force. Will we have to wait until the consultation on microchipping has ended before the law is extended to cover private property? The Government should not wait. I should like them to act now.

I am keen that the Minister should lay out a timetable for the coming into force of the proposals announced yesterday by the Home Office and say what steps he will take to ensure that that proceeds with all urgency. It is vital that, having made such commitments, they are brought in as soon as possible. Every day, we read newspaper stories about attacks in the UK. Delay leaves the public at further risk.

Secondly, with regard to resourcing, including cuts to policing, I am concerned about how effective the DEFRA announcements will be without proper enforcement. Changing policy and giving enforcement agencies the powers that they should have had for a long time is one thing, but it is equally important that the police and others have the resources to enforce the law and deliver results on the ground. Under the 20% police budget cuts, some 16,000 police officers will be taken off our streets. In Liverpool, that will translate to 350 police officers by 2015, which will leave our police force in Merseyside stretched.

What is the Minister’s, and his Department’s, assessment of the impact of police cuts on the enforcement of the new dangerous dogs legislation? What work has the Department done with the Home Office to ensure that, despite the cuts, police forces will still be adequately equipped to tackle irresponsible dog ownership? Thirdly and finally, on compensation to victims, I hope that the Minister is aware that the Ministry of Justice proposes to end criminal injuries compensation scheme payments to dog attack victims in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. Only in cases where the dog is purposefully set upon a victim will CICS claims be allowed in future. That means that in cases where the dog owner is uninsured and has no money or assets, postal workers and children who suffer horrific injuries will receive no compensation from any source. Will the minister confirm that this is so? If he cannot, will he engage with colleagues at the MOJ on that?

[Mr Burrowes]

Does the hon. Lady know about the recent and welcome criminal justice legislation, which gives a presumption of compensation for all victims of crime that will extend, particularly in respect of the legislation to cover private property, to most people who are victims of dog attacks? We must prosecute these people and get them before the courts, then people will receive the proper compensation.

[Luciana Berger]

As I said earlier, I welcome the Government’s extension of the legislation to cover private property, which hon. Members from all parties have been calling for for a long time. However, if such an attack happens and the owner does not have any assets, under the new proposals advanced by the Ministry of Justice, they will have no recourse to compensation, except in the specific instance where a dog is purposefully set on a victim, as outlined in the document. I am concerned that, under the proposals, someone who sustains an injury—a child or a postal worker—will not be eligible for any criminal compensation, even if there is a prosecution. That text is buried right at the end of the document. I can share a copy of it with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, if he would like to see it. I hope that the Minister responds to the specific points that I have made about the timetable, about the police being able to enforce the new legislation, and about criminal injuries compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

6. What her policy is on the control of dangerous dogs and tackling irresponsible dog owners; and if she will make a statement.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What her policy is on the control of dangerous dogs and tackling irresponsible dog owners; and if she will make a statement.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

12. What her policy is on the control of dangerous dogs and tackling irresponsible dog owners; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that many animal charities, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, share with the Government a determination to stamp out irresponsible dog breeding. Responsible dog breeders, who already chip their puppies, set an example to all dog breeders on the importance of chipping new-born dogs. The proposed way forward is to encourage chipping of puppies to ensure that at the point of sale we can identify where they have come from.

[Luciana Berger]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), it has taken the Government two years to introduce measures to tackle dangerous dogs. The consultation on dangerous dogs concluded in June 2010, and it is now April 2012. Nothing announced on Monday will prevent dog attacks in the first place. Clarissa Baldwin, the chief executive of the Dogs Trust, said that she was “extremely disillusioned” with the lack of preventive measures in the Government’s announcement. Further to what the Secretary of State has said, the powers that will be extended to cover private property can be applied only when an attack has occurred—they do not prevent an attack in the first place. Will she tell the House how many dog attacks will be prevented as a direct result of the proposals that she announced on Monday?

[Mrs Spelman]

That is what I think is called a multi-part question. The hon. Lady is new, so she could be forgiven for not knowing that, while her Government recognised the inadequacy of existing legislation, there is a strong cross-party endeavour to deal with this terrible problem. It is complex, which is doubtless part of the reason why her Government did not get on and sort it out. We have proceeded with the consultation. What will help now is the £50,000 that I have given to animal charities and others to help to educate irresponsible dog owners on how to keep better control of their dogs.

Dangerous Dogs

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

I agree with the hon. Lady. One anomaly in the current law is that the owners of a dog that behaves in a threatening, vicious, bad way on private property cannot be prosecuted. I hope the Minister comes forward with Government plans to correct that anomaly, if not today, in the near future. I have not heard anybody say, or read any evidence suggesting, that the contrary is the right way forward.

I was genuinely shocked when I discovered how many people suffer from dog attacks every year.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Lady for graciously giving way and for securing this debate on this crucial issue. Since 2006, 11 people have lost their lives because of dangerous dogs, and around 5,000 are hospitalised every year. She mentioned the Smith family, but she may know of the tragic death of John-Paul Massey in my constituency. Like the Smith family, Angela McGlynn, John-Paul’s mother, has campaigned on the issue. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need urgent legislation and changes so that the police, local authorities and dog wardens can take preventive action so that we see no more needless deaths?

[Mrs Laing]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. I am sure that the whole House sends its heartfelt sympathy to the family of those little children who have died.

It is tragic. If in any other area of life we discovered that in the past three years or so six children and two adults had been viciously killed, we would take action, but because we are a nation of dog-lovers, we say, “Oh, but we must think about the dogs and look after the dogs.” Yes, of course we must look after dogs, but six little children have died, and we must look after the children first and the dogs second. I know that I will get hate mail from subscribers to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for saying that, but I will say it again: we must put the safety and lives of children and other vulnerable people first, and dogs second. Having said that—I will deal with this in more depth later—it is dogs that are badly treated by their owners that behave badly towards other people. Dogs that are cared for, looked after and loved do not normally cause the sort of trouble that we are discussing.

I was also shocked to discover that blind people, who depend on guide dogs, are suffering as a result of the increase in the number of vicious dogs in our country today, because guide dogs are being attacked by vicious dogs that are badly behaved and out of control. What worse situation can anyone imagine than a blind person, dependent on a loving and caring labrador, having that little labrador attacked by a pit bull-type dog that is out of control? It is totally unacceptable, and action must be taken sooner rather than later.

[Luciana Berger]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the number of attacks on guide dogs has more than doubled in the past year, having risen from three to seven attacks every month? The training and cost of a guide dog over its lifetime is about £50,000. That training is run by a charity, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, that receives no state support for the work it does. Does she share my concern about the cost of those attacks to those people who depend on their dogs and the charity?

[Mrs Laing]

I certainly do. We all, in one way or another, raise money for good causes, and Guide Dogs for the Blind is one of the best. I am thinking of an excellent organisation in my constituency that raises money for Guide Dogs for the Blind. People put a lot of work into that. More than anything, however, those poor guide dogs themselves, trained to be calm and not to fight other dogs, are being attacked by other dogs. It is an utterly tragic situation, and one on which action must be taken. In saying that, however, I am quite sure that the Minister will tell us that action will be taken, because the Government cannot possibly ignore these dreadful situations, which are occurring every day in parts of our country.

Let us consider first the problem and then possible solutions. The problem, as we have just agreed across the House, is not that well-trained, well-cared-for dogs suddenly turn upon children, postmen or other dogs. The problem is that increasing numbers of dogs are being deliberately bred and trained as so-called status or weapon dogs. This has been recognised, and in London alone, about 1,000 such dogs were seized last year. I am pleased to note that Boris Johnson and Kit Malthouse, at the Greater London authority, have taken this matter very seriously and have set up a unit to deal with status dogs. I should also say that both Boris Johnson and Kit Malthouse have met the family of the little girl who was attacked in my constituency and have spoken to them very sympathetically. I have every confidence that action is being taken in London to combat what is a growing problem. I commend Boris Johnson and Kit Malthouse for their understanding and their efforts, but let there be no misunderstanding: we are talking about a growing problem of deliberate bad behaviour, often associated with drug dealing and crime. This is not about old ladies with cute little spaniels or children with labradors. Any laws would have little effect on responsible dog owners, but would make life very difficult for irresponsible dog owners.

What we really need to do, however, is change public attitudes. Being something of a libertarian, I am always against state interference when it is not absolutely necessary. However, controlling dangerous dogs falls into the same category as wearing seatbelts in cars or smoking in public places. I was one of those who argued against the restrictions on personal freedom that the laws on seatbelts and smoking in public places imposed. I spoke against those laws on the grounds that we should not interfere with personal freedom, until I saw the proof that the evil done by the imposition of the rule was a very much lesser evil than that which resulted from not imposing it. In order to change public attitudes, the Government have to give a lead. First, we need a system that is simple to implement, and cheap and straightforward to enforce. The police and local authorities need to have adequate powers, adequate resources—preferably self-financing—and public support.

My constituent Mr Smith’s campaign, which has received an enormous and growing amount of support, has come up with the slogan, “Chip them, lead them and give kids freedom”—I think that is quite good. Microchipping, the use of leads and muzzles, and creating dog-free areas in parks are certainly possible ways forward. However, as other hon. Members have said, we must put the emphasis on prevention. I know that there are arguments against compulsory microchipping—the hon. Member for Strangford gave us a good example of how it is about to work well and is supported in Northern Ireland. There are arguments against microchipping, restricting freedom and imposing more red tape on yet another walk of life.

However, like everything else, it is a question of balance. I would argue that it would be perfectly reasonable to phase in a system of microchipping new puppies before they are sold. The cost would be minimal—I am told that the cost of inserting a microchip is often less than £10—and some 60% of dogs are already microchipped. Charities that look after dogs already microchip them, and many would offer to microchip the dogs of those who could not afford to do so should a compulsory system be introduced. I did not know much about what microchipping meant, but it might surprise the House to know that the microchip is about the size of a grain of rice. All that happens is that this little thing is injected into the scruff of the neck when the dog is about six weeks old. I am told that it does not hurt, and that it is simple and cheap.

Let us look at the benefits. It could be argued that making microchipping compulsory would have no effect, because the good dog owners already do it and the bad ones would simply ignore the law, as they do now. However, that is the very point of a compulsory microchipping system. We need a system that is simple for the police and local authorities to administer, and that will give an officer of the law or of a local authority an easy way to impose a penalty if the law is broken. That is why I propose that the imposition of a microchip in dogs born after a certain transition period should be a strict liability matter. Anyone in charge of a dog that did not have a microchip would be subject to a strict liability penalty for breaking the law, rather like a parking ticket.

The advantage of such a system is that it would bring speedy resolution, rather than involving long court cases in which evidence needed to be brought and people prosecuted. It would be easy, and it would give the RSPCA and local authorities the power to intervene. If a dog was not being properly trained or looked after and was viewed as a potential problem, the authorities could intervene simply because it was not microchipped. That is what I call the Al Capone effect. Hon. Members will remember that Al Capone was a notorious gangster and, no doubt, a murderer and torturer, but he was arrested for tax evasion. People who breed dogs for nefarious purposes might not be brought to justice for drug dealing or extortion, but they could be arrested for non-payment of the fine for not chipping their dog. That would give more power to the police and other authorities to take serious preventive action.

I understand that some local authorities are considering making microchipping a condition of allowing a dog to live in local authority accommodation. Could that not be extended? Preventive action could be taken, rather than reactive action; it would be simple to achieve, and would require no long drawn-out court proceedings. We license our cars, after all, and some dogs are just as dangerous as cars. We should have to register our dogs and accept responsibility for them.

Another possible solution is the compulsory use of a lead or muzzle. Again, I appreciate that most responsible dog owners would not dream of taking their dog into a public place without putting it on a lead. I can see the argument for not requiring a lead or a muzzle in all places at all times, but in certain designated areas—especially around children near schools and play parks, and in other obvious places—it would be perfectly reasonable for the law to require a dog to be kept on a lead or muzzled.

I am sure that the Minister will make the point about not bringing in more and more regulations and laws that are difficult to enforce, but I do not see the way forward as involving the placing of more burdens on the enforcement authorities or on law-abiding citizens. If he is reluctant to introduce a law requiring the use of leads and muzzles, would he consider a public information campaign to educate people about the benefits of keeping their dog on a lead, and the responsibilities involved? Once again, I am talking about changing public attitudes so that, instead of it being normal for a dog to run around and for people to have to accommodate the dog, it would be normal for a dog to be on a lead and for people to look at it suspiciously if it were not.

[Mrs Laing]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point about dog control notices. I suspect that they would work rather like dog ASBOs or antisocial behaviour orders. That might work, but I am and always have been rather sceptical about ASBOs in the first place, and my scepticism about them spills over to the idea of having dog control notices. Because we are talking about preventing serious tragedies from occurring in future, I would say that almost anything the Government could do would be welcome.

The third possibility is to have dog-free areas. Local authorities already have the power to make certain areas dog-free. Would it not be sensible—I am thinking about a particular park in Buckhurst Hill in my constituency where Epping Forest district council is currently considering this matter—to say that a small part of a park that is set out as a children’s playground should be dog-free, and that no dog should be allowed in that part? Another part of the park is perfectly okay for dogs, as they are not likely to come across children, so no tragic incidents would be likely to occur there. Where children are playing in a designated play area, however, it makes sense to say that there should be no dogs. Once again, I am ready for the hate mail from dog owners who will say that my suggestions would penalise those who look after their dogs. I honestly believe that people who train and care for their dogs responsibly would find somewhere other than a children’s play area to take their dogs for a walk. We need to put the children first and the dogs second.

The fourth suggestion for the Minister is that there should be some sort of system of compulsory insurance, coupled with compulsory chipping and registration of dogs. I am told that this could be done at minimal cost to the individual and that subscription to one of the dog charities could cover a block insurance for all dogs. If an incident occurred, proper compensation could then be paid to the injured party.

Finally, I turn to the question of penalties. Penalties imposed on people who have let their dogs get out of control and injure other people should be severe so that they have a deterrent effect. The current penalties are not taken seriously. They must be easily enforceable and sufficiently serious to act as a deterrent. Once again, I put it to the Minister that a system of strict liability fines along the lines of parking tickets could work. The last thing any of us want to do is to give the police even more work or to place even more burdens on their time. However, strict liability fines would make the system much easier to enforce. At present, anyone who parks on a yellow line a car that is registered as being in their care is given a penalty charge notice, and if they do not pay the charge, they are dealt with by the criminal justice system. A similar penalty charge notice could be issued to those who allow their dogs to behave in an unacceptable way—to threaten other people, for instance, or to enter a dog-free area.

I know that the Minister must consider cost. I put it to him that the cost to the national health service—which is some £10 million a year—and the cost to businesses of the working time that is lost as a result of dog attacks are far greater than the administrative costs of a licensing scheme would be.

[Luciana Berger]

We should also consider the cost to the police of kennelling dogs while investigations are under way. According to figures that I obtained through a freedom of information request, the kennelling costs incurred by just 26 of our police forces in a single year were close to £4 million.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. It is utterly appalling that taxpayers’ money is wasted on a scheme that is not having the right effect. It is not controlling the number of so-called status dogs and weapon dogs, it is not preventing 6,000 postmen and 5,000 ordinary citizens from being attacked every year, and it is not saving the lives of children. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to my view. I hope that the impassioned pleas that are being made this evening will increase his power when he negotiates with his colleagues, and will enable him to act quickly to deal with all the matters that I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will enlighten me at some point as to what I have to do to make sure that she does not intervene. She will know that I cannot presage what will be in the Queen’s Speech. All I can say is that we are looking at measures that can be brought into play and are enforceable and effective. She cannot tempt me to go further than that in giving the detail.

[Luciana Berger]

Can the Minister kindly confirm—he has said this in the past few weeks—that we will see this package of measures before the recess, and therefore before the end of the month?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to confirm that that is still our intention and desire.

The issue of irresponsible dog ownership spans a number of areas, with the police, courts, local authorities, dog re-homing centres, veterinary surgeons and charitable bodies, many of which are dog re-homing centres, all having an interest. It is therefore important to strike the right balance between penalising irresponsible dog owners and not placing unrealistic burdens on the majority of responsible dog owners. The serious implications that irresponsible dog ownership can have for individuals mean that we regard it as a form of antisocial behaviour. It is important that the police and other professionals have effective tools and powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. That is why the Home Office published a consultation document that proposed a streamlined set of faster, more flexible and more effective tools to allow practitioners to protect victims and communities and get to the root of the problem. The Home Office received more than 1,000 written responses to its consultation from the police, other front-line professionals, members of the judiciary, local authorities, interest groups and members of the public, and it has worked with DEFRA officials on the detail of the proposed new criminal behaviour order and the crime prevention injunction to ensure that they adequately cover dog-related issues and could apply to antisocial behaviour by dog owners.

We also want to encourage informal measures to tackle inappropriate behaviour before it escalates into something more serious. Such measures could include raising awareness of examples where local areas are taking a more informal approach to issues through, for example, restorative justice or working with potential offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest mentioned that some local authorities could require dogs to be microchipped before their owners could have local authority accommodation. That struck me as a very good example of a local initiative that could be used without the need for legislation.

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to undertake to discuss that with my colleagues. My understanding is that the Home Office has considered the matter. I do not wish to presage what may or may not be announced by Ministers there. Suffice it to say that I do not think they are fully persuaded. I shall say a word in a moment about other financial aspects.

Currently dog control orders are available to local authorities, under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. These allow local authorities to impose restrictions on the walking of dogs in certain public open areas. Typically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest suggested, this allows child recreation areas in parks to remain dog-free and thereby helps to provide a safe area for children to play. It also allows local authorities to place restrictions in areas where there have been substantial complaints about unruly dogs in general causing problems. My hon. Friend rightly said that the part of a park where the children’s play area is should be free from dogs. I entirely agree. The powers exist and local authorities can ensure that. One would encourage them to do so in the appropriate situations.

As the House may know, dog control orders will be replaced by the new measures available under the Home Office’s proposed revised antisocial behaviour measures, but there are no proposals to remove the power to create dog-free areas. Another proposal being looked at by my Department is to extend the criminal law on dangerous dogs to all private property. My hon. Friend rightly made a great deal of this. The proposal would allow the police to investigate dog attacks on private property. However, we need to make sure that any new measure gets it right. There is an issue of balance here. Nobody would disagree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the Communication Workers Union. Clearly, someone going about their duties as a postman, milkman or anybody else who goes on to private property should not expect to be under attack from a dog. That, I hope, goes without saying.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of children. None of us wants to see children attacked anywhere, but there is a distinction to be made between people who are legitimately on premises, whether a postman or postwoman, a child whose home it is or who is staying with their grandparents or whatever it may be, and somebody who should not be on the property—a potential burglar or other trespasser.

I am carefully trying not to lead the House into any conclusions about what may be announced. All I would say is that there is an issue of getting it right. We are discussing a first-class example in which haste does not get it right. I was here—I do not think anyone else in the Chamber this evening was—when the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was passed. We all realised that we as a Government, of which I was a very junior member at the time, acted in haste. Perhaps we could say that we have repented at leisure. We clearly did not get it right.

I do not support any cause for delay, but deliberation is required. I have therefore pointed out the balance that we have to strike between those who have a right to be on a property and those who should not be there in the first place. Do we really want to see a trespasser successfully prosecuting a home owner because a dog has acted in a way that many people would consider only natural towards somebody who the dog would not expect to be on the premises? There are major implications to extending the law into the home. We need to make sure that all the potential risks are understood and can be addressed.

[Luciana Berger]

The Minister rightly referred to postmen and women coming to homes, and the need to protect children, but the issue is broader than that. Social workers visit homes, as do health workers and health visitors, telecom workers and people coming to read meters. There is a plethora of people who have to enter someone’s property for one reason or another and who could be and have been under attack from dangerous dogs.

[Mr Paice]

I fully accept everything the hon. Lady says. I referred to postmen and women only by way of example; it was not meant to be an exclusive list, as I am sure she appreciates.

A number of people, including some hon. Members, support the idea that if breed-specific legislation is not repealed, and frankly we have no intention of repealing it—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood said, the police point to its benefits and do not wish it to be repealed—owners should be allowed to apply to the courts to have their dogs added to the index of exempted dogs. I would want the police to have the final say on whether a dog should be seized, and there might also be scope for not kennelling other types of dogs that are not a danger.

In answer to another point that was raised, we are very much aware of the costs of kennelling not only to the Metropolitan police, who are the biggest example, but to many others, including some charities, and we are aware that those costs have risen steeply over the past few years. We are not aware of the police having any central records for all forces in England, but we might be wrong about that, so my officials will make inquiries with ACPO to see whether those central records exist. In all cases, the police would need to be satisfied that the dogs are in the care of a responsible owner, as there would be no point in putting them on the list of exempted dogs if they were then left in the care of someone who would not be responsible. The idea would clearly save the police money, which we fully appreciate.

Another proposal referred to by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is the compulsory microchipping of dogs. My officials in DEFRA keep in close and regular contact with officials in the Northern Ireland Executive. We are aware of what they are doing and are watching the development of their new initiative carefully. There are obviously benefits to the compulsory microchipping of dogs, one of which is the ability to identify the owner of a dog that had become dangerously out of control, even if they were not present at the time of the incident. Better traceability of owners could discourage owners from letting their dogs run loose and, therefore, reduce the likelihood of attacks. We have to consider the downsides. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest is probably right about the issue of cost, which some people raise, but updating the records is more important. Clearly, if a dog changes hands or its owner moves, the record becomes useless unless it is updated. Again, it is an example of not just a simplistic approach, but one that has huge merits.

We have made it a priority to see how the issue is being dealt with on the ground by many local authorities and are looking at how local community initiatives are promoting responsible dog ownership. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest referred to initiatives for local authority accommodation. One example is Ealing borough council’s “dog watch” initiative. I know that Waltham Forest district council has also carried out many initiatives in part of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have a long list of initiatives and congratulate the council on its work. All of them are key to tackling the problem of irresponsible dog ownership. They can provide suitably tailored local approaches to local problems.

The guidance that my Department issued to law enforcers in 2009, under the previous Government, also reminds local authority housing providers and other landlords that they can play an important part in addressing antisocial behaviour in areas where they have jurisdiction, as we have discussed. Housing providers are strongly encouraged to have a clear and positive policy towards dogs, with sanctions and consequences if a tenant fails to adhere, and of course that applies just as much to housing associations as it does to local authority housing.

I said that I was going to return to the issue of finance and, in particular, to insurance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest raised as one of her proposals. The previous Government considered the matter when they launched their consultation in 2010. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is, I am pleased to say, nodding in agreement. At the time, however, the insurance business was not at all supportive of the proposition, and if the industry is not prepared to offer such policies it is difficult to see how one could make insurance compulsory, as my hon. Friend suggested.

I am also not sure that insurance is a necessary prerequisite, bearing in mind that the vast majority of dog owners would therefore pay for it to deal with the behaviour of a tiny but nevertheless significant minority of irresponsible dog owners, but I reaffirm that it has been a matter of consideration and interest for the Department. I should not want to discourage any individual who wanted to take out such insurance, but part of me wonders whether, if they want to take it out, they have doubts about their ability to control their dog.

I apologise to the House for not being able to be more specific about what we are proposing, but the House will be very much aware of the constraints on Ministers before decisions have been made. I reaffirm, however, that we are working on two separate packages of measures—although we hope that they will come together—in DEFRA and in the Home Office, and we are determined to take action.

Food Prices and Food Poverty

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to Newham’s Labour council and I find it amazing that, at a time when councils are experiencing a 28% cut to their revenue, they are still managing to subsidise school meals or, as in Newham, to fund completely free meals. What a tragedy it is that that scheme cannot be extended to secondary schools there. I will return to the issue that my hon. Friend raises about school holidays.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that the removal of extended schools money means that many schools cannot afford to put on breakfast clubs? Many children who would previously have gone hungry if they had not got breakfast through a breakfast club are returning to a situation in which they do not have food in their stomachs, and so cannot learn and are not getting a healthy start to the day.

[Mary Creagh]

It is a tragedy that both breakfast clubs and after-school clubs are under threat. The chef Richard Corrigan did a film for Sky called “Richard Corrigan on Hunger” in which a lady who runs clubs that are provided for by a charitable provider, Magic Breakfasts, talks about children being admitted to hospital in the school holidays for malnutrition—that comes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) about the challenge that school holidays pose for families’ food bills—and scurvy appearing in children of primary school age, which I find deeply shocking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

Shortly, my hon. Friend will hear me expand correctly on the analysis of what is driving food price inflation.

It is important to remember that in 2010 the average family spent 11.5% of its household budget on food. The figure is greater for low income families, at 15.8%, but it is coming down; the 2010 figures are 1% lower than two years previously. That is a very important fact—the trend is that household expenditure on food in the lowest income families is coming down.

[Luciana Berger]

I do not know whether the Secretary of State has seen the figures released by the OECD last week. They showed that in the UK food prices rose by 4% in the last year, which is 0.7% above the EU average.

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady needs to understand the contributory factors. The depreciation of sterling makes imports of food in other currencies stronger than ours more expensive. It is important to read the figures in the context of exchange rates and the other factors that drive up inflation.

The Government are, of course, actively finding ways to help mitigate the rises. But the Government cannot do it all, and they should not pretend that they can. Since the removal of production linked support in 2005, crops and livestock are traded on a global market. It is those markets that dictate food prices. As has been pointed out, the key drivers of domestic retail food price inflation include world agricultural commodity prices.

I hate to have to tell the hon. Member for Wakefield, but if she is to have this brief she needs to learn that the wheat price has not been stable; it has fluctuated in recent years from £60 a tonne to more than £200 a tonne. There are also oil prices and exchange rates. In 2008, although the price of wheat fell in dollar terms, it increased in sterling terms because of the relative weakness of sterling to the dollar. To understand the causes of food price inflation, one has to analyse correctly the underlying drivers.

World commodity prices are the key driver and we are working hard internationally to ensure the better functioning of commodity prices at the global level. That, in turn, will affect food prices at home. The depreciation of sterling has made dollar-denominated commodities more expensive. Furthermore, global weather extremes have caused shortages that drive prices up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on securing today’s debate on this relevant and topical issue. I wish to use this opportunity to highlight the national scandal of rising poverty.

Some people find it hard to believe that food poverty really exists in this country. Last year, I was aghast to hear the former Conservative MP, Edwina Currie, say on BBC radio that she had “great difficulty” believing that people in Britain went without food. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that people are not suffering as a result of benefit changes. Perhaps they have not seen the very real and tragic situation that thousands of families and pensioners face this winter, and perhaps they have not been affected by the 4% rise in food prices over the past 12 months. However, the thousands who are forced to queue for handouts, in lines that stretch through church halls and community centres across our country, certainly are, and they include people who struggle to balance housing costs and rising energy bills, and the mums and dads who go hungry so that their children do not have to. With rising prices, higher living costs and falling wages, it is becoming more difficult for people to make ends meet. The consumer prices index shows that the average household spends 12% of their income on food, meaning that a couple with two young children spend more than £5,000 a year on food. In addition, according to the OECD figures that we have discussed a great deal this afternoon, 4% food inflation has added an extra £233 to that bill over the past year alone.

It is even harder for lower-income households to cope. DEFRA’s own statistics show that they have to spend 15.8% of their income on food—nearly 3% more than the average household. While jobseeker’s allowance for a single adult is £67.50, it is just not possible to eat healthily on £8 a week or just over £1 a day. Last May, I did the “Live Below the Line” challenge, which was organised to raise money for charities in Africa, and I lived on £1 a day for food and drink for five days. I did not have enough protein, and I got headaches. I could afford just one of the five recommended pieces of fruit and veg a day. I endured that for just five days: there are over 4,000 people in my constituency for whom that is a reality 365 days a year.

It is therefore not surprising that fruit and vegetable consumption in poorer families fell by 30% last year. It is even harder to buy food when the support to which someone is entitled is not paid on time, as I found out when I visited a Trussell Trust food bank in my constituency just before Christmas. I met a man who had walked in the freezing rain to get to the food bank. The week before, he had been in hospital recovering from heart surgery. When he came out of hospital, he was told that he would have to wait a number of weeks for his benefit payments to be reinstated. He was hungry. His district nurse had given him a food voucher, but he could not afford the bus or a taxi. He had to walk more than four miles. He was a desperate man.

That is one of three food banks operating across Liverpool. We have five in total across Merseyside providing desperately needed assistance to people who cannot afford to buy food. The figures show that the largest proportion of people seeking emergency assistance—just under 40%—do so because of delays in receiving benefit payments. With the Chancellor’s austerity programme sucking growth out of our economy and pushing up inflation and employment, it is clear that, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and a reduced Department for Work and Pensions cannot cope with the demands placed on them. That is set to get worse, as it is estimated that over the next three years HMRC will lose 10,000 more staff, and DWP is set to lose 17,000 staff.

In my constituency in the past nine months, 312 people were issued with food vouchers for themselves and their families, which entitled them to at least three visits to the food bank, but the food bank would never turn them away if they needed anything more. That situation is not unique to Liverpool. There has been a huge growth in food banks across the country, with one opening every week last year. Contrary to what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs believes, I do not think that that is something to celebrate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) highlighted, according to the Trussell Trust, the fantastic charity that runs 163 food banks across the UK, in the past 12 months, 60,000 people received help from food banks, including 20,000 children. It predicts that 130,000 people will need help this year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) highlighted the fact that those figures are set to rise to 500,000 by 2015. The figures are staggering and awful but, faced with that crisis, the Government have pursued out-of-touch policies that are making the situation worse, not better. They are making it harder for families and pensioners to make ends meet and to cope with the rising cost of living. Tax rises and spending cuts that go too far and too fast are choking off economic recovery, pushing up prices and leading to soaring unemployment.

That reckless plan has backfired on the deficit too, with more people out of work and claiming benefit rather than paying taxes, meaning that the Government will not balance the books by 2015 as they promised. It is time to change course and get our economy growing to create more jobs. DEFRA should play its part by putting the food industry—the largest manufacturing sector in the UK—at the heart of the economic recovery and getting a fair deal for British farmers and food manufacturers. We want a competitive supply chain for growers, processors and retailers.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was pressed earlier about when the groceries code adjudicator will be introduced, but we did not receive clarification. We are concerned that the office will not be up and running until at least 2014-15. As price rises are 0.7% above the EU average at 4%, we need action now, and we also need to act to protect consumers from vested interests. The grocery market is dominated by four big supermarkets, which account for about 85% of the total market. Nine out of 10 people are concerned about rising food prices, and over half of them are comparing prices more when shopping for food. However, only 53% of people think that it is easy to work out which product is better value for money using the price information available on labels. Consumers need transparent pricing from the major retailers to make it easier to compare goods so that they can make informed choices. Under Labour proposals, retailers would provide clearer unit pricing for goods, with information that is easier to read, and with unit prices for promotional offers.

Today’s motion sets out to put right the failed approach of this Government, who are out of touch with the families and pensioners facing the squeeze from rising living costs. The approach set out by Labour in the motion would help the thousands of men, women and children who cannot afford to eat properly this winter, introducing measures to get our economy moving and securing a fair deal for British farmers and consumers. Unlike the Secretary of State, I do not welcome the escalation in the number of food banks: there are already three too many in Liverpool, and 163 too many across the UK. It is a tragic and terrifying indictment that we have food poverty in 21st-century Britain, one of the richest nations in the world, and that food poverty is rising. The Government must do anything and everything to reverse the situation in which over 100,000 people this year cannot afford to buy food to eat. I urge everyone to vote for the motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who bowled the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and hit the middle stump, showing the paucity of the motion. I offer advice to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—they simply cannot support the wording in the motion. It is a sign of desperation to pray in aid somebody who has not been in the House for 15 years when referring to Conservative or any other policy.

It is clear from this afternoon’s debate that Members on both sides of the House take seriously the challenges posed by food price inflation. It is also clear that down the years Governments of different complexions have seen varying degrees of price volatility. Of course I agree with hon. Members on both sides that wonderful work is done by charities and other organisations to support people on low incomes. That has always been the case. But please can we not pretend that in some parallel universe those charities were all forced into action on 6 May 2010 and that their existence is totally the result of the coalition Government? That is such a puerile and facile argument. Let us have a mature debate. I hope to add some thoughts in the few moments that I have.

Some Opposition Members have sought to ascribe the responsibility for high prices to the coalition. Clearly, that is undermined by the fact that food prices were rising at a faster rate under the previous Government. Likewise, we know that food price inflation was outstripping general inflation at one point last year, only for the situation to be reversed later in the year. The dynamics of where food prices stand at a particular point in time are of secondary importance to hard-pressed families who are balancing their budgets. Those families want to know what action is being taken to help, not just by Government, but by a range of organisations that have a distinguished track record in this regard.

We have heard of some excellent initiatives in the area of food provision and redistribution. We know about Healthy Start, which is a Government initiative. We have heard about FareShare, which provided 8.6 million meals in the last financial year. Many hon. Members have spoken about food banks, which are organisations set up by wonderful, community-minded people with real compassion. We applaud their activities. However, I say to Opposition Members, in particular the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), that it is ridiculous to say that the rise in the need for food banks is attributable to this Government. This Government spend £122 million a day just to pay the interest on the debt that their Government left us. That is what we have to spend before we even pay off the debt.

[Luciana Berger]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

No, I will not give way.

The motion is almost entirely consumed with statements about the introduction of the groceries code adjudicator. We agree on the importance of introducing an adjudicator. That is why we have published a draft Bill and are getting on with putting it in place. What is rather more puzzling is the position of the Opposition, who wasted 13 years without introducing the adjudicator, even though they knew that power was shifting from the suppliers to the retailers and had received evidence on that. Despite that, they criticise this Government for not having completed the process in 18 months.

The motion refers to “delays”. The only element of delay is in the motion itself, which demands that the adjudicator be introduced in the next Parliament. The hon. Member for Ogmore explained that that was a drafting error. In that case, he must tell Members not to support the motion. Any Member who supports it is showing a paucity of ambition, because it means that they want the adjudicator to be introduced early in the next Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will have to withdraw the motion. That is the only thing to do. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) might want to wait until after the next general election to introduce the adjudicator, but the coalition has no such intention. We will carry on with the work in hand and bring it in during this Parliament.

Aside from the rather narrow focus on the adjudicator, there has been a series of interesting and useful contributions on the work that can be done to mitigate food prices. I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and wish her social enterprise well. It sounds like an interesting idea. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who made some interesting comments about the social impact of the threat of high food prices. I confirm for her that the groceries code adjudicator will consider anonymous submissions. She talked in particular about the fruit and vegetable sector. Those suppliers can approach the groceries code adjudicator anonymously.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) asked when the groceries code adjudicator would be introduced. I hope that we have answered her question. The draft Bill is available. I cannot second guess what will be in the Queen’s Speech. I would be in trouble if I did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about local and home-grown food. I pay tribute to what is happening in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives was absolutely on target. He sought, as I do, cross-party consensus because on these issues this House sometimes produces more heat than light. If we look at the matter in detail, we see that there is a lot more that we agree on than separates us.

The Government are hugely supportive of food banks and other organisations that work to open up access to food. The coalition Government have been clear from the outset about the importance that they attach to third sector and civic activity. The success of many organisations in this area demonstrates why we are right to work hand in glove with them in delivering social solutions.

This debate has demonstrated the extent to which food price inflation is shaped by an intricate matrix of interrelated global circumstances. To stand here and pretend that the Government can step in and bring down food prices at a stroke would be disingenuous. The Government can put measures in place to ameliorate the worst effects of food price inflation, which we are doing through measures such as our continued support for Healthy Start and other schemes. One of the biggest determinants of food prices is global and domestic supply, and this Department has put farming and food production at the heart of its business plan. Whether it is in stripping away the needless bureaucracy that has swamped farmers, developing a strategy for balancing the needs of greater food production with protecting our environment, or helping to fund innovation and increased competitiveness, this Government are highly attuned to the need to increase high-quality food production domestically.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is personally driving a great deal of work with other countries to help to meet the food supply challenges set out in the Foresight report. We are investing time and energy to ensure that we are working hand in glove with others on that important challenge. Understandably, the effects of that will take time to be felt.

The fact is that there is no silver bullet. The Opposition should know better than to pretend that the adjudicator will be the cure-all for hard-pressed families. What families need now is for the Government to deliver real help right now to get living costs down to a manageable level. To that end, the Opposition should support freezing the council tax, cutting fuel duty, cutting income tax for 25 million people, extending free child care, increasing the child tax credit, taking action on energy prices and many other measures. They were strangely silent on those measures throughout the debate. That is the programme that the coalition Government will continue to deliver in parallel with our work to increase food security and keep food prices down.

I believe that the House is united in its concern for those who struggle to manage their food bills. That is as it should be. However, this debate has laid bare the absence of any ideas from the Opposition. That is in marked contrast to the practical steps that the coalition is taking to help hard-pressed families up and down the country. On that basis, the motion should be rejected.

Question put,

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

It is not a matter of either/or. Unlike the Government, far-sighted companies have realised that reporting environmental impact helps them to reduce their costs, to improve their production processes, and drives innovation in products and services. That is where we were a leader in the green economy.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern and frustration that, on carbon reporting, proposals to display energy certificates were made in the Energy Bill Committee? That was called for by many large companies that want reporting of carbon emissions. We were frustrated because, despite saying before they came to government that they supported such a measure, Government Members did not do so in Committee, even though the proposal came from a Conservative Member, who had then to vote against it when we pressed it to a Division.

[Mary Creagh]

What a sorry tale. Again, the power of the Whips is demonstrated, even in Committee. That shows the collective amnesia on green issues that both parties in government are demonstrating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

Indeed. Our proposal to reduce VAT to 5% on people’s improvements to their homes in making them more heat and energy-efficient is absolutely part of this agenda.

[Luciana Berger]

I am not sure where the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) got his figures from. Every year, Pew Environment Group brings out a report that measures countries’ investment in clean tech and renewables. It shows that in 2009, under a Labour Government, we were fifth in the world, and in one year alone, we have dropped to 13th—the largest drop of any G20 country, by 70%—as a result of the policy uncertainty under this Government and the lack of investment forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that drop and how it might impact?

[Mary Creagh]

I certainly do; once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Uncertainty is the thing that business likes least, but unfortunately uncertainty is what they are getting, in bucketfuls.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is widespread concern that individuals might be loth to make complaints because of the risk of being penalised by the retailer involved. As he will know, the draft Bill allows for third-party representations, but does not allow for representations from trade bodies. To give a precise answer, there is nothing to prevent the National Farmers Union or any other body from gathering information, publishing it and making things clear. Obviously, the adjudicator would then have discretion over whether to pursue the investigation further.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given today’s worrying report from the Committee on Climate Change showing that the UK is in danger of missing its carbon reduction targets, will the Minister back plans supported by more than 100 organisations, including the Co-operative Group, WWF and the Aldersgate Group, and commit to introducing the mandatory reporting of corporate greenhouse gas emissions?

[Mrs Spelman]

We are consulting on that, but I would like the hon. Lady to know that my Department is responsible for climate change adaptation and we are completely committed, together with the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to achieving our carbon emissions targets. We will do all that we can because this is such an important matter, as was outlined in the Foresight report. The challenge that we will face on food security if we do not tackle the combination of an increasing population and demand for food, hungry people and climate change means that we will be held to account.