Food Poverty

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Dangerous Dogs

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

I absolutely agree. That is exactly what I have experienced. When I walked around Battersea dogs home, I felt that if I had seen one Staffie, I had seen a thousand. To be honest, I could not tell the difference between them.

Another element of responsible dog ownership not tackled in the Government’s proposals is the rise of what is known as status dogs among gangs and young people, contributing to antisocial behaviour and illegal activities. Sadly, the victims of those gangs tend to be Staffordshire bull terriers. In 1996, Battersea dogs home took in 380 Staffies. Last year, that figure rose to 1,869, which accounts for 37% of all dogs at the home. It tells me that, between 1996 and 2009, the number of Staffordshire bull terriers at the home increased by 850%.

Battersea dogs home is now seeing a trend towards different breeds, such as the Siberian husky. The number of Siberian huskies at the home has increased by 28% in the past year. Those dogs are often taught to be violent and as a consequence struggle to be rehomed. The problem is made even worse by the rise of backstreet breeding and the sale of dogs over the internet. Such dogs are often abandoned and become stray.

Some 40% of all the Staffordshire bull terriers taken into Battersea dogs home are two years old or younger. Many of those dogs are labelled as pit bulls when they are nothing of the sort. The thing I found most interesting when I finally came face to face with a pit bull terrier was that I realised I did not know what a pit bull looked like. When I thought about what a pit bull looked like, the dog I was thinking of was an American bull dog, which is a far bigger dog and a different breed.

The online quick sale of puppies often takes place, and many of those sold online are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Those negative aspects of dog ownership are not tackled in the Government’s proposals. It is highly unlikely that a puppy that is bred illegally and sold over the internet will end up in the hands of an owner who will make the effort to microchip them.

There has been success in recent years with the introduction of dog control orders, which prevent the movement of dogs on certain areas of land. Those orders are particularly helpful in safeguarding children’s play areas and parks from overly playful dogs that may scare or injure a child. However, dog control orders are at the discretion of the local authority, and there are playgrounds across the country where dogs are still allowed to roam.

When I spoke to Battersea dogs home about the issue of dog control orders, it told me that it was important for a balance to be struck. Of course, it is important that parents can take their children to parks without fear that they may be approached by a dog. However, at the same time, parks are obvious places for dog owners to walk their dogs.

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

In Hackney, three new dog control orders were introduced as of 1 April. Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenge is having the resources to police those orders? Although they send out a signal, without the dog wardens on the ground, they do not have as much value as we may think.

[Chris Evans]

Absolutely. Unless dog control orders can be enforced and policed, they do not mean anything.

Therefore, instead of dog control orders, the Government could have followed the example of the Scottish Government who have introduced dog control notices. The Northern Ireland Assembly has also introduced control notices as a way of monitoring the behaviour of dog owners.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. Congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate.

I simply wish to echo some of the points made by my colleagues from London who have spoken already, in particular about gangs and dogs used as weapons. I quote from one of the e-mails that I have received from a constituent:

“I no longer come across normal breeds now”—

this is his impression—

“just staffies and pit bull types. They are everywhere! In the parks where small children play, the dogs are hung on to the trees to strengthen the jaws. They are walked around by intimidating owners and quite frankly it is an epidemic.”

That is only one e-mail, but in the time that I have been an MP I have had a number of constituents contacting me, in particular people who are fearful even of going out of their front door, let alone into a park, because of the aggressive behaviour of some owners, with their deliberate training of dogs to be aggressive and weapon-like.

Hackney council has sought to deal with the problem in a number of ways. It, too, has introduced some controls into the tenancy agreement on the number of pets that people own, although that alone is not a solution. Any irresponsible owner will find ways around most of those measures, which is a point that we must all bear in mind.

As a result of situations such as the one I cited, Hackney council has introduced three new dog control orders, which came into effect from April. One is a dog exclusion order, which enables the council to stop dogs entering certain areas, including children’s playgrounds, sports courts, multi-use games areas and marked pitches when games are in play.

A second order requires dogs to be on leads and prohibits owners from exercising their dogs off the lead on roads, in small parks and gardens, on the canal towpath and in car parks and churchyards. That is an example of how irresponsible dog ownership has affected responsible dog owners. Many dog owners are quite able to control their dog on the canal towpath or in churchyards, for instance, without causing a problem for children at play or other adults. Hackney has felt the need to introduce the orders because of the fear factor and some irresponsible dog owners. We will see how that plays out, but it is a worry to me that we must go that way. I still welcome the move, however, at this point.

A third order requires dogs to be on leads when a request is made to owners. That gives officers the power to request that dogs should be put on leads if they are not under appropriate control or if they are causing damage or acting aggressively. That latter point is the most important, but the key issue, of course, with the new or even with existing powers, is enforcement. We already have the powers in Hackney to issue fines for dog fouling in public, for instance, but when I talk to constituents about that there is a certain cynicism about the likelihood of enforcement. Some of the people who are intent on using their dogs as weapons will not be where the dog wardens are. If they see the dog wardens, they will tend to disappear.

Good dog owners will do all the things that are required anyway. I am in favour of microchipping and think that the arguments have been well put today. Microchipping is a good thing. On its own, it is not a solution; it is something that good owners will do, but the bad owners, who breed and sell, will not play that game.

There have been proposals about exclusive dog breeders, and about being able to buy only from some licensed dog breeders. I would be wary of that approach, which it seems to me would create a sort of cartel. It would be difficult to control what happened, especially in rural areas where dogs are born without being, shall I say, planned and bred in the same way as elsewhere. I mean that I know farmers here who tell me that one in seven dogs is likely to become a sheep dog; they do not know which, when they are born, so of course they tend not to keep them all.

I welcome the fact that Hackney has taken on such important powers; however, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has made some sensible and reasonable points about what Parliament needs to do. There is clearly cross-party support for some measures, but we need to work, as the hon. Gentleman said, on ensuring that the Bill is put together properly. We have seen what seemed like the benefits of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. There was a lot of support for it. The danger is that we chase the headlines and pick up the bad examples, without thinking of the consequences.

We need to tease through every consequence to see what the impact will be on different areas of our constituencies, and on our constituents. It may be early for the Minister to reflect on this, but there can be a danger of including in primary legislation things that can be changed only with further primary legislation. The legislation may need to be adapted for the future use of dogs, and we need it to enable minor changes to be made through regulation, once the basic principles are established. That will give the Government and Parliament the freedom to change the law and adapt and adjust it as new breeds come to fruition, or as people try to use dogs in new ways. I feel strongly about that. We cannot wait for primary legislation if we do not get things right, or the situation changes.

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome the points that the hon. Lady has made, about things that affect London communities as well as the rest of the country.

The Government have made a proposal about kennelling costs, and ways to make the action that is taken proportionate. I know as a solicitor how long dogs effectively await trial. The cost of that, just in London, is £2.75 million. If we can deal proportionately with dogs that will not be a risk, that must be welcome. If dogs are a risk they need to be on bail conditions, so to speak, of muzzling and a lead, and so forth.

[Meg Hillier]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was just about to move on to the issue of the cost of kennelling. Responsible owners—and irresponsible ones—can contribute to that, but it is a cost to Londoners, and I think the money would be better spent on enforcement. We need to consider all the consequences. At the moment, because of the breed-based nature of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is difficult for the police to establish what they need to, and it takes them a long time. In my constituency there are higher priorities for police funding than kennelling, so we need to think about how the issue is tackled.

We clearly have a cross-party consensus and agree that we want to proceed positively. I hope that the Minister will take our suggestions in good part, and work with me and others who have an interest in ensuring that responsible dog owners can enjoy their dogs, and that other people will not be made afraid because of those who are irresponsible.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for securing the debate.

It is good to have the Minister here. We are all very much in favour of microchipping, and I want to ask him about the database in particular. Microchipping is all very well, but the database must be right and it must work. The information must be correct. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs launched its inquiry at Battersea yesterday, and we found out that for a third of microchipped dogs the information is not accurate or up to date.

It is right to make sure that we have an accurate database. When a puppy is sold, the first owner or breeder must be responsible for ensuring that the information about where the dog then goes is correct. Thereafter, somewhat as with the licensing of a car, it is possible to follow the dog through its life. Otherwise it will disappear off the database. The idea is also good from a breeding point of view. It will make it possible to be sure that the breeding is correct, without in-breeding or the breeding of bad aspects into a certain breed of dog—so that the buyer gets a healthy dog. From all those points of view, the proposal is a good thing.

People always say, however, that the law works for the law-abiding, and we must be careful that we do not just make it more onerous for the law-abiding to get their dogs microchipped. We need to be able to tackle the other dogs out there, whose owners will never want to have them microchipped.

As to problems with postal workers and social workers, if someone is inviting someone to push a letter through their door and knows that their dog is likely to bite the person who puts it through, they are responsible for the dog and should take action so that that does not happen. The same is true if a social worker comes into their house. That is a key point. As a farmer, I know that occasionally—and this would be more difficult in law—a dog that has never turned before will turn suddenly. That will probably make for interesting cases, and we cannot get everything right, although we must try to.

I want to mention status dogs, quickly. Having looked around Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, it is clear to me—in relation to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—that breed-specific legislation does not work, for the simple reason that, as we were told, some of the cross-bred dogs that are now being bred weigh 8 stone. We can imagine that once a dog of that kind has been trained to be vicious, it will be a hell of a weapon. To be blunt, that is what some criminal elements do: they breed those dogs in the back streets, and train them to be vicious weapons. The other problem is that if they abandon those dogs, most of them are so vicious that they cannot be rehabilitated and rehomed: there is a death sentence on those dogs, because of the way they are brought up.

It is not often the dogs that are to blame—it is the individual or gangs who bring them up. That is probably the most difficult aspect of the measures to get right. There is currently law enabling the police to act in relation to dangerous dogs. We need to be able to allow the RSPCA and others to take up the cudgels. We need to act when a dog is obviously starting to get vicious, when that is obvious from the way that it is being taken around—whether the owner is hanging around the parks with it, or whatever they are doing—and from the behaviour of the dog and the people around it. Even before the dog has viciously bitten anyone, that is the time to pounce on it, and at least try to get it microchipped, so that a link back can be traced. In films where gangs use such dogs as weapons, the one great advantage that they have is the fact that the dog cannot be traced back to an individual member of the gang.

[Meg Hillier]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if aggressive behaviour is witnessed by the police they should have the power in law to enforce microchipping of the dogs? I would support that; it might tackle some of the irresponsible dog owners that we agreed about.

[Neil Parish]

That is exactly what I am suggesting, because we must try to take action. If someone has been bitten, or a dog has been used as a weapon—as an attack dog—we have failed. If we get hold of the dogs before that happens, and link them to their owners, those owners who want to use them as a weapon will be much less likely to be able to do so. We must send a clear message to those people that the situation cannot continue. It destroys not just our society, but many healthy dogs who should not have ended up as they did. I strongly believe that in most cases it is the fault not of the dog, but of the way in which it was brought up. That is why we must pin the dog to those who perpetrate the problem.

I know that it is difficult to get everything right, but I urge the Minister to ensure that we have an accurate database that will continue into the future, that we target not breeds but the behaviour of dogs, and, most importantly, that we make sure that when dogs are used as a weapon we use all the powers we have to link them back to their owners so that they can be properly prosecuted. That will send the message to everyone else.

British Waterways

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I bow to his superior knowledge on the specificities of that point and I agree with it. However, there was a broad concern about the control railways had over canals in the late 19th century, which led to their being run down and to a collapse in infrastructure. Tonnage levels fell, canal miles collapsed and locks crumbled.

Eventually, the tide turned. The first stirrings of preservation can perhaps best be traced back to L. T. C. Rolt’s masterpiece, “Narrow Boat”, which described a journey taken in 1939 and expressed a terrible fear that

“if the canals are left to the mercies of economists and scientific planners, before many years are past the last of them will become a weedy, stagnant ditch, and the bright boats will rot at the wharves, to live only in old men’s”—

and we should add women’s—

“memories”.

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

My hon. Friend speaks eloquently about the history of canals. Does he not agree that the Olympic legacy in east London involves a future for our waterways and that the future of British Waterways, among other bodies, is therefore very important in ensuring that the renaissance of canals continues into the next century?

[Tristram Hunt]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I do so as I shunt towards the future and get away from the past. Having seen the Prescott sluice along the Lea valley, I know the wonders of the valley.

Unfortunately, in the mid-19th century, the Government failed to rise to the task of looking after the future of the waterways. A cash-strapped British Transport Commission could not provide the investment needed to open up the waterways and still focused on freight traffic, rather than on the leisure potential of the waterways. Only with Barbara Castle’s great Transport Act 1968 was British Waterways given a specific mandate to focus on exploiting the enjoyment potential of our rivers and canals. Since then, of course, the transformation has been dramatic. All hon. Members will have witnessed in our constituencies the transformation in water quality and amenities brought about by the new British Waterways strategy. In Stoke-on-Trent, the Caldon canal has been rescued from closure and now provides a stunning route from the urban gothic of the Potteries to the stark beauty of the Staffordshire moorlands. Indeed, we even have our very own Hanley regatta based on the canal.

By the early 2000s, some 200 miles of new and restored waterways were added to the 2,000 mile network—a faster expansion than at the height of the industrial revolution. Moreover, we now have an unprecedented 34,900 licensed boats on the network and some 11 million people visit its waters and banks every year. According to Her Majesty’s Treasury, out of the £330 million total value of inland waterways managed and owned by British Waterways, the amenity and recreational use amounts to £230 million and the use for freight £700,000—but that £700,000 is not to be sniffed at, and it was with great pleasure that we learned that Tesco has begun to move much of its wine stock by canal.

Yet a revived canal network has also proved a highly effective vehicle for some £10 billion-worth of urban regeneration. Whereas once we in this country sought to deny our industrial inland heritage, with buildings jutting up to the canal edge, offering no space for waterside walks or civic space, canals are championed today as placemakers and urban signifiers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, tremble at the thought of the alternative to the model that he proposes—that this asset will be sold off and thereby, once and for all, be out of public control and away from where it should be, which is in the hearts of the public?

[Tristram Hunt]

I am in full agreement. We do not know what would happen were British Waterways to be privatised, in terms of fees, uses and common access, and that sense of heritage, of a past coming down to us. The worry is that the Minister has decided to take no decisions until after the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. My worry is that by the time we reach the CSR, his colleagues in the Treasury might have decided that flogging off the property portfolio was too good an opportunity to miss. We might find ourselves in the awful position of watching the Chancellor stand at the Dispatch Box and sell our national heritage down the proverbial Kent and Avon, in the classic Treasury manner of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I am conscious that this will not work unless that happens. The scale of that asset transfer is probably above my pay grade, but I am absolutely conscious that it has to be done in a way that enables the organisation to operate just as any other organisation of the type I am about to describe could. That is absolutely vital and a given.

As part of that work, we are considering including the Environment Agency’s navigations. I have an open mind on that and want to understand the pros and cons, but my initial view is that it, too, might be suitable for a civil society rather than a Government body to run. That would help to ensure that we had a coherent vision for the main inland waterways of England and Wales.

I know from meetings I have already had with waterways stakeholders that they have concerns, which they have expressed passionately, about two questions: what will happen to British Waterways’ property assets—the point just made by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby)—and can they influence decisions on the governance model of any new body? It is clear that British Waterways would need to retain its property assets for a viable civil society model. On the second issue, much work has yet to be done on the appropriate governance structure. One model is for a national charitable trust. I recently received a letter that was co-signed by a number of representative waterways bodies, including the Inland Waterways Association and the Angling Trust. The letter welcomed such a model, subject to decisions on governance arrangements and the level of ongoing Government support.

I know that there is some nervousness about the prospect of change and what it might mean for those with particular interests in the waterways.

[Meg Hillier]

I do not wish to detain the Minister, but having been a Minister seeking advice on setting up social enterprise mutuals and the like, I would caution him to be alert to any advice that he might receive from within the civil service about setting up a mutual. I would also ask him where else he might be seeking advice from, because it is important that any model be properly drawn up.

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is absolutely right. It is vital that we are extremely careful to ensure that we receive the best advice and get the correct model. I can assure her that officials in my Department are working hard on the issue and are committed to it, although we shall have a difficult time ahead with the comprehensive spending review, which I shall talk about in a moment.

We would have to have a completely new board or council that would shape its own future. It would not be British Waterways by another name, but a new structure, in different hands altogether. We do not aim to impose a particular model for a new civil society body, so we will work up different options in partnership with stakeholders, through workshops, forums and other engagement mechanisms. It is vital to understand the views of all interested parties if we are to reach a successful conclusion to our work on an alternative model for the future management of our waterways. As part of that engagement, I am considering a suggestion recently made to me to include representatives from waterways user groups on the current British Waterways board. We need to be ready for the big change in culture involved in the possible move to civil society.

As the House will be aware, very tough decisions need to be made in the coming months that will affect public expenditure for the next four years. That will inevitably affect the resources available for inland waterways spend in British Waterways and the Environment Agency.

Finally, let me make it clear that I believe strongly that the inland waterways are a vibrant resource that can provide a wide range of benefits and opportunities for individuals and communities across the country. Although we may find ourselves in extremely challenging times for public investment, in the longer term, the potential of our waterways can and will be realised if we all embrace the possibilities at all levels. I believe that moving British Waterways out of Government control to civil society has the potential to make a significant and innovative contribution to the long-term sustainability and resilience of the waterways, by providing additional income and greater engagement of all users, volunteers and local communities in waterways management. We will therefore be exploring all possibilities—

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I believe that the question of hydroelectric power is one for the Department of Energy and Climate Change rather than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, the Environment Agency operates as an arm’s length body and, as I have previously said, will form part of the review.

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

Canals and waterways are vital in my constituency in inner London, where there is a huge renaissance thanks to the Olympics. I welcome the Minister’s tone, but what conversations has he had with the Treasury? It is vital that British Waterways is not sold down the canal but is there for the long term, to protect this asset for the British public as a mutual.

[Richard Benyon]

I am aware that Regent’s canal, in the hon. Lady’s constituency, is a great heritage asset to that part of London. People who love it, and those who love the canals in my constituency and elsewhere, will look on with great concern to ensure that that point is made and that the Treasury understands—and it does—the need to provide British Waterways with the endowment it needs to gear up for the necessary repairs and maintenance of our canals.