Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Neil Parish and Kerry McCarthy

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

I would probably make an exception for amendment 2, but my hon. Friend makes a good point that amending legislation sometimes does not work in exactly the way we want it to work. I do not often give much praise to the Government, but on this occasion they have probably worked hard on the Bill to get it where it is. It is in a much better place than it was.

I will also talk briefly about new clause 5, which is an interesting amendment about water companies and pollution. The key to the water companies and pollution in our rivers is that we are about to have a new chair of Ofwat. The Secretary of State is looking at candidates and the EFRA Committee is about to look at whoever he or she might be. The new chair has a very big job to do, because—let us be blunt—the water companies have paid their shareholders and directors too much and have not put enough into infrastructure.

At one time, a previous Secretary of State was keen to bring forward legislation to ensure that more pressure was put on the water companies to deliver, because it is not just about putting up bills to get more infrastructure to stop pollution; it is about ensuring that water companies invest in building the infrastructure. I would not go as far as the Opposition parties want and nationalise the water companies, but I would apply some thumbscrews to them—only metaphorically—so that they really make a difference on the investment that they make. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know well that water companies should not be discharging into rivers when there is an overflow from treatment plants, many of which have not had the investment that they should have done over the years.

In fairness to the water companies—I do not like being fair to them—we should remember that, after going through education, health and all the other sectors, when they were nationalised they had not necessarily had the amount of investment that they had needed over the years. Since they were privatised, therefore, there has been a lot of investment by those companies, but it has not been enough, which is why we now have an opportunity to get it right. I am not sure, however, that the Bill is the right place for such a provision. I think we should be beefing up Ofwat and taking on the water companies directly.

The Opposition are saying that we are not creating greater biodiversity, but I do not accept that. I believe that we are and that all our policies are destined to do that, but we have to get the balance right. We see Putin and his dreadful regime inflicting this horrendous situation in Ukraine, murdering innocent people. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe and, in many respects, of the world. Therefore, as we move towards greater biodiversity, we must also ensure that we have good food production, with enough food being produced. We have to get that balance right.

I may have journeyed slightly away from the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, but we have to be concerned about getting enough food. Food and energy security—these basics of life—are so important to us now. Let us get the Bill through and ensure that we set up the right committee, with the right chair, to ensure that proper animal welfare is considered, that there are practical ways of dealing with this issue across Government, so that it does not end up in the courts, and that the committee makes sensible decisions that are passed to Parliament, through the Secretary of State, to make sure that the Bill works in practice.

I support amendment 2 and I will support the Bill, but I think we have probably made very heavy work of getting here.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is quite right that we have made heavy work of getting here. We have probably at times shared the view that we would not get here, so I welcome the fact that we have done so. I am not sure why some Government Back Benchers are so upset about the Bill, because it is pretty weak, although the test will be who is on the animal sentience committee once it is up and running, and what decisions they make and are allowed to make, so we reserve judgment on that.

I will speak briefly in support of new clause 1. It was rejected by the Government in Committee, although I am not sure why. It would require the preparation of an animal sentience strategy and annual statements on progress towards that. That would lead to a more proactive approach to sentience from Ministers. One of the amendments I tabled in Committee would have removed the word “adverse.” The new animal sentience committee’s job is to look at the “adverse effects” of policy. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said that it would be able to look at kids learning in school about how to be nice to pets, but that is not the purpose of this committee. Its purpose is to look at negative things, but I think it would help if it could also look at the positive side of things.

Having an animal sentience strategy in place would force the Government to set out how they would respond to relevant reports, assessments and research, and it would be more proactive. Improving animal welfare should not just be about protecting where we are; it ought to be a constant, iterative process, because where we are simply is not good enough, whether because the laws are not strong enough or because enforcement does not happen.

UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

Debate between Neil Parish and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) being able to export marmalade under this new deal. May I assure him that my daughter-in-law is most definitely Japanese? I just want to make that absolutely clear. I agree with the points that have been made about the liberal democracy in Japan now and the need for us to co-operate and build on that across the world, especially in Asia.

I thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), the Chair of the International Trade Committee, for his great co-operation, for allowing me to guest on the Committee and for the work he has put into scrutinising this trade deal with Japan. I also thank the members of the Committee for allowing me to guest on that Committee and for putting up with me as we debated this. It has been a very interesting experience to monitor the deal through the Committee and to see how another Select Committee works. It may—dare I say it?—give me some ideas for my own Select Committee.

I thank the Secretary of State for her engagement on scrutiny and her commitment to amend the Agriculture Bill, to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission in legislation. I look forward to the Government publishing that amendment, which they have yet to do. The independent Trade and Agriculture Commission will be important in helping MPs to scrutinise new trade deals, whether with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US or Brazil. We need to ensure that Parliament has a proper opportunity to debate and scrutinise trade deals, and I hope that the Trade Bill will strengthen that process when it comes back from the other place. I welcome the deal that we have agreed with Japan.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member share my concern that animal welfare standards are generally lower in Japan and that this agreement does not replicate the FTAs that have better, stronger animal welfare provisions? Does he agree that we could and ought to do more to protect ourselves against lower standards of imports from Japan?

[Neil Parish]

When the hon. Lady served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, she always worked hard on animal welfare. I think that we can get improvements, which is why it is essential to have the Trade and Agriculture Commission up and running to scrutinise these deals as they are put in place. The issue is that once a trade deal gets to the Floor of the House, we can scrutinise it, but it is very difficult to change it, so work has to be put in through the negotiations to get that trade deal right. There can be improvements on animal welfare.

It is essential that thae continuity agreement preserves the tariff reductions we enjoy as part of the EU trade deal. We must ensure that we can increase our access to quotas from Japan, because we can export more of some agricultural products to Japan than we have in the present agreement. This is welcome news for agrifood businesses that export to Japan, but it could have been a bit more ambitious on exporting our excellent British food into Japan. Japan is the largest net importer of agrifood products worldwide, as it lacks enough agricultural land to feed its population, importing about 60% of its food, so there is a huge advantage in trading with Japan.

In future, we will have to boost exports of even more of our great food. It is in our interests to use the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and the levy payers who pay every time they process lamb, beef and milk and get those people out to do those trade deals. We need to build on the great links that our Government have with the industry, and I particularly welcome the engagement with businesses about what they need through the Trade and Agriculture Commission.

To conclude, I welcome the agreement. I thank the International Trade Committee again for its scrutiny of the deal. I hope to see a lot more of the Secretary of State and her team on the Floor of the House and in Committee telling the House what brilliant deals we have signed and allowing us enough time to scrutinise them. The Government have set an excellent precedent by coming to the House and having a proper debate on this deal, and I look forward to having a debate on all future trade deals.

Plastic Food and Drink Packaging

Debate between Neil Parish and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 24th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He does a great deal of work with the food and drink sector, and he is right. It is a question not only of working with the food and drink sector in this country, but of imports. As we change things—as we start to put taxes on plastic, and so on—we must ensure that our businesses here are not affected more than businesses that make the goods that we import. That is very important, and I am certain that the Minister has taken a great deal of notice of what my hon. Friend has said.

We need to take the industry with us, because they are the ones who will create the packaging in the first place and will then need to have a method of disposal through the retail system; they will need to work with retailers and consumers to ensure that we get it right.

To conclude, we in Parliament need to lead by example, by removing all single-use packaging from our catering facilities. Will the Minister work with House authorities to help us achieve a plastic-free Parliament?

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. Will he join me in congratulating Surfers Against Sewage for all the work it has done on a plastic-free Parliament? We have been doing it through the all-party parliamentary group on ocean conservation. As he says, there is some way to go—that is why I brought my own cup today rather than using the compostable ones, just in case they are not composted—but the organisation has done a good job in trying to get the parliamentary estate to change its ways.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; she is an excellent member of the Select Committee and I know she has also done a great deal of work on food waste. This is important. We have all worked together with the authorities here to deliver a much better system, but we must ensure that we carry on to conclude it. That is why I ask whether the Minister will work with House authorities to help us to achieve a completely plastic-free Parliament. We have made a lot of progress, but we need to finalise it.

We also need consistency in recycling collections and simpler labelling for consumers—not just putting a green dot on things, because a green dot means nothing; it just means that somewhere along the line, something might have been recycled. It does not mean that that particular item is recyclable. When does the Minister expect new systems to be introduced—knowing her, it will be immediately—and will she commit to ensuring that businesses that produce 1 tonne of packaging per year report on how much packaging they place on the market? That is important, because a lot of plastic is coming through that is not being measured.

Finally, the most important message of our report is that reduction of plastic in the first place is the best way to prevent plastic pollution. Will the Minister work closely with the industry to ensure that we stop the use of unnecessary plastics in the first place?

Dangerous Dogs

Debate between Neil Parish and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 7th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

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

[Neil Parish]

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

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

The Government’s response noted that

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

and stated that the prohibition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our second recommendation was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our report further notes:

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

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

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

“piecemeal and sometimes duplicated approach”

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

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

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

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

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

We recommend that DEFRA

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

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

The Government’s response stated that they

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

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

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

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

Brexit: Trade in Food

Debate between Neil Parish and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 14th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for that clarification.

Farmers offer vital support to the rural economy, with the food and farming industry generating more than £110 billion a year, and employing one person in eight in the country. Food and drink, much of it produced in this country, is a vital industry, and the way our food is produced is so important for our natural environment, as we can see in many parts of the country.

The Secretary of State was in Exmoor and Devon last week, where the farming of sheep and cattle produces that lovely landscape with many natural features. Within those natural features is a managed farm landscape, which is why the profitability of food and agricultural production is so necessary. We can look at environmental payments, but they will not be able to replace the profitability of agriculture and food production entirely. The two need to go hand in glove, which we are really keen to see happen.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As a member of the EFRA Committee, I apologise for not being able to stay for the whole debate; I am on the Ivory Bill Committee, which sits again at 2 pm.

I entirely support what the Chair of the Select Committee says about the need for much greater clarity and strategic direction from the Department, but it is also important that we hear a lot more from the Department for International Trade and the Department for Exiting the European Union. I asked about rules of origin and their impact on the food sector this morning and got a very disappointing response. Does he agree that all three Departments need to send a clear message to farmers and food producers about what the future holds for them?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for the excellent work that she does on the Select Committee. She makes a very good point about geographical indicators. Interestingly enough, when the Secretary of State visited Exmoor and Devon last week, there was talk of giving protected geographical indication status to Exmoor, where we can sell lamb from both sides of the border—from Somerset and from Devon.

All those things are intricately linked to the need for a future food policy, so that people know where their food has come from and so that we can market it better and, hopefully, get a better price for the producer. That money can then be linked back to the landscape. I cannot emphasise enough that the landscape and the food production, especially in certain parts of the country such as big livestock areas and more marginal land, are intricately mixed.

We must also ensure that we have high-quality vegetable production. Where we can produce organic vegetables, we should; where we can produce vegetables with fewer pesticides and fungicides, we should. We must be very positive about a food policy. I am worried that in the recent Command Paper on health and harmony, the only real talk of food production was very much at the high end. The high end of food production is great—from local restaurants, to tourists buying food and to everything linked to the countryside. However, we also need affordable food that the whole population can eat.

At least 90% of our food business goes through our major retailers, and people often buy on price. As we move forward, we have to be assured that our vegetable production not only is of good quality, with high welfare standards, but comes at a price that the average consumer can afford to—and will—pay. Whatever we buy in life, it is a choice, so not only do we want to have good, high standards, but it needs to be affordable.

We have a managed landscape with many natural features, as I said. The onus is on the Government to engage more closely with the industry to provide the food and farming sector with greater clarity. Tit-for-tat tariffs will do more harm than good—just look at the situation in America. The Americans have started putting tariffs on steel and aluminium. That might well help the steel and aluminium industries in America, but it will drive costs up for the industries in America that need to use those products. Food, a commodity and a manufactured product, does not need tariffs on it. In the end, that will only create more costs and could well lead to higher prices to consumers. I do not believe that those tariffs will ever come back to the producer.

It is imperative that we have a farming-focused free trade agreement with Europe. I repeat what has been said day in and day out in this House: two years since the referendum, all sectors—not just the farming sector— need some clarity on the direction in which we are going. People in all lines of business need to make investments, but those in the beef and dairy sectors in particular need to have a long-term view of where the world is going in order to make investments.

Future Flood Prevention

Debate between Neil Parish and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is right. Local authorities, the Environment Agency and the drainage boards can do a great deal, but when local people come together, they know exactly what is happening on the ground, and flood wardens can react very quickly.

In Axminster, a shopping trolley went into a culvert and became full of wood. The whole place flooded, including three or four bungalows. If someone local had been there to hoick—I am not sure whether that is a word in the English language—the trolley out of the culvert, the flood would have been stopped. Such actions also ensure that resources go further. We are learning all the time.

One of the Committee’s most important recommendations was for a more holistic approach. It sounds obvious, but we need to work with nature rather than against it. If we slow the flow of the water by using natural remedies such as planting more trees, restoring wetlands and improving soil management, we are likely to see more and better flood prevention. We must allow water to flood fields naturally sometimes if they are on a natural flood plain rather than in an urban area. That would be a much cheaper and more cost-effective way of preventing floods.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as we think about how we ought to spend our farming subsidies in the wake of Brexit, we should look to them to address the issue that he has mentioned? They could perhaps enable farmers to allow their fields to be flooded sometimes as a form of natural flood defence.

[Neil Parish]

I think the hon. Lady must have X-ray sight, because the next paragraph of my notes refers to how we deal with farming and farmers. Now that we need not follow the common agricultural policy exactly, we have an opportunity to introduce a cost-effective measure to allow farmers to store water when they are able to do so. If they have to store it for a short period and it is on grassland, it will probably have very little effect on their crops and profitability, but if it has to be stored on arable land for a long period, they will require more compensation. We need to consider that in some detail, and I believe that we shall have an opportunity to do so.

Greyhound Welfare

Debate between Neil Parish and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2015-16, Greyhound Welfare, HC 478, and the Government response, HC 133.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. There are around 15,000 active racing greyhounds in the UK today. Although there has been a sustained decline in the popularity of greyhound racing in recent decades, the sport continues to draw crowds and in 2014 it supported a £1.3 billion off-course turnover for bookmakers. I will concentrate a little later on the amount of money being made from the betting on greyhounds and ask whether enough of it is getting back to support greyhound welfare and retirement.

Animal welfare standards expected by the public today are higher than at any time in the past. However, within the greyhound industry, there are sometimes two conflicting priorities—the welfare and integrity standards during a dog’s racing career; and the view of a greyhound as a commercial betting asset. The Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 introduced minimum standards for all greyhound tracks in the country.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its report on greyhound welfare in February. It focused on the effectiveness of the 2010 regulations and their success in safeguarding racing greyhound welfare standards. It was timely, as it fed into the Government’s overdue review of the 2010 regulations, which was published in September.

I will focus today on three of the Committee’s recommendations: the need for greater transparency; kennelling standards away from the track, as well as on the track; and the financing of the industry. Greyhound racing tracks operate within a hybrid or two-tier system. The majority of racing tracks—24—are licensed by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, or GBGB. That means that they operate under the GBGB’s rules of racing and are subject to inspection by the organisation. The standards that the GBGB sets at tracks are also independently accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, and supported by the work of track veterinarians. Any track that meets the required standards may apply to be licensed by the GBGB.

In England, there are also a small number of independent tracks that are not licensed by the GBGB but regulated and inspected by local authorities. These tracks mostly cater for local hobbyists, who keep racing greyhounds mainly as a hobby.

Although different licensing arrangements exist, tracks under both systems must comply with the 2010 regulations. I accept that those regulations have succeeded in improving the welfare of greyhounds at tracks, but there is still much to be done. More transparency is definitely needed in the industry. There are currently no sources of reliable data on greyhound welfare in the public domain. It is therefore difficult to assess accurately the current level of welfare provision or to gauge improvements or deterioration over time.

The Dogs Trust believes that approximately 3,500 greyhounds are unaccounted for every year in the UK. However, as statistics are not published, the true scale of the problem is difficult to assess. The regulations must be amended to require the publication of essential welfare data relating to injury, euthanasia and rehoming. DEFRA’s approach is to rely on a non-regulatory agreement with the Greyhound Board of Great Britain to publish statistics from 2018.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw the “Panorama” documentary that showed a continuing problem with doping in the industry. I know that the board carries out some random drug testing, but doping is still very much being used by unscrupulous owners to speed up or in some cases slow down the dogs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we need much more information about the extent to which doping is a problem and that we need action to tackle it?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Committee visited a GBGB track and we also went to an independent track. While we were at the GBGB track we saw the doping testing taking place. We saw the vets checking the welfare of the greyhound and its ability to race. On the day we went I do not think we could fault the amount of testing and inspection that was going on, but we want to be absolutely certain that on the days when we do not attend the track, the same process is taking place. When it comes to doping, welfare and how many greyhounds are racing, the transparency of the data will tell us where the greyhounds are and how many there are so that if there is a problem we can have the greyhounds tested afterwards as well. There is a real issue.

After what we saw, we believe that the industry is in some ways moving in the right direction and is perhaps not as prone to as much doping as has taken place in the past, but we want to be absolutely certain that it does not take place. It is not only the welfare of the greyhound that is at stake. Doping is an attempt to distort genuine greyhound racing and the result of the race.

I call on the Minister to explain why statistics will not be published until 2018 when the data are already available. In addition, the Government’s latest regulation review did not take the opportunity to extend transparency of reporting to the independent tracks in England. From the industry’s point of view and for the welfare of the greyhound it would be so good to have those figures. If there is nothing to hide, why on earth can we not have the figures sooner? I know that the Minister is very keen on animal welfare. If we had transparency, many of us would feel happier about the situation.

Kennelling is important not only at the track but at the trainers’ kennels. Greyhounds spend approximately 95% of their time at trainers’ kennels. There are pressing welfare issues facing the industry away from the track, and kennelling arrangements differ substantially between the two systems. Although the Government have a non-regulatory agreement with the industry to develop a standard for trainers’ kennels, we are extremely concerned that there is no requirement for this to be used by the independent greyhound sector. Independent trainers’ kennels do not require licensing or inspection. We have concerns that the 2010 regulations do not go beyond racing tracks.

In our report, we urge the Government to extend the 2010 regulations beyond racetracks to cover standards at all trainers’ kennels—both GBGB and independent trainers’ kennels. We recommend that common welfare standards be developed for all kennels and that an independent body verify those standards. The Government are not treating this issue with the severity it deserves. We are disappointed that DEFRA has not recommended extending kennelling standards to the independent greyhound sector as part of its post-implementation review.

I now turn to the financing of greyhound welfare and the role of bookmakers. Greyhounds are bred for the sole purpose of racing—in other words, to provide a betting product. In our eyes, this means that bookmakers have some responsibility to support post-racing welfare, particularly in the area of rehoming. The bookmaking industry made a net profit of some £230 million from greyhound racing in 2014 with a margin of 18%—a margin that is significantly higher and less volatile than a number of other sports. It paid back around £33 million to the greyhound industry in fees for the rights to televise races, and a voluntary contribution for greyhound welfare was paid by some bookmakers.

There has been a decline in the voluntary levy in the past 10 years. In 2015 contributions were £6.9 million, down from £14 million in real terms almost a decade ago. This income stream is threatened by the growth of online and overseas betting operations, which do not tend to make the voluntary contributions. Greyhound racing is currently at the whim of bookmakers who may choose to contribute or not. The voluntary system allows bookmakers to walk away from their responsibility to the industry if the industry tries to increase the levy.

High welfare standards require financing. The onus should be on bookmakers who profit from greyhound racing to contribute financially to improving standards. I understand that discussions between the industry and bookmakers regarding the voluntary levy have now broken down. The Committee calls on the Government to introduce a statutory levy of 1% of gross turnover. This would provide a more stable income stream for animal welfare activities and create an even playing field between contributing bookmakers.

I would go as far as to say that we ought to name the bookmakers who make a contribution to greyhound welfare and those who do not. The bookies who do the right thing are contributing and ought to get some credit for it. The names of those who do not contribute should be made public. In the end, we have to make sure that there is enough money for rehoming. We have very good greyhound rehoming charities that do great work, but they need support, especially from the industry.

We went greyhound racing and we saw the race run in a reasonable way. We saw the greyhounds being checked, including when they came off the track, and we could see very little problem with the race. However, lots and lots of money is being made in online gambling. Therefore it is essential that online gambling should pay a contribution; if the race did not take place, it would not make its money. It should help with rehoming and looking after greyhounds when they finish racing. That is the biggest problem with greyhound racing: they are bred and reared for racing, but what happens to them when they finish? Are they to be discarded or euthanized, or rehomed? We need accurate figures, and enough money for the animal welfare and rehoming organisations to be able to take the greyhounds.

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

Debate between Neil Parish and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

It is probably masochism that brings me here to debate with a room full of farmers. People are well aware of where I come from on this issue, but I hope to convince them that I am speaking not from an emotive perspective, but on the basis of a significant number of reports from eminent experts in the field, which have convinced me of the environmental danger posed by the livestock sector.

In 2009, I introduced a debate in Parliament on the environmental impact of the livestock sector—as I recall, it was just me and the then Labour Minister, who was not particularly impressed. [Interruption.] Actually, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may have been there.

It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) is not here, because he introduced the Sustainable Livestock Bill in Parliament a few years ago as a private Member’s Bill.

[Neil Parish]

When the hon. Lady refers to the dangers of livestock production, is she differentiating between grass-fed livestock on permanent pasture, which is good for the landscape and biodiversity, and other forms of livestock? It is an interesting point, and I would like her to clarify it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will get on to that in a moment. It was one of the first points I was going to make.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South is by no means a vegetarian—he enjoys eating meat—but he made a persuasive case at that time for looking at the environmental impact of the livestock sector. It is a shame that he could not be here, because he perhaps has more credibility on these matters than I do in the eyes of the farmers present.

However, let me turn to my first point and respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). The problem with today’s debate is that it has, for understandable reasons, focused very much on farming in the UK. I understand that Members are keen to support the industry and the farmers in their constituencies, but that has led to a bit of a distortion, with a focus on grazing and grass-fed livestock, although I entirely agree that their environmental impact is less serious.

I had an interesting meeting with the Campaign to Protect Rural England on Friday and was told how in some areas of Wales the land previously used for sheep grazing was being used to grow blueberries, or given over to forestry, which were both more profitable. I accept that the areas at the top of the hill would not be suitable for that, but the CPRE made the case for alternative uses. Given the price of blueberries in the supermarket, perhaps people would gain from venturing into growing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I understand the nuanced argument that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I still think that there is a compelling case, and I want to deal now with some reports.

It seemed to me that during the debate there was a herd of elephants in the room, which hon. Members were not mentioning. No reference was made to other very authoritative reports, which have said there is a serious issue to be addressed. In my 2009 debate, I cited the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report of 2006, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which makes compelling reading. It concluded:

“The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”

I will not cite all the figures that I quoted in my debate, because people will be familiar with the fact that it takes 8 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef.

[Neil Parish]

Will the hon. Lady give way?