Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill

Paul Beresford Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

I agree. That is exactly what this Bill—Emilie’s law—seeks to do. It will close the loophole and deal with this issue as a matter of animal welfare, placing responsibility on the dog owner. It is not about dogs, because dogs have owners. The owners should be responsible.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am listening with considerable interest. There are a large number of farmers in my area, and some of them are sheep farmers. One of their complaints is that people stray on to their land with their dogs and often let them go. Let us imagine a situation in which a farmer is bringing in his sheep and has sent out his huntaway, which disappears over the brow. Unbeknown to him, a stray dog attacks the huntaway, which will probably be bigger than most dogs, and the stray dog is killed. Who is to blame?

[Anna Firth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is about placing responsibility on a dog owner to take all reasonable steps. In that instance, it may be that the farmer has taken all reasonable steps, in which case there would not be liability; if he has not, he would potentially be caught by the Bill.

First, the Bill would criminalise fatal dog-on-dog attacks, extending the same protection to pet dogs that already exists for service, guide and assistance dogs. Secondly, Emilie’s law would empower owners to pursue justice if their beloved pet is brutally attacked, while not demonising any particular breed or creating unhelpful stereotypes around certain breeds of dog. As I have said, the issue is poor ownership. Thirdly, the Bill would encourage responsible dog ownership and animal welfare by placing the responsibility for a fatal dog attack fairly and squarely on the person in charge of the dog, and empowering the police to take action, which will have a deterrent effect, thus encouraging more responsible dog ownership.

It is important to note that the Bill also includes a number of defences for good owners who are not to blame if their dog causes a fatality, such as if the dog that caused the fatal injury was responding to provocation from another animal or human, and the steps taken by the responsible person to prevent the situation from escalating. The point is to keep the onus on owners but ensure that they are dealt with fairly, and not punish them for a situation out of their control. Finally, my Bill would ensure that local police forces record dog-on-dog attacks as separate offences, enabling us finally to see the full scale of these offences.

The Bill is about protecting every single dog across the UK. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible but, for those who are not, there must be consequences. Passing the Bill would make our dogs safer, and it would also make our parks, streets, towns and cities—especially the new city of Southend—safer places for us and our dogs to live, work and visit. Finally, the Bill would send yet another signal to the world that we in the UK take animal welfare seriously, and make us the international exemplar that we all know we are. I have left just a little time, in which I hope to hear from the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

3. What recent progress has been made on the Northern Estate programme.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)]

Work has started on changes to Commissioner’s Yard Gate, where an additional secure vehicle access point for deliveries and construction traffic is being constructed. Planning approval and listed building consent have been obtained for preparatory work on 1 Derby Gate. This building will be refurbished and adapted to make it suitable to be used for accommodation for Members, and I believe work will start around the end of this month, when the last occupants are moved out.

[Christian Matheson]

We missed an opportunity with the refurbishment of the Elizabeth Tower, when the work was given to a known blacklisting company. May I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman and the House of Commons Commission whether consideration will be given in the contracts being drawn up for the Northern Estate project to ensuring that companies that are unrepentant blacklisters are not allowed to do work on this site?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I think we will continue with the procedures we have used before and pick the suitable candidate to do the suitable work on the basis of a number of measures.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I know from speaking to a number of parliamentary colleagues that certain aspects of the estate, including the Northern Estate, are not great for people with disabilities. What work is being done to make sure this place is more accessible, particularly for colleagues who have a disability?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Sorry—this must be something to do with my antipodean background—but could the hon. Gentleman please repeat the question, because I did not follow it?

[David Linden]

I am very popular today. I was saying that a number of parliamentary colleagues who have disabilities find it difficult getting around certain parts of the estate. Given that we are doing this refurbishment work, what can be done to make sure that those with a disability are able to move around more freely and that this place is accessible?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Sorry, but could the hon. Gentleman please do it very slowly, in an antipodean English?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think the answer might be that the hon. Gentleman could reply in writing, when he reads the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore]

I am Welsh, so God help the hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that, as part of the Northern Estate refurbishments, he will be doing his utmost, as will the commission, to make sure that we use local procurement, find as much of the workforce as we can from within the United Kingdom and make sure that where there are skills gaps we work with the further and higher education sector to find training for local employees and groups?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

That makes eminent sense to me. I know one of the firms particularly well and it is using that approach, particularly for training, including of apprentices, so that we can benefit as a community as well.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

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

6. What estimate the Commission has made of the cost to the public purse of emergency childcare provision for Members and House staff.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)]

It costs some £54,000 annually.

[Meg Hillier]

The measure to introduce emergency childcare fills me with some nervousness. If Officers of the House or, indeed, Members need emergency support, we should be inculcating a culture of providing those Officers of the House with time off to deal with their children, rather than encouraging them to buy in childcare when that may not be the right thing to do. In addition to the costs, how many Members or members of the House staff have availed themselves of and drawn down this emergency childcare provision?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My cynicism matches the hon. Lady’s cynicism, but it is a trial. I shall write to her with the actual figures because I was not able to get them, although I was staggered to find out that the service gives parents in the House the opportunity to access 1,450 nurseries, 2,900 child minders, 1,000 holiday clubs and hundreds of nannies. As a parent, which the hon. Lady is, she will realise that sometimes everything goes wrong with childcare and, going by my experience with my children, who are now grown up, it is always at the last, disastrous minute.

The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Plastic Bottles and Coffee Cups

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on securing this debate. Incidentally, all the chopsticks that are used in my home are reusable and washed, and most have been going for around 30 years. This debate is overdue; I say that having read some years ago about the difficulties they have had with rubbish on Mount Everest. There was a report last week about a plastic bag found at the bottom of one our deepest ocean ravines. And there is just everything in between.

I shall use the few minutes available to draw Members’ attention to the previously mentioned report on the Palace of Westminster’s efforts—like it or lump it, it has now been through the system—to get rid of single-issue and single-use plastics, to the best of our ability. An extensive action paper on the issue was accepted by the Administration Committee, and it was accepted by the House of Commons Commission on Monday. Last week, it was accepted by the equivalent Committees in the other place.

I congratulate and thank the officials who took up the challenge on our behalf and who were exceptionally imaginative in their ideas. As many Members will be aware, we now have a progressive programme to remove single-use plastics. It is going to take us around 12 months. I wrote a letter to every Member to explain it, which means that around a 10th of them have read it. I expect complaints and so on; if Members who are oriented the right way receive complaints, can they put them down and thereby save me from having to respond?

All the usual single-use plastics culprits will go. I can assure the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) that water will be provided from taps, instead of in plastic bottles, the use of which will stop. There will be a tariff on single-use coffee cups. This, of course, is to bully coffee and tea drinkers into using reusable mugs. Disposable catering items, which will remain for a while at least, will be replaced with those made of compostable materials. Some of these items will strike us as being really quite unusual and new. For example, salads and similar are currently presented in clear plastic containers. The new ones will look the same, but our officials have discovered a source of compostable plastic, which was produced—I think—in only 2015. We will certainly test it and see how it goes.

The team looked beyond catering. Plastic bags will be replaced by paper bags. We are implementing a green stationery catalogue. A pilot scheme for reusing packaging for deliveries has commenced. The volume of waste of single-use plastic of delivered goods here is unbelievable. The list of things to do is not endless, but it is long, so I will not be tempted, in the time that I have available, to go through it with all the figures.

Interestingly, the parliamentary Environment Team is now looking at the environmental cost of other materials that we use and comparing and contrasting them. In other words, it is a case of watch this space: we have started and we are on our way. I am an ethnic minority immigrant, as my accent says. I come from a small country, which can be environmentally friendly to the degree of being paranoid. Our approach in the Houses of Parliament now fits that approach, and so it should.

Circular Economy: Leftover Paint

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the circular economy for leftover paint.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I thank those Members who have turned up for the debate on this important issue. Originally, my near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) was to lead the debate, but was unfortunately unable to do so at the last moment and I gladly offered to take over. Had he been able to be here, my hon. Friend, whom I have known for a long time, would have been a great champion on this issue, not least because he sponsored early-day motion 300 on the remanufacturing of paints in July last year. I am pleased that that early-day motion was tabled, as it shows the widespread support in Parliament for creating a circular economy for leftover waste paint.

To create a truly circular economy takes time and co-operation and needs the backing of the Government, largely because markets cannot deliver this new concept, a circular economy—although, when I think about it, I am not always sure it is that new—through business as usual. Government support is often required to get markets aligned and to make sure that we have developed those markets to maximise the potential of the concept. Although the Waste and Resources Action Programme has helped to make progress, much more remains to be done.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

As the hon. Lady may have heard before the start of the debate, the British Coatings Federation is headquartered in my constituency and, unsurprisingly, I have been nailed to the floor several times on this issue. She is right: what we need to do is get a critical mass of sales of recycled paint, as paint, to stimulate the market and move the issue in the public’s mind. Government, particularly local government, should be able to do that. I was also interested in the briefing. As hon. Members can tell from my accent, I come from New Zealand, where, despite being an earthquake country—as people may have recognised—paint materials are being used to make a sort of porous concrete, although I hope not load-bearing.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He points to the importance of society recognising the win-win situation here. Nobody likes waste, and common sense tells us that if we can reuse it, we should. The ingenuity of modern science is such that it looks as though waste paint can be used to manufacture certain types of concrete. Work on that is ongoing. One only has to look at the paper industry to see what can be done if our minds are truly focused on maximising the potential from waste products.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the BCF is in his constituency. I have the world-famous Ronseal in my constituency, a very old company headquartered in Chapeltown. It is now officially Sherwin-Williams, but to local people it will always be Ronseal, a famous name. I have to say this: it does exactly what it says on the tin. No doubt every hon. Member present has used one of its products at some point.

I am proud to have such a company in my constituency, not just because of its amazing slogan that is now part of the language, but because it is good in every way. It makes quality products. It has a workforce to be proud of, who are very loyal to their employer, and it has a real commitment to innovation. I had the pleasure of visiting the company once again the other week to be shown how it is changing its manufacturing processes to decrease waste wherever it possibly can, not just because that is good for the environment but because it is good for the company as well. It reduces cost and effectively improves productivity.

I do not think there will be any division here today on just how important the paint and coatings industry is to the British economy. The sector supports some 300,000 jobs and sells 675 million litres of coatings each year. If we do the maths, that works out at 21 tins of coatings sold each and every minute of the year. The sector directly contributes £180 billion per annum to the UK’s GDP and is a great exporter to the rest of the world.

Why do I and the industry believe that a circular economy is important to the sector and to consumers? Before answering that, I will first set out the scale of the problem that we as a country face with leftover paint. The best way of putting it is to relate it to everyday experience, and I do not think Members of the House will be any different from the rest of society on this one.

There is no doubt that in our garages and sheds we all have unwanted and unused paints. The average UK household has six cans of leftover paint—probably more in my case, if I am honest—taking up space somewhere on the premises. Although some of that paint is no doubt kept for repair and touch-up work in the future, some 30% of people have responded to surveys saying they over-purchased the product in the first place. It is easy to see why that might happen. People overbuy paint because they want to buy from the same batch to get the same colour, which can lead to some of the oversupply problems. Through the project PaintCare, the industry is trying to develop tools to enable customers to be more precise about what they buy, which can only help the situation. I applaud that initiative.

The cost to local government of disposing of the 55 million litres of waste each year, or 71,500 tonnes, which is equivalent to the weight of a luxury cruise ship—albeit, I admit, a fairly small luxury cruise ship nowadays—is estimated at about £20.6 million. The problem is mainly left to local authorities to deal with through general waste or at their household recycling waste centres.

Currently, only 2% of paint or other coating is reused or remanufactured. Most of the remaining 98% is lost to us as a resource, principally because it is incinerated or ends up in landfill. The reasons for that are many and varied, but in the main it is due to the fact that two-thirds of household waste recycling centres do not accept liquid paint, because the disposal of liquid waste, including liquid paint, to landfill is banned in the UK, pursuant to EU requirements. The cost to local authorities of dealing with it is very high, which means they are effectively disincentivised and feel unable to accept liquid paint as part of their waste collection service. Householders are therefore often left with no option but to dispose of paint in general waste. In other words, many residents throw away their waste paint in the normal waste collection, no doubt in black bags so that the bin men do not see it. By so doing, they pass on the problem to others to deal with.

PaintCare consumer research also indicates that 62% of households would use their household waste recycling centre to dispose of waste paint given the opportunity, which points to the importance of that network as a means of disposal for leftover paint. I therefore very much welcome the BCF PaintCare project. I pay tribute to the BCF—it is located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford)—which has been assiduous in pursuing this project for the reason I outlined earlier: it is good for society, the environment and business, so it is a win-win all around.

The PaintCare project is attempting to turn an environmental threat into an opportunity by working towards a systematic approach to collecting and sorting waste paint. It will also make the remanufacturing of paint from waste products a more viable economic process, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. However, a remanufacturing industry needs a market—I will come to that point later. The project also involves the BCF working with local government to develop new processes to deal with the waste. At the same time, paint manufacturers are investing millions of pounds in projects to demonstrate how remanufacturing can be made more viable, with a view to developing a long-term market for it.

That innovative work is an excellent example of how a circular economy can work and secure both waste reduction and economic growth. I know that the Minister has a certain view of circular economies—at least, she said in a previous debate that she does not like the term. I also know that there can be a negative side to the concept of the circular economy, because it can be seen to trap economic growth within a certain space, but in my view it is a sophisticated way of describing a common-sense process that has the potential to make the circle bigger and encourage economic growth. There is a saying—I do not know whether it is special to the north of England—“Where there’s muck there’s money.”

Flooding (Somerset)

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right that they are part of the whole catchment of the levels, and the relevant internal drainage board will be involved in the discussions. As she probably already knows, the River Brue is one of our pilot schemes.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will obviously be aware, as we all are, that the Environment Agency, local authorities and others will be rethinking their programmes after the flood waters retreat. It appears to me that in the past the payment of funds, and certainly central funds, has gone mainly to major schemes. I am delighted to hear that he is moving towards more minor schemes. Does he agree that the collection of small schemes might be more effective in some areas than one or two large schemes, be they in Somerset or north Surrey?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right that there is merit in a lot of the smaller, low-risk schemes. What we have seen in the levels—it is a completely unique environment—is that the national guidelines were not appropriate for that artificial environment, and the same might apply in other parts of rural England.

Flooding

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He makes a valid point, and it would be appropriate if he put it in writing to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), so that we can take it up

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He will be aware that the river that gives my constituency its name flooded and devastated the north of my constituency, as well as the north of the adjacent constituencies to the east and west. The actions of the utility organisations and councils and neighbours in many areas were terrific and offset some of the damage, but the effects will take a long time to overcome. I am delighted that he talks of a review and more money, but I am cautiously aware that we in Surrey usually do not get a decent slice of what is available, so I am putting in a direct bid now. I will be asking the leader of Surrey county council to work with me, the Environment Agency and the utilities to put together ideas for a report. Will the Secretary of State accept that report and agree to meet a small deputation that will push the report?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend tempts me with his question, but I commend his plan to talk to his local council. The partnership mechanism that we have introduced has enabled several schemes that had previously stalled to get over the bar, so if there is a suitable scheme for his local rivers I strongly recommend that he work with his council to draw up a bid with the Environment Agency. Such a proposal will be assessed alongside all the other schemes.

Waste Review

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are a coalition Government, a Government of two parties, and he might like to read the coalition agreement commitment that said the Government will

“work towards a ‘zero waste’ economy, encourage councils to pay people to recycle, and work to reduce littering.”

There will also be measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion as set out in our review today.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for her flexibility, in contrast to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). My local authority works with the private sector and provides a two-weekly service, but a weekly food waste service. The key factor has been the flexibility of a good contract with the private sector. Does she agree that those local authorities that have been dogmatic about not using competitive tendering should think again?

[Mrs Spelman]

I agree with my hon. Friend that waste services are a matter for local authorities and that they should develop fit-for-purpose local solutions. However, the Government believe that better procurement and joint working can improve the efficiency of collections while improving the front-line service for the public in an affordable and practical manner.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a similar approach to hers on commercial forests has been extremely successful in New Zealand? The huge Kaingaroa forest—717,000 acres—is now out of Government hands, the land belongs to the Maoris and commercial organisations are doing the trees, with enhanced biodiversity.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend’s helpful intervention gives me the opportunity to advise Labour Members that, while the hon. Member for Wakefield made selective choices of countries that have explored other models of ownership and management that involve their local communities, the largest worked examples in the consultation document pertain to Queensland and to New Zealand.