Snares
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Minister to her place. I look forward to debating important issues such as this with her. I trust we will see a new progressive approach, in particular on animal welfare and other issues within her brief. I hope that today she will be supporting the 77% of people who want us to take action on a ban of the manufacturing, sale, possession and use of snares.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) for bringing forward this motion and enabling the House to debate the indiscriminate and cruel nature of snares. He is not only an expert on animal welfare in this place but a real champion of it beyond here. He did not make the argument alone; it was echoed across these Benches.
Today, I will set out four key areas: the law, the issues, the research and the alternatives. I will start with the law. In 1981 the Wildlife and Countryside Act prohibited self-locking snares, specifying that snares must be free running. But there has been no definition in statute or in the courts of what self-locking actually means. We have heard today of the challenge caused by the fact that free-running snares turn into locking ones as a result of wires becoming twisted or rusted.
The Act also requires that snares should not be set to catch non-target animals, yet only 25% of animals caught in snares are target animals, meaning that 75% are not. Clearly, it is not possible to uphold legislation on that in practice. It also says that snares should be inspected daily, yet we know that only 77% are, meaning that 23% are not. There is clearly poor policing and poor practice on that. Basically, the law is not working.
Countries have recognised that. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) talked about the Welsh Government’s “Code of best practice on the use of snares in fox control”, published in 2015. The Northern Ireland Government brought forward the Snares Order (Northern Ireland) 2015, which requires snares to have stops and swivels and to be staked in the ground. We also heard from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) about the progress Scotland has made on the issue, by looking at training and registration, as well as the provision of personal ID numbers to ensure better regulation of snares. In 2005, Labour brought forward a code of practice to upgrade the 1981 Act, stating that snares should pose no risk to other animals. Labour then commissioned a research report, “Determining the extent of use and humaneness of snares in England and Wales”, which as we have heard came out in 2012.
There are five nations where snares remain legal: the UK, Ireland, Latvia, France and Belgium. Today we can take a step forward and join progressive nations in outlawing snares and recognising their real cruelty. We should also recognise the fragmentary nature of legislation on snares; the voluntary code is not working and the legislation is not being properly enforced.
Moving on to the issues, as we heard so clearly from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), snares are mainly used in relation to blood sports and the protection of game birds. We have heard that 95% of large landowners do not use snares. We have also heard that snares capture, maim and kill 1.7 million animals every year. During the course of this debate today, over 200 animals will have been snared.
We know that snares deteriorate over time—a point made powerfully today by hon. Members—with 30% becoming rusty or getting stuck. They are then no longer free-running, but dysfunctional and the cause of additional animal cruelty. We have also heard that catches are indiscriminate because snares do not identify the animal about to put its head, body or part of its body through the noose. Only 25% of snared animals are foxes; 33% are hares; 26% are badgers, and 14% are deer, otters and domestic animals such as cats and dogs. It is a criminal offence to harm domestic pets, but they also fall foul of snares. So do humans—fell runners and ramblers get caught up in and injured by snares. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about the lack of intent, but that is no defence. The evidence is before us today.
We have heard from so many hon. Members on these Benches about the extensive cruelty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said, it is barbaric how snares cause such harm and cruelty, with animals suffering for hours as they are trapped. If we claim to be a progressive country, we must have progressive legislation and bring in a ban. Today would not be soon enough. That view is supported by 87% of vets. As we have heard, 95% of landowners do not use snares and nor do 250 municipal authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East set out, the RSPB, Network Rail and many other authorities no longer use snares. The reason is that they are indiscriminate, inhumane and the law covering them is not applied properly. It does not work and it does not address the issue. That is borne out by the research, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) highlighted.
It is important to look at the behaviour of foxes. They are very competitive and territorial, so if space is vacated because a fox has been killed, other foxes will move into that area and breeding will increase to fill the space. That has been proven over 40 years, with our fox community remaining consistent at 250,000 adults. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) mentioned a response from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) about wildlife management. We recognise the importance of that issue, but that response was before the DEFRA report in 2012, which moved forward on the evidence. It is important that we look at the most up-to-date evidence, rather than looking back to parliamentary questions asked before that report.
The report talks about the need for increased powers in the code, because it is not working. We need to move the whole framework forward and to recognise that inspections are not working. The report goes on to say that inspections should happen not once, but twice a day. If that is part of the voluntary code, my question is how that would be implemented. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that once a day was enough, but it is not and we need to go further. We know that 36% of farmers are unaware of the contents of the code—or even of its existence—and only 3% have had any training on snares. Clearly the code is failing. It is failing animals and wildlife, and we need to get real about that. We also know that even stops on snares do not prevent animal cruelty, as so much evidence has now come forward on that point.
We need to move forward on the principles of how we uphold our wildlife, our animals and their welfare, to ensure that they have freedom from hunger, thirst, pain, injury and disease, freedom from discomfort and to express normal behaviours, and freedom from fear and distress. The psychological impact is also important.
What are the options for the future? More training and licences would follow the Scotland model, but we have heard that the take-up of training is low, so that in itself is not enough. Training manufacturers is also recommended, but the problem with that is as soon as snares leave the factory, they get old, rusty and out of date, and therefore do not work. Stops and swivels work to an extent, but injury is still caused to wild animals. The report recommends research on the design of snares. That is one option—research is always good and progressive and we always welcome it—but the reality is that snares are inhumane and cause harm to animals.
Rachael Maskell
I will press on because of the time.
We know that only 1% to 3% of pheasants are killed by foxes, so we are not looking at huge communities of animals that fall prey to foxes. There are alternatives that can be used. If we bring in a ban, we can make progress in the use of alternatives that the evidence suggests can be incredibly effective—
Rachael Maskell
I am sorry, but I will move on. Other hon. Members have already spoken.
On alternatives for foxes, electronic fencing can be used, as can fencing set deep into the ground so that animals cannot burrow under it. Such methods are used by landowners who do not use snares to trap animals so cruelly. Scare devices can also be used, and if they are moved around it can stop habituation so animals continue to be scared off by them. Other alternatives include chemical repellents and cage trapping, which means that animals can be released unharmed instead of injured. Fencing is also recommended for protection from rabbits. So there are alternatives.
What I would say to the Minister this afternoon is that the work has been done, the research is complete and the evidence is weighty in favour of a complete ban, like most of our progressive friends across Europe. It is time that the Government brought forward legislation, no longer making excuses or delaying. We know that 68% of MPs would support it, as would 77% of our constituents, and it would be the right thing to do for animals as well as the wider nation. I say: do not delay. Labour would bring in a ban: will the Government ban the manufacturing, sale, possession and use of snares?
EU Referendum: Energy and Environment
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had an important and revealing debate—revealing because it has confirmed our worst fears: that the Government called a referendum without first carrying out an analysis of what might happen should the electorate opt to leave the EU. It can be called nothing but reckless to enter upon a process without first carrying out a risk assessment. The analysis should have come first, as we have heard from many hon. Members in this debate.
This has been an excellent debate, however, with a deep understanding of all the impacts of leaving the EU. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), talked about the impact on climate change and the impact it is already having on some of the poorest people in our communities—2.83 million households are already in fuel poverty and, as we have heard, fuel bills are rising. We also heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the outstanding Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, highlighting many of the protections at risk if we leave the EU, along with the advances of the past 40 years—40 years of marriage summed up in two years of divorce. In particular, she highlighted the issues of air quality, water management, waste and, of course, biodiversity protection.
We were privileged to hear today the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). It was a tour de force. She brings to the House the energy with which she served her patients in accident and emergency and her community, and we are honoured to have her in the House. I know that she will be an excellent advocate for her constituents for many years to come. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has been a strong campaigner on air quality and emissions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who said many of the things I wanted to bring up. She brings great expertise to the House. We heard from other hon. Members across the House concerns about the impact of leaving the EU.
It was the Government’s determination that we should have a referendum, but first the impact of leaving should have been analysed—clearly, remaining would have resulted in normal policy processes. They could have then shared the outcomes with the electorate. We have heard today about the many risks. Not only should the impact assessment have taken place, but there should have been an understanding of the volume and depth of our regulatory ties with the EU and some scenario planning for what environmental protections the Government would prioritise should the pound plummet, as it is at the moment.
For instance, a member of the public asked me whether pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy would be implemented in full or whether the Government would scale back on the £563 million currently received back from the EU, and whether they would meet their match-funding obligations. We need to know the detail. How will farmers maintain a competitive edge while addressing conservation challenges and ensuring sustainable protections? We have not heard from the Government how much legislation is tied up with the EU. It is estimated that about 70% of our environmental protections originate from Brussels, but what is the real figure and how integrated are we? We have not heard from them how much resource is needed to carry out detailed analysis of the impact of leaving the EU in the context of the cut to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of 57% by 2020. Neither have we heard what amount of resources would be necessary to renegotiate each regulation, if that is the path we go down. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) suggested an alternative way forward.
How will we—or will we not—engage with the EU in the future on so many of these important environmental issues? How will we regulate, police and enforce the new UK-based law system as it affects the environment in respect of what currently occurs in the EU courts? What will be the mechanisms of the future? We still do not know. We have not heard about the costs of the necessary work and we have not heard even whether the people with the right skill sets are present in the Department at this time. We have not heard how the fall of the pound, wiping millions off the value of our economy, will impact on environmental projects and research. Neither have we seen any analysis of the global impacts. Perhaps the Government plan is simply to buy the whole package off Europe, but at what price? Will the cost be the same as for existing EU nations or will we pay more for those benefits? These are questions that must be answered.
Many Labour Members are concerned about the global impacts on the environment because we believe that protecting our climate and environment is one of the most important functions of Government. We are already witnessing a massive impact of decades of neglect. We see floods and famine, disease and drought, climate change and conflict, and we see population migration as a result, the impact of which can be felt across the globe, including on us here in the UK. The environment does not respect national borders. From the macro level to the micro level in respect of the loss of habitats and species, the Government have a weighty responsibility to drive forward a programme of responsible stewardship.
In 2010, the UK led the world on issues such as climate change and improving the environment. Opposition Members are proud of that, even while we acknowledge that there was so much more to do. As we have heard today, when it comes to dealing with climate change issues, we have slipped out of the top 10 nations and are now ranked 13th in the world—not the way in which we want to progress on these issues as we move forward. The UK led the EU as a major player on the global stage for environmental protections. We want to ensure that we maintain a strong voice as we move forward, rebalancing our natural environment. The strength of our influence, however, is now unclear. We will no longer be at the EU table, pressing the EU to go further.
Given that we have a falling and failing economy, I must press the Minister to commit to legislate to secure protection on all environmental measures that we are currently obliged to meet in the EU. How will he advance them, and how will he regulate to ensure enforcement of them? As we look back at our history, we do not want to become known as “the dirty man of Europe”; we want to make real advances on where we are today. Labour is clear: the Government must act urgently to replace these vital environmental protections in full.
On the most simple level, I want the Minister to clarify whether we will see—before the summer recess as the Government committed to provide—the two long-awaited 25-year plans for food and farming and the plans for the environment, or are these now placed in the box marked, “We did not have a leave plan, so we do not know what on earth we are going to do”? Will the Minister please provide some clarification today?
Labour wants to ensure that external pressures still lean on this Government. On air quality, we saw the World Health Organisation report released earlier today. Air quality is a public health issue; it impacts on people’s respiratory functions. As someone who worked in respiratory medicine for 20 years, I understand the impact that bad air can have. We have heard today how up to 50,000 people’s lives are ended prematurely as a result of the quality of air in our country. Yes, people are dying prematurely.
We need to know what the Government are going to do about the urgent question of air quality. It is already a serious issue in my own city of York, where people are dying prematurely, and I am aware of plans for developments that will worsen the air quality in our city. There are questions that we must address, from the question of how many trees we will plant to the question of how we will protect the provisions of important directives, to which so many of my colleagues have referred today. We want answers to those questions. The Government must set out their strategy for the future, which they failed to do before the EU referendum to take account of a possible leave vote.
Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us today. Will he commit himself to continuing to apply the precautionary principle when scientific data are not complete, or will he agree with the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and adopt the much weaker United States risk-based approach, which imposes limits on the way in which pesticides, genetically modified crops and food management are dealt with, so that profit is often placed ahead of environmental protections? We have a right to know the answer, as do the people of our country.
If there were time, I would raise many more of our concerns about the Government’s environmental protections. Ours is a fragile and complex environment. Over the last decades, we have worked diligently with our European friends and neighbours to rebalance our environment and climate, and today the Government should have made clear how they will advance the progress that has been made so far. We cannot afford further delay. We believe that the Government must, as a matter of urgency, replicate the multitude of EU directives in UK law. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will secure our environment for the years to come.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point and we have acted to deal with that problem. From April this year the Government extended tax averaging for farmers to five years, up from the previous two years, so that they can better offset good years against bad years. In addition, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a number of schemes, such as the time to pay scheme, which means that it shows forbearance to farmers who are suffering cash-flow difficulties.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Eleven years ago this morning, terrorist attacks were unleashed on our city. We pay our respects today.
As an environmentalist, someone who campaigned in the aftermath of the floods, and a lover of the great outdoors, I am proud to represent Labour as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Many farming businesses depend on trade with the EU. Following the outcome of the referendum, the resilience of farming will be keenly tested. What immediate steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that trade relations with EU partners will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future?
George Eustice
I welcome the hon. Lady and her colleagues to the Front Bench of this diverse Department, and I associate myself with her comments about the terrorist attacks.
Following the decision to leave the European Union, we are holding a number of meetings with officials to plan for our next steps on trade—indeed, we will have a meeting today to hold such discussions. It will be a matter for a new Prime Minister and the Cabinet that they put in place, but early thinking and planning work is going on across the Government.
Rachael Maskell
I am concerned that resilience was not planned for by the Minister in advance of the EU referendum. Trade and regulations for our food and farming industry are linked to the EU more than in any other sector, yet the Government’s cuts to DEFRA up to 2020 will total a 57%—yes, 57%—reduction in its budget. In the light of that, will the Minister explain how his Department will have capacity to analyse the impact of the EU referendum, build resilience, and negotiate the way forward?
George Eustice
For the time being we remain in the European Union, and all existing arrangements continue. Only once we have concluded negotiations and left the European Union will we put future measures in place. On capacity in the civil service, some areas and some EU dossiers have a long-term horizon with which we will perhaps be less engaged and involved, and that will free up capacity for some of the planning work that we need for our own domestic policy.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has been an assiduous advocate of his constituency, ensuring that towns and villages in his area are not adversely affected by flood defences upstream. We will be working on an overall plan for the River Aire catchment, through which we will manage the overall river flow instead of looking at individual places. That will form part of our national flood resilience review, which we will be announcing shortly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The horticultural industry is particularly vulnerable following the leave vote due to the high proportion of EU seasonal workers in the sector. How will the Secretary of State ensure that our crops are harvested in this uncertain period by securing continued labour from the EU?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. She was a fantastic advocate for her constituents during the difficult flooding in York, and I look forward to working with her.
As for agricultural workers, my constituency is a great producer of salad vegetables and onions, and I fully understand the importance of EU workers to our agricultural industry. It will be one of the key things that DEFRA will work on, putting the case across Government to ensure that we continue to have that supply of workers.
Rachael Maskell
It is evident from the Secretary of State’s responses that her Department did not make contingency plans for a leave vote, failing in its duty to protect not only one of our major industries, but those who work in it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all EU citizens working in farming can remain in the UK, which the vote on yesterday’s Opposition day motion called for, and that she has already made representations to the Home Office?
Elizabeth Truss
It is absolutely clear that it is business as usual while we remain members of the EU and that those workers will continue to work in those areas. The reality is that I cannot make decisions for a future Prime Minister. That is the fundamental issue here and that is why my job over the coming months is to be a strong voice for farming and the environment in the overall negotiations.
Draft Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from non-household Retail Market) Regulations 2016
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I thank the Minister for his kind remarks.
I would like to speak on behalf of the Opposition today on these regulations. I first want to put on record my thanks for the enormity of work that has already been put in place in order to bring us to the point we are at today. Although I recognise that the 2014 Act has made it permissive to increase competition in the water and sewage industry for 1.2 million businesses, charities and public sector organisations, I want to ensure that we are thorough in our scrutiny of the regulations today. I therefore want to forward a number of questions to the Minister, to ensure that everything is watertight.
To start with, my questions are essentially on consumer protection. I want to know how long it is proposed that the exit process will take, bearing in mind that customers will need to be guaranteed the provision of the retailer before the exit is granted.
Secondly, I would like to ask how much notice a customer receives of their undertaker withdrawing from the market, since they may choose to continue a service with the retailer who has taken over the customers of the undertaker, or the customer may need time to choose an alternative retailer.
Thirdly, as the guidance notes say, there should be minimal disruption to the customer, but when it talks about minimum disruption, will there be any disruption and, if so, what disruption does the Minister envisage behind that?
Fourthly, I would like to ask about process, so that there is not confusion over billing, as has been seen elsewhere in the energy market when somebody exits the market and there is a change in licensee providing the service.
Finally on this point, I would like to know how customers will be communicated with about the changes of service provision, to enable them to maximise their choices.
Rory Stewart
I should be grateful if the shadow Secretary of State could clarify her fourth question on process, which I did not fully understand. There was a question on notice, a question on minimum disruption and then I missed the question on process.
Rachael Maskell
I am more than happy to clarify that point. The question is so there is not confusion around billing between the different organisations. When somebody exits the market, there will obviously be a new licensee who is providing that service, and, as has been seen elsewhere in the energy market, there has been confusion about the billing process. We need to make sure that customers are able to be communicated with by one organisation and be clear that they are not billed twice.
It is also essential that customers experience no detriment and, while I recognise the principle of equivalence, detriment could occur to non-household customers. I therefore seek further reassurance on behalf of customers. For example, while outstanding complaints will be passed to the new licensee, the guidance is silent as to how potential liabilities will be addressed. That could result in remedies being less favourable to the customer. Can the Minister bring clarity to that, since the guidance simply states that this is dependent on the commercial agreement drawn up? A current customer would want confidence that the terms on which they raised their complaint would result in no less favourable outcome.
For customers whose undertaker withdraws from the market, can the Minister confirm that, should they choose to deal with a different licensee from that which took over the customer base from the undertaker, they will have two years through which to switch from and back to them again, should they choose? Again, this is slightly ambiguous, but I know was raised in the debate on the regulations in the other place.
With regard to the risks identified, I note that there is expected to be an increased financial risk both to Ofwat and to DEFRA. What assessment has been made of the size of the risk in the light of the already severe cuts to the Department?
Finally, I would like the Minister to clarify a couple of questions on consequential issues appertaining to the measure. One of the most important areas of work in the industry looks at water-saving initiatives. Clearly these must be across the whole water and sewerage industry, and not just seen as a customer responsibility. How will the undertakers and the licensees work together to ensure that water conservation remains a priority in this new fragmented environment?
The second consequential issue appertains to householders. Although these regulations do not appertain to householders, householders and non-householders currently deal with the same water companies. After April next year, that may not be the case. I note that in the other place’s scrutiny of these regulations, the Minister said that they would be subject to the current cost basis for their water and sewerage in this five-year cycle. However, what risk assessment has been made on the impact on households? If none has been undertaken, will the Minister look into the matter?
Labour recognises that the Government’s ambition is to protect the consumer in the light of the permissible action available from the 2014 Act through these regulations. Although we have concerns about further marketisation and fragmentation of the water and sewerage industry, we believe that, subject to the Minister’s response today, we will not be calling for the Committee to divide.
Rory Stewart
You can understand why I welcomed the shadow Secretary of State to her position, Mr Streeter. I think I have nine different questions here, which I will try to deal with one by one. If I miss anything, I am very happy to continue the debate through interventions.
I think the first question was around time and notice. The notice provisions are covered under regulation 12, as the shadow Secretary of State will be aware. Regulation 12(4) clarifies that,
“notice must be given…in the case of a person who is a customer immediately before the Secretary of State grants permission for the relevant undertaker to withdraw from the non-household retail market, at least 2 months before the exit date”.
On disruption, and the process we follow in terms of customer bills, the industry has set up a new company called Market Operator Services Ltd whose job is to build and manage a database of accurate information to enable switching and settlement.
There was a question on detriment and, in particular, complaints. This subject is dealt with in regulation 17, “Transfer of outstanding complaints”, at paragraph (3). As the shadow Secretary of State presumably knows, it went through a great deal of debate, both within the Department and with the parliamentary draftsman. Paragraphs (1) and (2) are largely laying out the terminology; the key to regulation 17 is paragraph (3), which states:
“Anything done by or in relation to the relevant undertaker in connection with the complaint is to be treated, on and after the exit date, as having been done by or in relation to the acquiring licensee.”
Clearly we all believe that excess words turn septic. The decision was that that was the clearest way of laying out the complaint. To return to my Penrith example, had I lodged a complaint as a non-household customer against the hypothetical Penrith Water Company that existed previously, at the date on which the exit takes place my complaint would become a complaint against the new company and would be treated as such.
Rachael Maskell
On that very point, although I understand that the complaint will be dealt with, as with the old undertaker, by the new licensee, can the Minister confirm that the remedy will be the same with the new licensee, as per the commercial agreement?
Rory Stewart
This is a very important technical question. The understanding of the Department and our legal experts is that this would be governed through normal legal contract arrangements. That is why it has been left as a very short sentence, as we believe that the existing procedures, regulated by Ofwat, will be sufficient to ensure that the complaint process is properly handled. We believe that putting in excess words and trying to micro-manage the detail of the process will not end up in as good and transparent a result for the customer as simply making it clear that normal complaint procedures are followed for the new company, regulated by Ofwat, as they would have been for the pre-existing Penrith company. I am confident that this is the best and most straightforward way of proceeding, but I understand the shadow Secretary of State’s anxiety.
On the question of switching, there are two key principles that underlie the regulations: completion and permanence. Although there were some suggestions during the debate in the other place, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, that it might be possible for a customer to leave and return—to leave my putative Penrith company and then hop back to them later—we decided, after a great deal of consultation, that that is not the correct way to proceed. The correct way to proceed is that it is complete and it is permanent. The Penrith company leaves, the new entrant enters and that is the end of it. There is no way for the Penrith company to then come back into that market or for an individual non-household customer to move back and forth between their previous provider and the new one. That is very important in order to have the market opportunity and flexibility for a new entrant. Let us imagine that a Scottish retailer wished to come into the retail market. It would need to be able to pick up a critical mass of customers and would not be able to do that unless there was a clear and completed exit procedure that meant the customer could not switch back.
The shadow Secretary of State made an additional point about the financial risks to DEFRA and Ofwat. We have looked at that in considerable detail. We do not believe that there are any financial risks to DEFRA. The costs, in so far as they fall, will fall on the industry. There is a very detailed cost-benefit analysis of what that will mean for the industry. Our assessment, based on our best evidence from a team of economists, and agreed by the industry, is that instead of being a net cost for the industry, the benefits over a 30-year period are in the order of £200 million.
Rachael Maskell
Could I just clarify the point about additional financial risks for DEFRA? My understanding is that the application to exit the market needs to be made to the Department. Therefore, surely that will mean that there are consequential risks as a result of administering the process.
Rory Stewart
The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right. The applications are made to the Department, will be cleared by departmental officials and signed off by the Secretary of State, but as she will be aware, the application for determination is a relatively straightforward process. The Secretary of State must grant permission, unless it is contrary to the interests of the public or the relevant undertaker has failed to comply with regulation 9. The bulk of the due diligence is done through Ofwat granting a licence to the individual, and Ofwat has a serious process in place to decide whether somebody is a competent operator. If that individual has received a licence from Ofwat—in other words, they are a competent operator approved by Ofwat—all our Department will be looking for in that process is that the proper notifications to the public have gone through, that the proper forms have been filled in, and that there is a clear agreement on who is exiting and who is taking over that market to provide the universal service to the customer.
The final issue raised was about the issue of water conservation and household customers. Household customers is a future piece of business. We are now talking about that issue, but it is not covered by these regulations. I am very happy to talk to members of the Committee and to the shadow Secretary of State about the detail of household customers in future, when that comes forward. These regulations cover non-household customers.
Water conservation is central to our strategic work and we have to consider it in every way, on both the supply side, such as leakage from pipes, and the demand side, such as how to reduce water use. One of the things that these measures should do, particularly for big water users—I give the example of utility companies, brewers or Tesco—is to provide really good incentives to reduce water use. There is more that we could do right across this issue. Water meters will be an important part of reducing demand. Finally, we have a huge process going forward, led by the water industry but with DEFRA closely involved, that is looking at long- term infrastructure investments—that could include interconnecting pipes and new reservoir systems—to provide for the possibility of drought and climate change in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Dog Fighting
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am also pleased to respond to today’s debate, which I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for bringing forward. This is my first debate as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The many excellent speeches and interventions we have heard today highlight the awful state we are in and the cruelty to animals experienced in our country. Today must move that debate forward.
Many of us are very proactive in campaigning for animal welfare. We all have a responsibility for good stewardship and wellbeing, but with our responsibilities, we in this place must also proactively address the real issues. For many years, I have represented RSPCA inspectors, so I know the real pressures they have come under. They have legal responsibilities, and in a time when resources are tight, they need our support to be able to fulfil their inspections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and others have said, those inspections identify not only issues related to animal welfare but wider domestic abuses and wider criminality.
While today’s debate will be responded to by the Minister, there are many pertinent issues for the Home Office and justice teams.
Rachael Maskell
No, I am rather tight on time, so I will continue for now. Following a surge in dog fighting, we have seen the legislation change. There was the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835, and Labour introduced the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which has been referenced today. The 2006 Act sought to bring harsher penalties on violators of the law and included the option for short custodial sentences. As we have heard, evidence shows that that option is insufficient to deter people from engaging in this illegal pursuit, whether for so-called entertainment or for gambling.
The League Against Cruel Sports, which I thank for its campaigning, has looked at the wide range of environments in which dog fighting occurs. There is street fighting, which relates to street culture. There are unplanned, impromptu fights that people sometimes gamble on, although not always, and are often associated with status. There is also more informal gambling around local circuits or highly organised fights where stakes of hundreds of thousands of pounds can change hands. There is still a real issue here and overseas with the dog-fighting culture. We have to get on top of that and address it with the application of tighter rules.
A number of questions arise from the number of prosecutions. The most stark is the difference between the number of complaints received by the authorities and the number of prosecutions incurred. Less than 5% of complaints translate into convictions. In 2014, 766 complaints were received, but only 31 convictions resulted, with just three people receiving a custodial sentence. In all, the rise in the number of complaints and the leniency of the criminal justice system demonstrates that needs are not being sufficiently addressed.
Campaign groups believe that tougher penalties, including longer custodial sentences—we have heard evidence about that today—would provide stronger deterrence. What are the Government doing to look into the effectiveness of longer sentencing, and not just here in Britain? We have heard from the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others about the experience in Northern Ireland of extending imprisonment. France applies a sentence of up to two years, and Germany and the Czech Republic apply a sentence of up to three years. We need to know the impact of that and whether the evidence is there that we should increase sentences, as so many Members have indicated.
We need to start looking at issues such as puppy farms, as the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said, and breeding programmes. Tighter regulations would protect the interests and welfare of dogs. That is an issue for the domestic market, but we also need to control what is happening with dog fighting. In particular, we need to look at the breeds outlawed under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that are still being bred, such as pit bull terriers. They are still in circulation and thousands of pounds is changing hands in breeding programmes. There are a number of things that we need to look at, and we have heard horrific stories of what happens in fights. We need to get on top of those abuses. We know that many of these things lead into wider issues.
My next question to the Government is on how they are supporting the inspectorate regime. From talking to RSPCA inspectors on the ground, I know that their ability is restricted by falling donations to their organisation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that RSPCA inspectors are resourced sufficiently to carry out their statutory inspections and, likewise, that the police are resourced sufficiently in supporting those operations?
Next, I want to ask about breaking the culture. We have heard evidence about that. What steps have the Government taken to deter illegal dog breeding and fighting and what is their analysis of the effectiveness of those steps? What have the Government done to raise awareness of the whole issue of dog fighting, particularly among those most likely to participate in the activity? There may be good learning to pool from Scotland and Northern Ireland. The League Against Cruel Sports is calling for a national dog fighting action plan. Labour would support that plan, which would evolve around prevention, understanding and prosecution. What are the Government doing to address that, and are they willing to set up a national taskforce to address dog fighting? Will they keep a national register of those who have been found to be involved in dog fighting?
One issue that has not been raised today is cybercrime associated with dog fighting, whether the selling of dogs, which has been mentioned, online participation in dog fighting or the videoing or recording of fights. What steps are the Government taking on cyber to track participants in this activity and to break into those heavily coded sites?
As I have said, dog fighting has far wider implications. It is a crime that is linked to other forms of criminality; many speakers have alluded to that. We particularly recognise the work in the US on that agenda. Dog fighting can be linked to domestic crime, drug dealing, firearms sales, physical and emotional harm, robbery and other illegal practices. How are the Government working across agencies, especially with the police, to ensure a co-ordinated strategy to address dog fighting and its links to wider criminality?
There is also an impact on public safety, as has been mentioned. Some dogs have gone on to bite people in their communities. How comprehensively have dog fights been followed up to assess the source of potentially dangerous animals? In the past 10 years, the number of dog bites has increased by 76%. The source of those surely needs closer analysis.
Finally, the Labour party condemns dog fighting, as do other parties. We are grateful for the ongoing work of organisations, particularly the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and many others, in their development of evidence against this. The House has a moral duty to ensure that it does all it can to uphold the welfare of animals. The onus now sits with the Minister to set out further steps that must be taken to ensure that this form of animal cruelty and criminality is more comprehensively addressed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rory Stewart
As my hon. Friend is aware, DEFRA committed £1.7 million to the Somerset rivers authority. That authority has now decided that its preferred solution is a precept, and a shadow precept will come into effect from April this year. We look forward to discussing the long-term financial arrangements directly with the authority.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York welcomes the investment in our flood defences, but the Foss barrier will be underfunded by this Government for the improvement that it needs, and the capacity of the pumps will be 40 tonnes per second, not the 50 tonnes per second that is needed. Will the Minister commit to considering that issue, to ensure that we have sufficient funds to improve the barrier?
Rory Stewart
We have significant funds for the barrier, and we are committed to considering that issue. I am happy to go and look at the Foss barrier with the hon. Lady. The calculation on the pumps is an engineering calculation, and we would be happy to look at the flood maps with the hon. Lady. We will provide the correct funds for the correct solution for the Foss barrier.
Flood Insurance for Businesses
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Craig Whittaker
Of course, we would always welcome the APPG in the Calder Valley. In fact, we welcome anyone who would like to come and have a look. Indeed, if it helps us to make progress in this area and others affected by flooding, the whole group is very welcome, and I will help to arrange for businesses to talk to it too.
To appreciate the true extent of the problem, the Government and the ABI need to speak to businesses in areas of high risk, including those located in communities that have experienced a high frequency of flooding in recent times such as the Calder Valley. Calderdale Council says that between 40% and 50% of businesses cannot access flood insurance in five of my six communities, while our local insurance broker in the upper Calder Valley tells me that 20% of his clients cannot access flood insurance—ironically, including himself. True to the spirit of people in the Calder Valley, he has a desk and a mobile phone set up in the middle of all the building works in what was his office, working to ensure that his clients are sorted out. After the floods he, along with other brokers from around the UK in high flood-risk areas, were invited to London to highlight cases to the ABI. The journey turned out to be an absolute farce, as the ABI refused to look at those cases, saying that it was not allowed to do so because of data protection. The ABI says that there is no evidence of businesses not being able to access flood insurance, and cites DEFRA’s own report, which I have highlighted, to say that there is no evidence.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Today, I received a briefing from the ABI saying that it was not going to look at the issue of small businesses having a Flood Re scheme, and that small businesses could shop around for insurance. I know from my constituency of York Central that that simply does not happen, and is not possible. Businesses in my constituency are putting forward their own resources instead of claiming from their insurance company. Is it not crucial that the Government move forward with a Flood Re scheme for small businesses to make sure that they are protected in future?
Craig Whittaker
I am not quite sure that that is entirely the Government’s responsibility. The ABI has a huge responsibility for this too. As I shall highlight with the things that have been done in the Calder Valley—doubtless they have been done in York Central too—it is the responsibility of business, but it is also everyone’s responsibility to make sure that we have viable businesses, otherwise we do not have communities going forward.
Flood Defences (Leeds)
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
I want to turn now to the economic effects on Leeds of the floods. The workforce in Leeds total 470,000 people, with a huge number travelling into the city from the surrounding areas every day. If the flood had happened on a working day, thousands of people would have been unable either to get to work or to get out of the city, resulting in huge amounts of congestion and countless working days being lost. The disruption to mobile telecoms infrastructure was bad on Boxing day, but it could have been worse. Significant risks have been identified at key infrastructure sites, including the Vodafone site off Kirkstall Road, which provides important communications to the council, the police and the national health service, and the power substation on Redcote Lane in Kirkstall, which powers 50,000 properties. Both were disrupted on Boxing day and for days afterwards. Leeds is also the regional centre for emergency and specialist healthcare, hosting the largest teaching hospital in Europe, and it relies on that infrastructure on a daily basis. For that reason as well, the city needs to be accessible by road and by rail.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In York, 50,000 phone lines went down and vital emergency infrastructure was impacted, including the lifeline that 700 elderly residents depend on. Is it not right that telecoms should now be part of the gold command and silver command operations, to ensure that we have full support for our communications?
Rachel Reeves
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituency has also been devastated by the floods.
The point is that important infrastructure sites such as the Vodafone site off Kirkstall Road and the power substation on Redcote Lane were not protected and were badly damaged on Boxing day. In Kirkstall, in my constituency, the consequences for the local economy of having no investment in flood defences is devastating. Businesses will leave, and new businesses will not come. We risk creating ghost towns if we take no action.
Last week, I and my fellow Leeds MPs—all eight of us—along with Leeds City Council leader Judith Blake and the council chief executive Tom Riordan, met the Secretary of State to ask for the reinstatement of the flood defence scheme in Leeds. We welcomed her saying that further flood protection for Leeds was a priority for the Government, but we were disappointed that no firm commitment was made to provide funding—not even the £3 million required to commence urgent design and preparatory work for flood defences over and above phase 1. We need that money for flood defences if we are to turn her commitment into a reality. I fully appreciate the budgetary challenges relating to flood defences, but we must all acknowledge the significance of the flooding arising from Storm Eva and the significant economic risk that the city of Leeds, and thus the UK economy, will therefore face without adequate investment in flood defences.
Flooding
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I praise people across York for the generosity that they have shown over this Christmas period, as well as the businesses that have given so much to help with the clear-up operation and the recovery. However, it would be a dereliction of my duty if I did not ask the difficult questions that result from the crisis. I have pages upon pages of concerns from constituents to which I am trying to seek answers.
We have been able to establish that the risk that the Foss barrier would fail was known. It was understood through successive reports over many years that the capacity of the pumps at the barrier could not match the challenges of climate change and the volume of water coming down the River Foss. That has now been established as fact through the Environment Agency and reports from the local authority, but questions remain. Why was the barrier not upgraded sooner when that was known for more than 12 years? Why were there only two mechanisms to operate the pump and why have no steps been taken to raise the level of the electrics in the nearly 30 years since the barrier was established? York needs answers to those questions and I trust that we will hear them later.
Today, I also want to focus on the additional help needed now by families and businesses who have experienced devastation this Christmas. As I have gone door to door, I have seen the damage and smelt the rancid waters, but £500 barely touches the initial costs that families face now. Many will not be able to claim the £5,000, but the £500 for people without insurance barely buys them anything. Many people in my constituency have only the clothes that they stand up in, and £500 will not go far enough. They are too poor to buy insurance. What additional resources will the Minister make available to the poorest people in my community? To do nothing is not acceptable, and they cannot rely on charity.
The Traveller community in my constituency lost everything, including their homes. The rescue operation did not happen among that community, and I want to know what additional support will be provided for Travellers. Victims of poverty and flooding should have a Government who will not abandon them in their time of need or leave them to rely on charity. They need a Government who will take action. I also want to know how the Government will support businesses more. I want a guarantee that the Government will seek to prevent businesses from going into administration, as many in my constituency are likely to do. Finally, the local authority plans in York did not work well on the ground, and I would like an external audit of those plans to ensure that they will be efficient and effective when the need arises.
Flooding
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—we talked on Boxing day because the Calder valley was such a hard-hit area, and ensuring that the right support was in place for those communities was vital. He is right to highlight the community spirit that we saw across Yorkshire and the Calder valley; and people came out around the country. That was tremendous, and I praise them for all their work.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank public sector workers and the incredible volunteers for the outstanding support that they gave residents and businesses in York over Christmas. Successive reports over many years by the Environment Agency and the city council have highlighted the risk that the Foss barrier in York would not be able to manage the capacity of water in the River Foss at times such as this. Given that that concern has been consistently highlighted for years, why were the barrier pumps not upgraded, as that could have saved hundreds of homes and businesses from flooding?
Elizabeth Truss
I was also pleased to meet the hon. Lady at the Environment Agency’s offices in York. The Foss barrier was under review at the time the incident happened, and the Prime Minister has said that he will spend £10 million of Government money on upgrading that barrier to ensure that it has sufficient pumping capacity to deal with the additional volumes. In all rivers across Yorkshire and Lancashire we are facing higher river flows than we have ever seen before, and we must consider our defences in light of that. We have made an initial commitment to upgrade the pumps at the Foss barrier, and we will certainly look more widely to ensure that we are sufficiently resilient to deal with these new weather challenges.