Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I was just about to talk about the implications of the experience of the Dawe family in his constituency, which was a horrendous scenario where 27 ewes and lambs were attacked—I assume there will have been multiple scenarios where disqualification would quite rightly have applied. While disqualification is not covered by the Bill, it is something that I will consider with officials for the next stage. There may be reasons why that is not in scope of the Bill, but I am absolutely willing to take that away and consider it with officials, as it has been rightly referenced by my right hon. and learned Friend.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. We have talked a lot about fines and penalties, but could he advise me whether the court has the power to direct compensation to be paid to the farmers? In many of these cases, the value of livestock is much greater than any fine that can be levied. Of course, the farmer does not get access to the fine money, but they may well need compensation for their business to continue to be viable.

[Robbie Moore]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is quite right that the Bill does not deal with that circumstance. Courts will be given the ability through sentencing guidelines to take into account unlimited fines through an amendment that will be introduced on Report, which the Government have committed to; it would therefore be up to the courts to implement that. He is right to reference the fact that the money from such fines will not then be distributed to the farmer, and it will therefore be up to the farmer who has been impacted negatively by sheep worrying or a sheep attack to seek compensation through civil means rather than through the courts. It is therefore outside the scope of the Bill.

As I said, the Government are wholly in support of the Bill and we will be considering further amendments that will be introduced on Report. The measures are vital in tackling livestock worrying and will greatly strengthen the existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for bringing forward the Bill.

Food Security

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I served for some time. I was pleased that he referred to my Committee’s report on soil health and spoke about baselines on where we are with our soils. A lot of soil testing work has been done in Northern Ireland. As we have heard, although many farmers, particularly arable farmers, are making great strides in testing their soils, none of that data is uploaded to any Government website, and there is very little data on the amount of carbon in our soils and on what we can do to improve the situation.

This is not the first time that this House has debated food security. Perhaps the most contentious issue dominating politics in the 19th century was the balance to be struck between protecting the interests of British farmers and landowners, and the need to provide cheap food to the workers in factories and mills in the industrial revolution. Lord Liverpool introduced the corn laws in 1815, preventing the import of wheat under 80 shillings a quarter, or £20 a tonne. In today’s money, that is double the price that wheat hit after the invasion of Ukraine, although the production stimulated by those protections meant that the actual price of wheat, and hence bread, never reached those dizzy heights.

My own family farm—to which I draw the House’s attention in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—started business four years after the repeal of the corn laws by Robert Peel’s Administration in 1846. The workers’ cause, led by Cobden and Bright, had prevailed over the landowners’ vested interests. The era of free trade did not submerge the country under cheap imports from the empire and new world, however. British farmers enjoyed a golden era in the 1870s, helped to some extent by the mass exodus of workers from the prairies to make their fortunes in the 1849 California gold rush, and by the little matter of the American civil war between 1861 and 1865. I make these points because of the parallels we see today, as we move out of a protectionist European Union into a new era of free trade. We should not forget that it was only the submarine blockades of the first and second world wars that brought into sharp focus the need for domestic food production. Two years ago, following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, we once again learned the same lesson.

We face a whole new challenge today: not only recognising the need for domestically produced food, but striking the right balance between food production and the environmental goals we need to achieve. In many cases, those goals can be delivered together, such as through the sustainable farming incentive, but in others, they are mutually exclusive. Surely, for example, it makes no sense to cover our most productive agricultural land with solar energy arrays. We can, of course, also produce biofuels on our land: wheat is used to make the ethanol in E10 petrol, and vegetable oil is used for diesel engines. However, if that means indirect land use changes in other parts of the world where forest is being cleared to create agricultural land, are we really delivering on our overall greenhouse gas obligations?

Perhaps the most contentious issue is that of the uplands—the moors and dales in places such as North Yorkshire and the Lake district. Henry Dimbleby MBE, who was then lead of the national food strategy for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave evidence to my Committee. His report is well worth a read, and I agree with much of its content. It correctly states that the 20% of farmland that is in the uplands contributes only 1% or 2% of the calories produced in this country, and suggests that that land would be better utilised by planting trees to lock up carbon. We have already seen that happening in the west of Scotland, with serious consequences for local communities and employment, and the Welsh Government have approached it in a very crude way: 10% of land is to be planted with trees, regardless of the size and viability of the remaining farming business. Farmers have made their opposition to that policy very clear in Cardiff. I worry when I hear that Labour in Wales is a blueprint for what will happen in England if Labour were to get into power after the election. It is disappointing that there are no Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber today to give me their view of the future. Where are they?

We need to strike the right balance between the need to deliver our carbon obligations and the need to support rural communities, while also protecting the landscapes that merit national park designation. My Committee’s report on food security was launched in July 2022, as a direct response to market volatility following the invasion of Ukraine. It was published in July 2023, and the Government responded in November last year. We also looked at food poverty, extending free school meal provision, and the junk food cycle that contributes to rising obesity levels. We made 18 recommendations, which can be read on pages 45 to 49 of the report by those who wish to do so.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow referred to, we were delighted that the Government have already adopted a number of those recommendations. I was particularly pleased that the Farm to Fork summit will, as we suggested, now be an annual event, alongside the publication of an annual UK food security report. In February, the Government announced that they would publish an annual food security index, in line with our recommendation in paragraph 29 of the report. I look forward to other aspects of that report being taken up, particularly the response to John Shropshire’s independent review of labour shortages.

I have two specific points that I would like to raise. First, do sugar beet and oilseed rape have a future in the UK? This is particularly relevant given the report on pollinators. The science is clear that neonicotinoids have a profound effect on bee behaviour and hive viability when those insects are exposed to them. Sugar beet is susceptible to a number of virus diseases, including virus yellows. The vector for those viruses is the peach potato aphid, Myzus persicae. If an aphid feeds on a beet plant, it transmits the virus in much the same way a mosquito transmits malaria. One bite is enough, and the earlier in the season the infection takes place, the more devastating the effect on the yield. In cold winters, there are fewer over-wintered aphids and the risk is low, but if—as in the current season—the scientists at Rothamsted determine that the risk is high, the use of a neonic seed dressing is sanctioned. If that option were not available, sugar beet production in the UK would quickly become unviable. We would have to import beet sugar from countries that have not banned those seed dressings, or cane sugar from tropical areas.

The point is that bees and other pollinators feed on nectar and pollen. Sugar beet is a biennial, and is harvested before it flowers—I know that DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser is looking at this issue. Is there a risk to bees from soil residues that may be taken up by flowering plants, either as weeds in the sugar beets or in subsequent years? The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee report calls for more research on pesticide accumulation in terrestrial environments.

Oilseed rape—those yellow fields that we see in the spring—has declined by about 60% in the UK. That is because of the cabbage stem flea beetle, which can decimate the crop as it emerges, and the larvae that hatch can also be a problem in the spring. My farm still grows rape, but like many of my neighbours, this could be our last year. Seed dressings only need to work against this pest in the first three or four weeks of drilling in August. The crop does not flower until April or May the following year. What evidence is there that there is a risk to bees more than six months after the chemical seed dressing has been used, and just as importantly, what will be the effect on pollinators if we lose this important source of pollen and nectar early in the season? I know some beekeepers worry, as I do, about the law of intended consequences coming into play. Indeed, in the absence of the neonic seed dressings, my own rape crop was sprayed five times with synthetic pyrethroids in the month or six weeks after drilling. This is not a chemical that is bee-friendly, although farmers obviously take the precaution of spraying when the bees are not flying.

For many, the only real alternative crop to sugar beet or rape would be field beans or combining peas. The economics of growing these profitably are not good. Perhaps the Minister would consider including these crops as stewardship options and eligible for support to reduce our reliance on imported soil, which we know has an effect on the planet globally.

Secondly, what will be the effect of the wet autumn and winter combined with depressed cereal prices on our future food security in the United Kingdom? Around 30% of our wheat crop either did not get drilled last autumn or has rotted in the field. With payment for stewardship options looking increasingly attractive and predictable, does the Minister share my worries that increasing areas of land may be entered into multi-annual options such as overwintered bird food, or pollen and nectar, and that we may be short of wheat in future years, or is there a risk that some schemes may even be over- subscribed? Of course, we have other schemes. There is certainly an offset scheme in my area, where quite a large amount of land has been taken out of production because of a housing developer needing to offset a particular biodiversity.

In conclusion, our farmers produce some of the best- quality food in the world. We need to improve the amount of food we produce here, not least because of the environmental impact of international transport, particularly air freight of out-of-season products. We can also deliver the environmental gains that the environmental land management scheme incentivises, but that loss must not be at the expense of domestic production or result in carbon emissions elsewhere.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate all those who secured the debate, the three Select Committee Chairs on their very thoughtful introductions—exactly as one would expect—and the members of those Committees, who put in so much hard work. I assure all those people that I will look very closely at their recommendations. I also thank others for their contributions. I found myself very much in agreement with the comments on biosecurity made by the hon. Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I struggled slightly with some of the other contributions on hedgerow protection. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position of hedgerows being currently unprotected because the Government have failed to introduce legislation quickly enough.

On food security in general, I am delighted by the conversion of Government Members to the cause that Labour and I were advancing four years ago during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020. Government Members consistently voted down our amendments proposing an annual food security review. We have now come to that point, which I welcome, but I remind those Members that it was not what they supported four or five years ago.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will not take interventions, because Conservative Members have spoken at length this afternoon and we do not have much time. I do not mean in any way to disregard the significance of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

As far as Labour is concerned, food security is absolutely a matter of national security. As the reports point out, the sector has seen significant shocks over the last few years, as various climate events across the globe have impacted on so many crops and harvests, and made life so hard for many farmers, particularly the recent floods. However, some challenges are not consequences of things beyond our control; quite frankly, some have been made worse by political decisions made here. Others—the skyrocketing costs of fertiliser, animal feed and energy—are consequences of the situation in Ukraine. Alongside that, there has been a difficult transition from the previous agricultural support system to ELMS, and persistent labour shortages.

I will ask the Minister about the Government’s response to John Shropshire’s good report on the agricultural workforce, which highlights many of the problems that the EFRA Committee report picks up. I think his analysis and many of his recommendations are sensible. He is very critical of the overly bureaucratic and slow administration of visas, and of the lack of a long-term strategic workforce plan, and he calls for urgent action from the Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when we might expect the Government to respond.

I could speak at length about ELMS—almost as long as others have—but I will not. It seems to me that ELMS have left too many people, particularly in the uplands, in a parlous state. Although I support the overall goals of that move to public money for public goods, I absolutely endorse the Environmental Audit Committee’s argument that food security is a public good—there is a bit of a discussion with economists about what those terms mean. I have been arguing for some time that food security should be a public good. We have not mentioned the problems that tenant farmers face at the moment. Will the Minister say a little about when we can expect more responses to Baroness Rock’s report, because they are long overdue?

Put all that together and it is pretty clear that we are seeing a decline in food production, which is disappointing and worrying. Staples such as eggs and some vegetables are in decline—there is less and less. At the NFU conference the other week, an interesting Farmers Guardian article rather summarised the situation pretty starkly:

“UK food production in free fall”.

Frankly, that is not the position that we want to be in. If that is to change, we must ensure that farm businesses get a decent return, because they are businesses, and for too many, the risk-reward ratio is out of kilter at the moment.

As we know, that has also hit consumers. The rise in prices has slowed, which is welcome—they were very high a few years ago—but prices are still going up. There is a whole range of reasons why that is happening. We also know that too many of our fellow citizens are struggling. The Trussell Trust statistics on the escalating reliance on food banks is deeply shocking. The EFRA Committee report echoes that feeling of, “Do they feel food secure? Clearly, they do not.” I welcome and agree with the Committee’s criticism of the fact that the Minister with responsibility for food has claimed that the issue of household affordability and access to food does not constitute food security.

There are many matters that I would be happy to cover, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am rushing through my remarks because I am conscious of time. Let me turn briefly to the food chain supply issues, and particularly waste, which is relevant to these discussions. It is pretty clear that pressures in the food chain, such as last-minute changes to specification, are leading to economic stress for producers and to disappointing levels of waste. One grower told me that, at best, he sells only about 50% of the lettuces that he grows. It is particularly depressing that that food is being wasted at a time when so many of our fellow citizens are struggling. The NFU reported that as much as £60 million of food on farms was wasted in the first half of 2022 alone.

To turn briefly to pesticides, a very interesting set of observations was made by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I would just point to the evidence that is given in the Science and Technology Committee’s report—the view of the experts on neonicotinoids. Once again, for the third year running, they pointed out that they were not able to support an authorisation for Cruiser SB because

“the potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators”

outweigh the likely benefits. I am not going to rehearse the entire debate—we have also had debates on Westminster Hall on this issue—but it is clearly a major issue, and the public are clearly concerned. Quite frankly, it is time that we stopped ignoring expert advice.

However, I fully understand the problems that farmers face and the serious points that were raised by the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Sadly, it looks like the weather is not with us again this year, and we are going to see problems from virus yellows. I have been out in the field, looking at sugar beet plants with the British Beet Research Organisation, and there are some economic choices here. We might have to move to other varieties, but there is a yield penalty. To me, that is the decision and the challenge we face: not just producing food, but producing it in an environmentally sustainable and nature- positive way.

As I say, I am not going to go through all the recommendations, but I will just make a few comments. I take very seriously the points made by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells about insect decline, and will look very closely at that issue. I have to say, I think the prospect of an invertebrates strategy will be a joy for parliamentary sketch writers, but possibly we can get them beyond that. I also echo the points about the wait for the national action plan on pesticides—it really is unacceptable. I hope the Minister can say something about it, but after a six-year wait, I do not think we are going to be holding our breath.

It will not come as a surprise to anyone to hear that Labour agrees with the Environmental Audit Committee report about using the Government’s purchasing power to ensure that more food in our hospitals and prisons is locally produced. That is Labour policy, and I think it is also Government policy; the question is whether the Government can actually make it happen. Should we get the opportunity, we will endeavour to do so.

The land use framework is another thing that we are waiting for with bated breath. I have challenged a colleague of the Minister on new ways of defining the words “soon”, “next”, “spring” or whatever. We really would like to see that framework, but again, if this Government cannot do it, I hope whoever forms the next Government will pick it up. It is a really important point as we deal with the complicated trade-offs of trying to ensure food security while recovering nature and not causing further environmental damage.

Finally, I will just pick up on the points that Henry Dimbleby made, referred to in the EFRA Committee report. I do not want to reopen the whole debate, but I do not think it is surprising that he says that in his view, the Government do not have anything resembling a proper food strategy, and that one is long overdue.

I reiterate my thanks for all the hard work that has been done to produce such comprehensive reports. I will be referring to them frequently for guidance—I already do so, because they identify some of the most urgent challenges we now face. To me, they are an example of Parliament working at its best, because they can inform not just Government thinking but certainly Opposition thinking too. For us, the goal of delivering food security and stability while optimising social, economic and environmental objectives is a priority.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of UK food security.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

Food security is a top priority for the Government and we are committed to continuing to grow 60% of our food here in the UK. To back up those plans, we are introducing an annual food security index and we are currently developing the content of that index. We want to strike the right balance between food production and the natural environment, which is why all the actions in the sustainable farming incentive work to support food production and the environment.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Does the Minister share my concerns that a perfect storm may be brewing? With grain prices on the floor, a third of the wheat crop either not being drilled or flooded out, and rape being increasingly difficult to establish, some of the long-term, multi-annual stewardship options are becoming increasingly attractive. And that is not to mention those idiots in Wales taking 20% of land out of production. Does he share my concerns?

[Mark Spencer]

That is something we consistently and constantly review to make sure that we are striking that right balance between food production and the environment. We will continue to do that to make sure that we do not see such perverse incentives. Certainly, given the challenge of the weather this season and the difficulties with planting cereal crops, we will continue to look at whether that balance is right. What I do not want is people abusing the system and putting in too much wild bird mix or pollinator mix; we will continue to review whether that is having an impact on the market.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

Such is the obsession with Brexit in the SNP that we hear no mention of the impact of the war in Ukraine, no mention of the farmers who are striking across the EU, and no recognition of the huge amount of work on supply chains that is being done by my right hon. Friend the Farming Minister. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman seems not to have noticed the rapid review of labelling that we are conducting, which is about empowering consumers and ensuring that the high animal welfare standards that we have in England are better reflected.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

T3.   I am sure the Secretary of State has seen reports in Farmers Weekly that about a third of the UK wheat crop has either rotted in the ground because of the wet conditions, or was not drilled at all. Supplies of spring seed are very tight, with many varieties already sold out, and while it is possible for some farmers to use farm-saved seed, it is illegal for it to be traded between farms. Many farmers did not grow spring crops this year or, indeed, sell their crops at harvest. Is there a solution to the problem?

[Steve Barclay]

I am very alive to this matter, both because of the very good work that Farmers Weekly has done to highlight it and because my right hon. Friend, as Chair of the Select Committee, has discussed it with me and my right hon. Friend the Farming Minister, who is also discussing it with plant breeders. We need to look at what we can do constructively, working with them, to deal with what is an entirely legitimate issue.

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Thank you, Dame Caroline. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for presenting this debate in a very balanced way. As Chair of the EFRA Committee, I can say that this issue has been on our radar for some time—indeed, we had an evidence session on it. We were particularly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who is a qualified veterinary surgeon and a member of the Committee, for the expertise he brought to bear. It was the Committee’s unanimous view that the ban is needed.

Why have the Government taken action? We have heard of appalling attacks. Fatal attacks are only the tip of the iceberg, and there have been many other reports in the media of people being attacked by dogs and of the police or members of the public having to intervene. And, of course, there are no statistics at all for dog-on-dog attacks, as we have heard.

The statistics do not make comfortable reading. Until the last three years, there were roughly three fatal attacks a year, but that number has now gone up to 10 or 11. More than half of those attacks are down to XL bullies; of the remainder, many are down to similar breeds.

I was lobbied to suggest, “Saying these dogs are dangerous is like saying red cars are dangerous, because there are a lot of red cars about,” but that does not stack up at all. The best estimate we got from one of the big veterinary groups is that there are around 50,000 of these dogs in the country. Using a simple, back-of-a-cigarette-packet calculation would indicate that, given the number of fatalities that are down to these dogs, they may be 200 or 300 times more dangerous than other dogs. Adding these dogs, as well as pit bulls and three other breeds, to section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a sensible way forward. As we heard from the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), that was an effective piece of legislation.

We are also told by a number of people that these dogs are hard to define—it is down to a characteristic, rather than a particular breed. However, interestingly, when the Committee went to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and saw a litter of puppies, staff told us, “These are American XL bully puppies”—there was no doubt in their mind what this breed was. Indeed, when I looked this afternoon at a website where dogs are advertised, there were 458 dogs described as American XLs. In many cases, the parents and grandparents of these dogs were shown in photographs, and they were also described as XL bullies. I can understand why people may try to argue that their dogs are not of this breed, but the veterinary profession and people training these dogs actually understand fairly well what they are.

When I looked at this issue at the time of our inquiry, it was interesting that these dogs were trading at anywhere between £800 and £1,500. Now they can be picked up for £200 or are, indeed, “Free to a good home.” The concern about them being dumped on the roadside really has some bearing. There were also some interesting descriptions in some of the advertisements. One described the dog, saying:

“Fine with kids but does get excited quickly.”

It chilled my heart to think what might happen. Another said:

“Not fond of other dogs”—

and that was a person trying to describe the dog in a positive way in an effort to find a market.

It is right that we recognise the concerns of owners of other breeds, which may get lumped into the same category as these dogs. I spoke today with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who has a constituent with an Old Tyme bulldog, and there is a concern that it could fall into this category. It is important that we make sure not only that these dogs are registered but that people with other breeds have some reassurance that their breeds will not fall into this category. I hope the Minister will give us some reassurance.

Why do people have these dogs? We are told they can be good family pets but, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, if somebody wants to be big and tough, they have one of these dogs. I have heard it said that someone who carries a knife on the street will be arrested and searched by the police, but they can walk around with one of these dogs with impunity, and it can be used to intimidate other people. I saw a report in the paper—I will not refer to the specific case—where a dog was used in an attack, and the police have laid a murder charge. On the “Jeremy Vine” show, a breeder of these dogs specifically said he bred them to sell to drug dealers. That might have been a bit of bravado but, even so, it does indicate the sort of people—in some cases—who buy these dogs.

My view is quite clear: these dogs are not a suitable family pet. They are a ticking time bomb. If my grandchildren—I have got to that age now—were going to play at a friend’s house where they had one of these dogs, I would forbid it. I also feel concerned about the safety of people in the home: we can muzzle these dogs and have them under control outside, but I am concerned that, in the family home, where some of these attacks have happened, children and other people may be at risk.

We have had reference to rehoming. My understanding is that most of the dog charities are not rehoming these dogs any more, because of the reputational risk—there was a case where a dog that had been rehomed was involved in an incident.

It is important that people who have these dogs and who comply with the law also take sensible precautions. If I was walking a dog and saw one of these dogs coming the other way, I would want to cross the road. Many of these attacks start off as an attack on a dog, but when a person tries to save their dog, it turns into an attack on the individual. I am particularly concerned about visitors to homes and communication workers, such as postmen, who are subject to dog attacks. Dog owners do not seem to take simple precautions, such as putting a cage on the back of the door, so that when people insert their fingers to deliver leaflets—as we often do as politicians—that is not a risk, or putting a postbox on the wall outside a property if there is one of these dogs there.

Many people are getting third-party insurance—if they join the Dogs Trust, they get automatic third-party insurance. One problem I hope the Minister will look at is whether it will remain possible to get third-party insurance for these dogs if we have further attacks and big claims on insurance policies because a person is severely injured or worse.

Ultimately, this debate is about the value of human life versus the value of canine life, and I think the Government have got the balance right: we must protect human life. If people feel that they cannot keep these dogs and that the restrictions are too onerous, there are lots of dogs in places such as Battersea and the Dogs Trust that do need rehoming, because the boom in dog ownership that we had during the pandemic is turning into a boom in rehoming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship and to participate in this excellent debate.

What concerns me is that 600,000-plus people have signed the main petition that we are debating today, and on 31 October the Government laid a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, so unless the Government agree to a debate under that negative procedure, this will be the last opportunity for Members of this House to express an opinion on this sensitive subject.

To try to prompt the Government into holding a debate, I have today tabled an early-day motion praying against the statutory instrument. It asks:

“That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (England and Wales) Order 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1164), dated 31 October 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October 2023, be annulled.”

When my right hon. Friend the Minister responds to this debate, if he does not agree to withdraw the order and think again in the light of this debate, I hope that he will allow a debate on this very sensitive statutory instrument. We are a lawmaking body and at the moment we have a statutory instrument that has been laid and that will come into force automatically, the drafting of which leaves much to be desired, not least because it does not have any clear or precise definition of what an XL bully dog is and a requirement under the 1991 Act is that there should be such a definition in any subsidiary legislation.

This whole debate takes me back to 1991 and the circumstances in which the dangerous dogs legislation was introduced. I was a junior Minister at that time and I owned a rottweiler, which frequently used to come into the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, in the days when there was no ban on dogs, of whatever breed, coming into the Palace. My wife, who worked for me then and continues to work for me, and I used to look after this rottweiler within the precincts of this House when we were here working.

In 1991, the late Dame Angela Rumbold was charged as a Home Office Minister to make an urgent reaction to public concern being expressed about dog attacks on children, largely by rottweilers, that were being reported in the press. It became apparent that a distorted picture of the pattern of dog attacks and the dog breeds responsible for those attacks was emerging. I think there are 22,000 incidents of dogs biting humans every year, and if the dog concerned in an incident was of a particular breed that was under focus at that time, then that resulted in a report in the newspapers, which would not happen otherwise.

As a result of pressure put on the Minister from within Government by the late Alan Clark—he was the only other member of the House who had a rottweiler and he was also a Minister at the time—and I, we were able to persuade Dame Angela that, as she could see from our rottweilers, they were not inherently dangerous dogs that should be banned and whose owners should be effectively criminalised if they did not take action. I remind the House of that.

What happened after that? In the context of that debate, Alastair Campbell—when he was running the Daily Mirror—thought it would make a very good story, because he found out that I had rottweiler, to show me going out with my rottweiler and walking on Southampton common, and thereby endangering everybody else on the common. He paid for one of his junior staff to camp outside my house in Southampton—I was then representing Southampton, Itchen—to try and see me, or somebody else, going out on to Southampton common with our rottweiler so that he could take a picture of it. He failed to do that because we were alert to the risk, but that did not stop him putting an article in the Daily Mirror referring to me and describing my rottweiler as a “Minister’s devil dog”, with a picture of our dear rottie.

That was the emotion at the time, and it was being played up by what was then Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I think that contributed to the Government rushing into what was essentially emergency legislation. I fear that, with the Prime Minister’s announcement and the announcements that have followed, the current Government are similarly being pushed into doing something perhaps against their better judgment, in a rush, and without thinking it through properly.

Particularly, if we are going to ban a particular type or breed of dog, then we need a robust definition. We cannot leave it to individual owners to decide for themselves whether their dog complies with the new definitions. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), said that there are people whose XL bullies fit that: their parents were registered as XL bullies, and so on. That is fine, but what we are discussing today is a situation where a lot of dogs, which were never bought or officially described as XL bullies, may well be caught by this legislation because it is so vaguely drafted. To then have guidance that says, “If you think that you may be in this category, then you should self-police and report yourself to the authorities, because you think you may have what is described as an XL bully-type”—that is just not the way in which we should be legislating in this House.

I also fear that this debate is undermined by the lack of data. There is no hard data on how many dog bites, resulting in either fatality or serious injury, in this country have come from different breeds of dog. I used that great resource, the internet, and came across a website, askadamskutner.com, that gives us these statistics for what happens in America. The most recent statistics by breed for dog bite-related fatalities included the following: pit bulls, 284 deaths; rottweilers, 45 deaths; German shepherds, 20 deaths; mixed breeds, 17 deaths; American bully dogs, 15 deaths; mastiffs, 14 deaths; and Siberian huskies, 13 deaths—the list goes on. After those statistics, however, the major finding is that Adam Kutner believes that irresponsible ownership to be responsible for most of these dog bite-related fatalities.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

We have statistics in the UK showing that 12 of the last 23 deaths were from American XLs. Other breeds are not blameless. In fact, on 8 August, a 77-year-old gentleman, Mr Vic Franklin, was bitten by two rottweilers and had to have an arm, leg and part of a finger amputated following the attack. There are other breeds, but they do not feature disproportionately in the statistics.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The problem is that the statistics are of a moment. My right hon. Friend is talking about the statistics over recent months, but if one looks back at statistics since 1991, they might be able to show that there have been a number of rottweiler attacks, and rottweilers were exempt from the dangerous dogs legislation in the circumstances that I have described. We are now picking on a particular breed—and not even a precise definition of that breed—instead of doing what all informed opinion has been asking for, which is to look back at the legislation itself and legislate against those who have allowed their dogs, of whatever breed, to get out of control and attack other dogs or humans.

It is telling that about a year ago, in response to a petition asking for the Government to review the dangerous dogs legislation, the Government set up a review because they recognised that there might be a problem with the current legislation. However, as soon as there were a few headlines about XL bullies, in what I think was a knee-jerk reaction, the Prime Minister decided, “I must take action on this and so I must announce a ban.” That ban comes into effect on 31 December, with, as I have described, the legislation laid and no opportunity whatsoever for the Government or Parliament to consider the detail of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) said that we need to continue to look at these issues and ensure that there is an iterative process. There is no iterative process now. The statutory instrument has been laid and will come into law on 31 December, unless or until this House forces the Government to bring forward a motion so we can then vote it down, or the Government themselves decide to withdraw it and think again.

We are talking about desperate measures, imposed in an autocratic style over a short space of time, with challenging consequences for our constituents up and down the country. Members on both sides of the House have referred to individual constituents who have written to them. A number of mine have written to me in very persuasive and emotional letters and emails explaining why their particular dog should not have to be muzzled, or ultimately even euthanised, as a result of this legislation, which they think is totally disproportionate.

One particular person who wrote to me is the owner of a mastiff cross, which he and his wife believe may satisfy the definition of an XL bully as contained in the guidance issued by the Government. Why should somebody with a mastiff cross find their dog defined as an XL bully type when it is not? It just happens to be a large and thickset dog. That family took the dog from a rescue centre about five years ago following a family disaster, and it has been their way out of a difficult, mentally stressful situation. Given that they may find that their dog will no longer have the freedom to walk through the New Forest, on beaches, or in the hills of Dartmoor as a normal dog would, one can understand how upset they are. The dog, who is called Ronnie, is not an XL bully but could be classed as one under this vague and imprecise legislation.

My daughter was born in 1990, and when she was one— at the time of the Dangerous Dogs Act—she was living with our rottweiler. I think that was another factor that Angela Rumbold took into account, because here was a rottweiler—a so-called dangerous dog—living a perfectly quiet existence in the same household as one of Her Majesty’s Ministers.

I do not know whether it was because of the legislation, but my daughter ultimately became a member of the esteemed veterinary profession. She is now part of the cohort of experts who are saying, “This is not the right way forward.” They have said that the Government’s legislation is completely the wrong way to go about it, so why are the Government not listening? It is perhaps—dare one say it?—the arrogance of having too large a majority, or deference to the Prime Minister, who decreed that this will happen on the basis of little evidence at the time. In scrambling to get the evidence together, Ministers perhaps feel that they have to deliver on the Prime Minister’s will, rather than stand up to him and say, “Hang on a minute. I think your knee-jerk reaction was wrong.”

The people concerned about the ban, including vets, are in the Dog Control Coalition, which is made up of the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Hope Rescue, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association. They say:

“The Dog Control Coalition agrees that urgent action needs to be taken to protect the public from out-of-control dogs”—

not specific breeds—

“but we are disappointed that the Government hasn’t taken the opportunity to completely overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act. With its continued focus on specific breeds, rather than a focus on prevention and implementation of tougher penalties for those owners not in control of their dogs, it is not fit for purpose.”

Those organisations say that this legislation is not fit for purpose, and yet the Government—unless we hear something to the contrary from the Minister—will not even allow the House to have a vote on it so that Members can be held to account by their constituents and express whether they think it is good legislation or not.

Even if the intention of the legislation is good, surely we should look at the detail, because we are talking about new criminal penalties that will affect people’s freedom. Do we want to criminalise owning or handling dogs of a description so vague that people will not be certain in advance whether they will be offending by not registering their dog as being an XL bully type?

In my view, this is one of the worst pieces of legislation brought forward by this Government—that is quite a high bar to get over, given what has happened since the 2019 general election. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) introduced the debate in such a mild, rational way that he would single-handedly persuade the Government to think again. My style is perhaps slightly different from his, but I hope that between us we will be able to persuade the Government and, ultimately, the Prime Minister, because nothing can be changed unless he says so, to change their view and listen to the voices of the 600,000-plus people who signed the petitions.

Mr Gray, you and I know how difficult it is to get people to sign petitions, so to get 600,000 signatures is no mean feat. We ignore that mass of opinion at our peril, unless we are able to show that we have done everything possible to examine alternative ways of dealing with this problem and introduced proper safeguards in terms of definitions. Ultimately, we must recognise the plea that has been there ever since the 1991 legislation that we should not legislate in haste, but should actually deal with the underlying problem. That problem is just as bad as it has ever been, which is that there is a significant number of dog owners who are irresponsible.

Some people have talked about having a licensing system for dogs. Perhaps we should have a licensing system for dog owners in the same way that we have one for car drivers. Why not have a licensing system for dog owners? I put that forward as a proposition. I do not normally campaign in favour of more legislation and regulation, but I put that forward as a reasonable alternative to the rotten legislation we have here.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I thank all everyone who added their names to the petitions and thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for leading the debate today. We have heard passionate and emotive contributions from across the House, and those present will know that this matter has caused genuine concern across all quarters of civic society, with strong feelings on all sides. Those who think the breed should be banned, those who do not, animal lovers, academics, animal charities and welfare groups, and many more stakeholders have all had their say on the proposed ban.

The proposal comes in the wake of what has been an undeniable spate of attacks on other animals and people. Of course, we all share the horror of any dog attack, especially with higher numbers of reported cases of XL bully-related incidents. Some of those reports, as we have heard, have been truly horrific and have resulted in fatalities. As outlined by the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), our Committee has heard hours of oral evidence and read hundreds of pages on the matter, as well as receiving many constituent inquiries. It is apparent that the rushed nature of the ban has only exacerbated public concern. The Dangerous Dogs Act is, in the view of many, a flawed piece of legislation, and adding the XL bully to it in this rushed fashion has caused concern for many stakeholders and interested parties.

The Scottish Government have fully and carefully considered the UK Government’s decision to ban XL bully dogs and whether similar changes to ban the breed will be applied in Scotland. Having listened to the advice given by advisers—experts in the field, of course—it has been made clear by the Scottish Government Minister in a recent letter to Lord Benyon that the ban will not be brought into force in Scotland on the current timescale the UK Government have implemented. The Scottish Government keep all dog control legislation under constant and consistent review, including the banned breeds list, and will continue to do so going forward.

The focus in Scotland for some considerable time has been on dog control policy. Supported by the Scottish SPCA, the view is that responsible dog ownership, whatever the breed, is the key to safer communities. However, if the long-standing list of banned breeds can have a role to play in keeping communities safe, the Scottish Government will of course consider that, using the evidence of what may work without having any unintended consequences. It is those unintended consequences, such as mistyping a dog, that could see innocent, well-trained, well-looked-after and much-loved family pets caught up in the ban as the legislation is rushed through this place.

Defining exactly what breed types should be covered by a ban is the key challenge facing the UK Government. They have set up an expert group on this very subject, which will also help inform decision making in Scotland, and any departure from the current position will be considered fully. Again, those of us who sit on the EFRA Committee will have heard all about the implications of attempting to type a dog and how difficult it is, even for experts. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) raised many valid concerns about typing dogs, and it reminded me of reading a book by the English rugby player Lawrence Dallaglio. His family pet was a Rhodesian ridgeback, which attacked his eight-year-old son way back in 2008. They are big dogs with have excessive weight, and if they lock on, it will lead to the same consequences as what happens when an XL bully-type dog does so, so we have concerns about targeting specific breeds.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that this sort of attack also happens in Scotland? In Motherwell last month, the 18-year-old owner of an XL bully was savagely attacked and needed surgery, and two council officials were also attacked. Pepper spray needed to be used on the dog before it was put down.

[Steven Bonnar]

Of course I share the concerns. I do not think anybody in this Chamber or, indeed, across the whole House does not share the concerns about irresponsible dog ownership and what can happen, including fatalities, when somebody is not acting responsibly —of course we share those concerns. Motherwell is my local town, by the way, so I am deeply concerned about that incident, but the Scottish Government have carefully considered the evidence-based suggestions from experts to help improve community safety, including keeping the prohibited breed list under constant review. We will continue to engage with all stakeholders on the concept of a ban and how it might be implemented in England and Wales.

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was designed to highlight the responsibilities of dog owners by putting in place a regime that identifies “out of control” dogs at an early juncture and provides measures to change the behaviour of such dogs and their owners before they are deemed dangerous. The UK Government should perhaps look to follow the approach taken by the Scottish Government. We in Scotland have also introduced a national dog control database, which helps independent enforcement agencies, such as local authorities and Police Scotland, to access information on dog owners who allow their dogs to be out of control in a public place.

The Scottish Government also carried out a marketing campaign on dog control in conjunction with the Scottish SPCA in 2021. That campaign has since been rerun on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all other available outlets on a number of occasions. It directs the public to information about the law on controlling dogs, which is available at mygov.scot/controlling-your-dog. That website makes it clear that dog owners are responsible for the actions of their dog, and sets out potential penalties for those failing to control dogs. These actions are not reactions to a spate of dog attacks by Dobermanns or rottweilers, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) outlined. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed legislation following a spate of dog attacks, and that is what we are seeing from the UK Government again. This is not consistent. Scotland is not reacting to a spate of dog attacks, and a consistent and continuous body of work has been, and continues to be, undertaken in Scotland that can not only help to react to trends, but actively prevent them.

It is regretful that the Government have brought forward this ban in this manner, without, again, any prior conversation or consultation with the devolved Government. It is also important to emphasise to those concerned that a dog being classed as a banned breed will not automatically mean that the animal will be put down. If conditions are met, such as having a dog neutered or spayed and keeping that dog muzzled in public, a dog could be placed on the new index of exempted dogs.

More generally, it is important to put on record just how much we in the SNP value the work of Police Scotland, Scottish local authorities and the Scottish SPCA, which all work closely with the Scottish Government to help keep our communities safe from the small minority of irresponsible dog owners and their dangerous dogs. The Scottish Government will, of course, continue to work closely with the United Kingdom Government on their intentions for a ban of the XL bully breed, while continuing to lead on several regional engagements to look at ways for partners to work collaboratively to improve the operational response, enforcement and community engagement to promote more responsible dog ownership across our communities. Here at Westminster, we in the SNP will continue to call on the UK Government to return the kept animals Bill to Parliament, to restrict unethical puppy farming and imports from abroad, and to improve our welfare standards for all animals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Scarborough’s South bay is included in the 7% of bathing water without a blue flag. North Yorkshire Council recently convened a taskforce of local politicians, the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and others, including academics from Durham University, to look at the problem. It became clear that it is not as simple as many people think. Discharges come from further north around the bay, and pathogens were picked up not only from human effluent but from sea birds, dogs and ruminants. Will the Minister take a personal interest in that work, because lessons learned in Scarborough may well apply around the country?

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend highlights that the issue is not as simple as people think. That is why our plan for water takes a holistic approach to tackling all sources of water pollution. It is also why we launched our £34 million slurry fund to help farmers reduce the pollution that they may inadvertently put into watercourses.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can we be more moderate in the language that we use? I do not think that it has been appropriate, and hopefully we will hear no more of it.

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

We all understand the long-term challenge of storm water overflows where heavy rainfall is inundating the system. Over time, we will see more storm water tanks, such as the 4 million litre tank that Yorkshire Water installed in Scarborough, but there can be no excuse for discharges when the weather is dry. Some are down to human error or to mechanical failure, but many are down just to under-capacity in the system. As we address the problem, can we focus on the dry discharges and ensure that investment goes where it will have the most effect: where the most concentrated sewage goes into waterways?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out some of the investment that is under way, but the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which I anticipate will receive nearly £60 billion of investment from the water companies, will prioritise where the biggest issues are. I think that is the right thing to do. I am also mindful of other potential environmental responsibilities, particularly in areas of conservation. We will continue to ensure that, as part of the plan, we get on and get into the detail. We are already doing quite a lot of work with the water companies, holding them to account and ensuring that they get on and spend the money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The price of wheat peaked at £350 a tonne. It has subsequently fallen to below £200 a tonne—not much more than it was before the invasion of Ukraine. Why has the price of bread in our supermarkets not fallen, too?

[Mark Spencer]

I declare my interest in these matters.

I recognise the fact that global wheat prices have now come back down. We work closely with retailers, processers and the hospitality sector to make sure that there is not extra profiteering in the marketplace. We will continue to have discussions with those representatives and will work with the sector to make sure that food is reasonably priced for our constituents.

Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Sewage treatment plants are all too often overwhelmed at times of heavy rain. As well as installing stormwater tanks, such as the new 4 million litre stormwater tank in Scarborough, does the Minister agree that we should do more to encourage homeowners to harvest grey water, which can buffer the effects of heavy rain, and use that for such things as flushing the toilet?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for broadening the scope of the debate. We are in discussions with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—many of these issues involve working with other Departments—on grey water harvesting and better using the rain that does fall. A farmer in Devon whom I visited was collecting all the water from his farm buildings roofs to supply his animals.

Agricultural Tenancies

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to Baroness Rock and her working group. She has engaged with me and with my Committee, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which launched its report on the tenanted sector this morning.

Does the Minister agree that as we move from direct payments to more environmentally linked payments, there will always be a limitation on which schemes tenants can participate in because of their long-term nature? Does he also share my concern about the possibility of perverse incentives for landlords to take land back from tenants for purposes such as the creation of solar farms, rewilding and forestry?

[Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his Committee for their work. We want to avoid any such perverse incentives. We do not want to motivate landlords to take land from tenants for the purpose of, for instance, rewilding, or to remove them from the sector for any reason. We want to encourage a positive working relationship.

There are, of course, some challenges. If, for example, a tenant applies for a grant under our new slurry scheme to introduce physical structures that will last well beyond the length of the tenancy, the landlord will need to have some engagement in the process and to support that tenant. We want to open up these grants to tenants as well as owner-occupiers, so that tenant farmers can invest in their productivity as well as their sustainability and their ability to make a profit.