(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
As my hon. Friend might know, the deadline of 15 May is written in EU regulations and the Commission has agreed to extend it to 15 June. Under the regulations, farmers are given a period of 21 days during which a late application can be accepted. Until last week it was not clear whether the Commission would agree to an extension, although it had indicated that it might, so our plans were made on the basis that we would be aiming to meet the deadline of 15 May. Having that additional month gives us some more leeway, which is obviously welcome.
Does the Minister agree that the over-complicated CAP system demonstrates that this can affect all member states in a very detrimental way? Is that something that we should be renegotiating as part of our new deal with the European Union?
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are already in discussions with Commissioner Hogan about the interpretation of existing regulations for next year to ensure that we can get some simplification. In the mid-term review we will be pressing for further simplification of the greening rules. For the new CAP, which will take effect post 2020, we are already looking at radical reform to make it simpler and make more common sense.
(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberI shall be happy to look into that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nephrops industry is particularly important in Northern Ireland, and we managed, against the odds, to secure an increase in the total allowable catch at the December Council. That will be good for the Northern Ireland fleet. Different countries take different approaches when it comes to technical measures; that is an important aspect of the devolved entity that we want the common fisheries policy to become.
3. What assessment she has made of the role the public can play in supporting bees and pollinators.
6. What assessment she has made of the role the public can play in supporting bees and pollinators
In November we published the national pollinator strategy, a 10-year plan to help pollinators to thrive, which involves farmers, major landowners and the public. People can help in their gardens, schools or local parks by leaving areas wild for pollinators, or ensuring that food sources are available throughout the year.
Will the Secretary of State update me on how the 2013 United Kingdom national action plan for sustainable use of pesticides is being reviewed, so that the use of pesticides by local authorities in particular can be reduced?
We will update the action plan by 2017 in line with European Union requirements. Many local authorities are involved in our national pollinator strategy: Bristol, Wyre Forest and Peterborough are all taking measures to plant pollinator-friendly wild flowers.
Yes. We recognise the importance of rural broadband, which is why Broadband Delivery UK has invested hundreds of millions of pounds to bring broadband to rural areas. I know that my hon. Friend was involved in commissioning the Cap D system—the common agricultural policy delivery system—and he will recognise that we have ensured that it can operate at quite low speeds of around 2 megabits per second. That will ensure that most farmers are able to use it, but we have established the network of digital support centres for those who are not.
5. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department’s environmental key performance indicators are met.
The core Department has reduced the size of its core estate to three properties and implemented measures such as LED lighting and improved insulation to reduce energy use. Carbon emissions, the quantity of waste we generate and the amount of water we use have reduced by 39%, 30% and 2% respectively. In the coming year, we are looking to use energy performance contracts to make our buildings more efficient and potentially to introduce renewable generation.
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), with whom I co-chair the all-party group on greyhounds.
I come from Romford, which is a greyhound racing town. There is a greyhound stadium in my constituency, where I have always lived. Therefore, for me it is very important that we get this issue right. We support greyhound racing, but as the hon. Members for Islwyn and for Wansbeck said, it is important that we uphold the welfare of the animals. I will focus on welfare in my brief remarks today.
The greyhound is, of course, a remarkable athlete. It is one of the oldest canine breeds; it is mentioned in the Bible, in Chaucer and in Shakespeare. Greyhounds have often been owned by members of the royal family.
In the UK, the greyhound industry is thriving, and it is an exciting industry. It not only brings in £55 million in taxation per annum but supports more than 7,000 jobs, which are linked to the 30 or so greyhound racing tracks around the country. Greyhound racing is a traditional British pastime and many people around the UK spend a lot of their life involved in it. It is very important that we do not take it away from them.
Let me state, as chairman of the all-party group on greyhounds, that whatever we feel about greyhound racing, the important thing is that we never forget about the welfare of the 8,000 dogs that enter and leave the sport every year. The sport itself must be supported, but only on the basis that the dogs are properly looked after during their racing days and when they finish racing.
I am pleased that much progress has made by the industry since the introduction of the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has maintained the standards that afford it accreditation by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. All racing greyhounds are microchipped and, under the GBGB rules of racing, owners are responsible for their greyhounds when the dogs’ racing days come to an end. In addition, the GBGB conducts a vigorous anti-doping regime, taking more than 9,000 samples a year. Of these, well over 99% are negative.
Charities such as the Retired Greyhound Trust, of which I am a trustee and a proud vice-president, serve to further the welfare of greyhounds when their racing days are over. The RGT is the largest single-breed re-homing charity in Britain and last year it found homes for 3,742 greyhounds. Unfortunately, the RGT and other charities are simply unable to help all the dogs that leave racing, and I welcome any assistance the sport is able to give these charities in that respect. The hon. Member for Islwyn emphasised the importance of that.
However, the recent report into greyhound racing in the UK by the League Against Cruel Sports has raised many concerns. While it is important for the sport to be held to account, it is my opinion that this report does not necessarily represent all the facts as they truly are, and in some cases it uses data that are simply not correct. For instance, the report claims:
“Most racing greyhounds spend 95% of their time confined in a kennel”,
when the truth is that they spend 95% of their time at a kennel, because quite simply that is where they reside and where they have access to paddocks, runs and walks on a daily basis. I do not believe that twisting the facts in that manner helps the debate and we should be careful not to take information at face value, rather than checking whether it is based on fact or just hearsay.
The GBGB is working with the Greyhound Forum to improve transparency on the information about injuries and trackside euthanasia rates, which means that this information is now available to many animal welfare organisations. However, I know that many of these organisations would like to see this transparency increased and for the GBGB to improve outside understanding of the injuries that greyhounds sustain and of the remedies that are used.
It is also regarded as important that the GBGB shares information about the number of greyhounds that retire each year, and about exactly where these dogs go. Perhaps that is one area where the industry could work more closely with the Greyhound Forum.
The greyhound industry and the GBGB are insistent on their commitment to the welfare of the animals with which they work. To retain the public’s support for greyhound racing, and the support of all those who care about the well-being of the animals, I strongly urge the industry and the GBGB to continue along the path of greater transparency.
(12 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
I agree. This is pointing towards a consolidation of all previous laws—many of them go back many years; one of the most useful was enacted in 1871—into new, modern statutes to deal with some of the points that are not clear in previous legislation. In addition to dogs attacking defenceless, beautiful animals such as swans, I have even heard of dogs attacking guide dogs. It largely comes back to the owner. We must put in place the sanctions that make it clear we are not going to tolerate this situation any more.
Without rehearsing the whole history of the issue, I shall give hon. Members a flavour of it. Related Acts were introduced in 1839, 1847, 1861 and 1871. This is, therefore, a recurrent theme in society and our pet community. It is no good denying the problem; we must simply do the best we can to minimise it, even if we cannot totally eliminate it. That means introducing sensible, modern legislation. I hope that some Conservative Members have time—as they can probably tell, I am trying to get through my speech as quickly as I can to leave time for others to speak—to join us in supporting such an approach. The consultation has been carried out, and finished in June 2010.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two clear things need to be done? First, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 needs to be got rid of and replaced by sensible, effective legislation; and secondly, we need a workable law that introduces compulsory micro-chipping for all dogs.
I am coming to that in a moment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman but the point is: why are we not getting on with it? We must face the fact that we need legislation to deal with the problem and, if we all agree on that, we could go one step further and say that it needs to be consolidated. Let us have fresh legislation that takes all recent experience into account. This is not a criticism of the Prime Minister, the Government or the Conservative party, but the consultation was completed a year and a half ago and I cannot think what is holding things up. There is widespread support in the House for dealing with this problem, which exists throughout the country, so let us get on with sorting it out.
I am coming on to that precise point. Ministers have made it a priority to see how this issue is being dealt with on the ground in the communities that are affected. We are keen to learn the lessons of what works—and what does not—from local projects in areas where there is a high incidence of dog-related problems. Our view is that local action is key to tackling the problem of irresponsible dog ownership. We are keen to support local people, charities, the police and local authorities, so that they can jointly tackle local issues. We are also looking at what more Government can do to support the police, local government and the courts in dealing more effectively with dog problems. We have already facilitated the production of guidance for the police, the courts and the public. We have also provided financial support for the training given by the Association of Chief Police Officers to police dog legislation officers. Ministers are keen that we build on this support in future.
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I am coming to the point that he raised earlier.
A number of people support the idea that if breed-specific legislation is not repealed, then owners should be allowed to apply to the courts to have the dogs added to the index of exempted dogs. I want the police to have the final say on whether a dog is seized, and there may also be scope for not kennelling other types of dogs that are not a danger. In all cases, the police would need to be satisfied that the dogs are in the care of a responsible owner. That idea would undoubtedly save money for the police who, under the existing law, must first seize the dog pending the outcome of court proceedings. However, we also need to consider whether such a proposal would allow for the public safety factor of each application to be properly considered.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), another proposal under consideration is to extend the criminal law on dangerous dogs to all private property. That would allow the police to investigate dog attacks on private property, and we have sympathy with that desire. That may, on the face of it, be an easy thing to do, but we should consider the effects of, say, a trespasser with criminal intent who is attacked by the home owner’s dog. Do we really want a trespasser successfully prosecuting a home owner because the home owner’s dog has acted in a way that many people would consider only natural? I point that out as just one example of where it is not a simple binary decision. There are some major implications in extending the law into the home. Before going down this route, we would need to be sure that all the potential risks are understood and can be addressed, but I assure the hon. Lady that we get the problem and are very keen to move position, which I think all hon. Members would—
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberThat is a bit rich coming from a representative of a party that was in government for 13 years and had the opportunity to introduce such an ombudsman, which is something that this Government are now setting about doing.
7. What estimate she has made of the proportion of livestock slaughtered in England that was reared in the UK in the last year for which figures are available.
The vast majority of livestock slaughtered in England will have been reared in the United Kingdom. A small number, including some spent hens, are from the Republic of Ireland, and a very small number will be imported from mainland Europe for slaughter rather than for breeding purposes.
I thank the Minister for his response. The transport of livestock over long distances can cause unnecessary suffering and distress. Does he agree that where possible the slaughter of animals should be done locally, to avoid that distress and long transportation?
I think that most people entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and certainly I do. We want to encourage the slaughtering of animals locally wherever possible. Not only is it good for welfare reasons, it is good for local employment and fits in with local food, which we all want to encourage.
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberAnimal welfare matters to the British people, but we in the House have a duty and responsibility to make decisions on issues relating to animal welfare based on facts, knowledge and science. If we make decisions based purely on opinion polls and emotions, we shall get ourselves into great difficulty. I heard nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) about the actual welfare of animals.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will give way in a moment.
We have to base our decisions on cool hard facts and knowledge of the situation. The speeches I have heard today do not show that; they have avoided the real animal welfare issues and are pandering to the emotions of animal rights activists who care more about their political agenda than about the real welfare of animals.
I condemn utterly and totally cruelty to animals of any kind. I was the shadow Minister for animal welfare for three years before the last election, and I had the same instincts as many people in the Chamber today and many of the people who respond to opinion polls, when they say, “Isn’t it dreadful. It should be banned. How awful this is.”
May I make some progress before I give way?
Instead of basing my views purely on what the newspapers or the opinion polls say, I looked into the matter. The truth is that in this country only a small number of animals are in circuses: 39 in total. They are not captured from the jungle and dragged to the circus; many have been born and bred in circuses for generations. [Interruption.] Their entire rhythm of life is based—
Not at the moment.
For those animals, their entire rhythm of life is based on what they have known since they were born. On the face of it—
May I continue?
On the face of it, I agree that it looks to many people as though it is all very cruel, but in reality many of those animals have been so domesticated over so many years that to wrench them from the life they are used to would be crueller than allowing them to continue it. The Government have to implement welfare and we already have the Animal Welfare Act 2006. If there is real cruelty to animals, we can use existing legislation or, as the Government propose, licensing to deal with it. [Interruption.] It is amazing that we are focusing on an area where there is almost no cruelty—[Hon. Members: “There is.”] There isn’t. [Interruption.] No one wants to hear the facts—[Interruption.] They don’t.
I am fed up with animals being used as a political football. If Members want to campaign for animal welfare, they should look at the facts, examine the reality and not use it to promote a political agenda. I am afraid to say that certain animal welfare organisations—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr Rosindell is not giving way, so persistent requests are not helping the situation. I am sure he will let the House know when he is ready to take an intervention.
I should like to take interventions, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am being shouted down, which is not very fair, especially from a Green MP—I should have thought that she would want to hear the other point of view.
I am a champion for animal welfare, but I shall not just follow the crowd. I shall look at the facts. What is being proposed is worse than those poor animals are used to; their entire life has been in the environment they were brought up in. Wrenching them away from the people who have looked after them, loved them and cared for them would obliterate their rhythm of life and would be crueller than allowing it to continue. I shall now give way.
The hon. Gentleman says that he wants science. What about the science from the British Veterinary Association, which says:
“the welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus…A licensing scheme will not address these issues”?
The BVA is one of the most respected scientific organisations for animal welfare in this country. What does he say to that?
Non-domesticated—they are wild animals, but when lions and tigers are 10th generation born in that environment, we are no longer talking about a lion taken out of its natural environment and dragged into the circus. I am afraid to say that the issue is often used by organisations for fundraising. Charities and animal rights groups raise money, and the issue is raised to attract political support and donations, by whipping up emotions instead of treating the facts as they are.
No, I will not.
We have the Animal Welfare Act 2006—a brilliant piece of legislation from the last Government, which we supported—and it can be used when cruelty occurs, but I appeal to the House: do not go with the crowd, look at the facts, do not wrench those creatures away from the life that they are used to and have grown up in. If you do that, you will be more cruel than leaving them where they are, with the people and in the environment that they are used to.
Will my hon. Friend share with the House his views on whether third-generation slaves in the United States, born into slavery, were content with slavery, more so than those who were enslaved in the first place?
I am afraid to say that I am sorry that the debate is being dragged to such a level. Instead of dealing with the facts, you are ultimately saying that animals—
Order. Once again, I can see that emotions are running high, but I remind the House that when you say, “you”, you mean me.
I knew that my views would be unpopular, but I ask hon. Members perhaps to take something away from what I am saying, because I believe passionately in animal welfare. I looked at this for three years. I visited circuses. I spoke to people who deal with training the animals, and I know that they are loved and cared for. This is like a pack hunting a tiny bit of tradition that still exists in this country, where animal welfare standards are greatly considered and animals are loved and cared for. I am afraid to say that, if we rush to make a decision based on pure emotion and opinion polls, I really think that it will be an irresponsible decision. We should look at the facts. We should understand the long-term interests of animal welfare and use existing legislation to deal with this issue.
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money her Department allocated to each local authority for animal health and welfare work in each of the last three financial years.
[Official Report, 27 April 2011, Vol. 527, c. 409-12W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Jim Paice:
Four errors have been identified in the table accompanying the written answer given to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on 27 April 2011. The incorrect figures, all relating to the 2010-11 financial year, were Barnsley £23,266, Bradford £38,080, Kirklees £29,640 and South Tyneside £3,020.
The correct answer should have been:
DEFRA funding allocated to each local authority for animal health and welfare work in each of the last three financial years is shown in the following table:
Local authority | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 |
---|---|---|---|
Barnsley | 24,474 | 28,274 | 23,274 |
Bath and North East Somerset | 60,015 | 60,015 | 60,015 |
Bedford | — | 19,338 | 19,338 |
Bedfordshire | 48,345 | — | — |
Birmingham | 27,815 | 28,515 | 27,315 |
Blackburn with Darwen | 6,052 | 5,465 | 4,074 |
Blackpool | 385 | 385 | 385 |
Blaenau Gwent | 16,841 | 16,841 | 16,841 |
Bolton | 12,208 | 12,208 | 12,208 |
Bradford | 39,080 | 41,080 | 39,080 |
Bridgend | 35,462 | 35,462 | 35,462 |
Buckinghamshire | 88,924 | 88,924 | 88,924 |
Bury | 2,901 | 2,901 | 2,901 |
Caerphilly | 22,521 | 20,414 | 20,414 |
Calderdale | 54,699 | 54,699 | 54,699 |
Cambridgeshire | 72,975 | 72,975 | 72,975 |
Cardiff | 5,103 | 7,103 | 7,103 |
Carmarthenshire | 192,297 | 178,296 | 192,296 |
Central Bedfordshire | — | 29,007 | 29,007 |
Ceredigion | 195,113 | 179,113 | 195,113 |
Cheshire (East) | — | 56,000 | 49,930 |
Cheshire (West and Chester) | — | 48,500 | 48,500 |
Cheshire | 93,080 | — | — |
City of London (Chelmsford) | 10,180 | 10,180 | 10,180 |
City of London (Reigate) | 12,673 | 12,673 | 12,673 |
City of London (Reading) | — | — | 1,685 |
City of London (Wokingham and Reading) | 10,852 | 10,852 | — |
City of York | 10,850 | 10,850 | 10,850 |
Conwy | 146,284 | 146,000 | 146,000 |
Cornwall | 140,389 | 160,389 | 140,389 |
Coventry | 4,000 | 5,000 | 6,000 |
Cumbria | 290,826 | 256,342 | 264,539 |
Darlington | 36,649 | 36,649 | 36,647 |
Denbighshire | 136,372 | 136,372 | 136,272 |
Derby City | 6,692 | 5,792 | 5,792 |
Derbyshire | 199,112 | 196,543 | 181,539 |
Devon | 501,678 | 505,733 | 500,733 |
Doncaster | 51,456 | 46,456 | 46,456 |
Dorset | 109,780 | 101,885 | 114,960 |
Dudley | 17,870 | 17,870 | 17,870 |
Durham | 81,567 | 87,567 | 82,567 |
East Riding of Yorkshire | 209,483 | 214,483 | 209,483 |
East Sussex | 53,611 | 53,611 | 53,611 |
Essex | 150,996 | 130,996 | 150,996 |
Flintshire | 73,930 | 73,930 | 73,930 |
Gateshead | 2,018 | 2,018 | 2,018 |
Gloucestershire | 196,970 | 201,190 | 192,720 |
Gwynedd | 130,937 | 130,937 | 130,937 |
Halton | — | — | 1,033 |
Hampshire | 38,108 | 38,108 | 38,108 |
Hartlepool | 7,050 | 4,550 | 4,550 |
Havering | 2,000 | 14,000 | 14,000 |
Herefordshire | 119,768 | 119,768 | 114,768 |
Hertfordshire | 26,285 | 26,285 | 26,285 |
Isle of Anglesey | 96,018 | 96,018 | 82,018 |
Isle of Wight | 34,449 | 28,949 | 32,449 |
Isles of Scilly | — | 22,000 | 22,000 |
Kent | 208,188 | 206,677 | 203,170 |
Kirklees | 31,357 | 33,657 | 29,657 |
Lancashire | 339,945 | 339,945 | 339,945 |
Leeds | 29,049 | 29,049 | 29,049 |
Leicestershire | 62,736 | 62,736 | 62,671 |
Lincolnshire | 173,691 | 173,691 | 173,691 |
Med way | 8,240 | 8,240 | 8,240 |
Merthyr Tydfil | 71,856 | 66,856 | 66,856 |
Middles | 936 | 936 | 936 |
Milton Keynes | 37,725 | 18,037 | 25,089 |
Monmouthshire including Torfaen | 128,705 | 135,943 | 155,228 |
Newcastle | 34,920 | 34,800 | 33,970 |
Newport | 70,412 | 38,937 | 37,873 |
Norfolk | 129,284 | 129,284 | 129,284 |
North Lincolnshire | 23,520 | 23,520 | 23,520 |
North Somerset | 30,158 | 30,158 | 30,158 |
North Tyneside | 12,431 | 12,431 | 12,431 |
North Yorkshire | 374,691 | 404,691 | 414,691 |
Northamptonshire | 84,872 | 79,644 | 79,644 |
Northumberland | 178,377 | 178,377 | 178,377 |
Nottinghamshire | 89,433 | 89,433 | 89,433 |
Oldham | 52,694 | 45,428 | 45,428 |
Oxfordshire | 113,198 | 112,929 | 111,629 |
Pembrokeshire | 133,560 | 133,560 | 133,560 |
Peter | 9,668 | 9,668 | 9,668 |
Powys | 259,260 | 262,260 | 253,260 |
Redcar and Cleveland | 4,046 | 4,046 | 3,727 |
Rhondda Cynon Taf | 50,659 | 50,659 | 50,659 |
Rochdale | 2,885 | 3,335 | 3,335 |
Rotherham | 33,188 | 33,188 | 33,188 |
Rutland | 10,839 | 10,839 | 10,839 |
St Helens | 2,788 | — | — |
Salford | — | 1,494 | 1,313 |
Sandwell | 6,357 | 6,357 | 6,357 |
Sefton | 4,994 | 4,994 | 4,994 |
Sheffield | 38,059 | 42,700 | 36,169 |
Shropshire | 127,332 | 131,782 | 127,320 |
Slough | — | — | 6,000 |
Solihull | 18,113 | 18,113 | 18,113 |
Somerset | 234,469 | 232,469 | 224,469 |
South Gloucester | 69,309 | 66,309 | 66,309 |
South Tyneside | 740 | 1,200 | 330 |
Staffordshire | 270,467 | 293,767 | 268,767 |
Stockport | — | 3,658 | 5,593 |
Stockton | 13,727 | 13,727 | 13,727 |
Stoke on Trent | 8,570 | 8,570 | 8,570 |
Suffolk | 120,884 | 120,884 | 120,884 |
Surrey | 134,777 | 132,841 | 132,841 |
Swindon | 5,242 | 5,242 | 5,242 |
Tameside | 630 | 630 | 630 |
Telford and Wrekin | 30,618 | 30,618 | 30,618 |
Trafford | — | 3,711 | 3,711 |
Vale of Glamorgan | 23,350 | 23,350 | 23,350 |
Wakefield | 32,452 | 37,764 | 32,452 |
Walsall | 4,401 | 4,401 | 4,401 |
Warrington | 9,491 | 9,491 | 9,491 |
Warwickshire | 127,828 | 132,000 | 131,000 |
West Berkshire and Wokingham | — | — | 27,061 |
West Berkshire | 27,061 | 27,061 | — |
West Glamorgan | 65,356 | 65,356 | 64,416 |
West Sussex | 46,743 | 44,743 | 44,743 |
Wigan | 8,000 | 6,087 | 6,087 |
Wiltshire | 60,912 | 60,912 | 60,912 |
Windsor and Maidenhead | 38,117 | 34,542 | 34,542 |
Wirral | 473 | 2,008 | 2,008 |
Wokingham | — | — | 9,167 |
Wolverhampton | 3,934 | 3,934 | 3,873 |
Worcestershire | 215,909 | 202,709 | 180,630 |
Wrexham | 57,208 | 57,208 | 57,208 |
Source: Core DEFRA |
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am extremely grateful to the Minister, but may I remind those on the Treasury Bench that there are a lot of questions to get through, and that a little economy is needed in their answers?
12. What recent steps her Department has taken to maintain the level of biodiversity.
We will act on agreements reached at the successful biodiversity conference in Nagoya through a new biodiversity strategy for England, which will be published alongside the natural environment White Paper in the spring.
Will the Secretary of State outline the Government’s policies on the protection of biodiversity in our 16 British overseas territories? In particular, will she tell us what the Government are doing to protect the biodiversity of the Henderson island, one of the Pitcairn Islands, where an appalling rat infestation has caused 25,000 chicks to be killed every year?
I think that everyone in the House is well aware of my hon. Friend’s concern about, and interest in, the overseas territories. I am delighted to be able to tell him that while attending the biodiversity conference, and the day before, I was able to announce additional spending under the Darwin initiative and, specifically, help with the protection of the Henderson petrel.