Water Bill

Earl Cathcart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked if it was right to discuss the possibility of drought in the middle of floods. I can assure him that it is absolutely right. My experience in the NRA was that, whenever we had a flood it was almost immediately followed by a drought, and whenever we had a drought it was almost immediately followed by a flood. It was an almost invariable rule, so I am sure that he is right that we should be addressing these issues.

When speaking to my noble friend’s previous amendment, I said that the one area to which I might want to return was reform of the abstraction licensing regime. I spoke about it in some detail at Second Reading and I do not want to repeat what I said then. It was one of the central problems that we had to deal with in my time in the NRA.

I disagree with the noble Lord who has just spoken when he says that the Government should get this issue into the Bill and that it is very urgent. My understanding is that the Government are getting on with the kind of review and detailed discussions with just the sort of people that he suggested they should be meeting. However, they have pointed out that the issue is extremely complicated and cannot be rushed. While I, perhaps on the basis of experience, have always been one of the first to criticise the timescale on which some government departments operate, I have a good deal of sympathy with the need to take adequate time on this. This view was reinforced by the fact that at one of the briefing meetings, the representative of—I think—Anglia Water told us that it was undertaking fairly basic research into the resources available in the region. It was suddenly brought home to me that we do not know a great deal about the availability of ground water resources in many of our regions. We know how much water is going down the rivers, but we still need quite a lot of information before we have the kind of policy that we all want to see.

While we must get on with it, I am not sure it is right to think that we can put into this Bill the requirements that will follow the result of this important inquiry and examination. However, my noble friend Lady Parminter is right in thinking that there should be safeguards in the Bill so that when the results of the review come through, we can be certain that the necessary steps and measures are taken. I am not sure how that should be drafted or whether the noble Baroness has got the drafting quite right, but I sympathise with her desire to write safeguards into the Bill so that we are not left with a great gaping hole when we get the results of the very important review that is under way. I will therefore listen with great care and interest to what the Minister says in reply to this debate.

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, I declare that I farm in Norfolk, I live in a band H property, I have a bore hole for domestic use and I have spent about 30 years working and underwriting in the London insurance market.

I want to talk about two aspects. One is bringing all abstraction licences in line with today’s rules, conditions and requirements, and the other is abstraction charges.

At Second Reading I said that,

“it is cackhanded to be bringing in upstream competition in water trading before the existing water abstraction system has been reformed, given that the Environment Agency says that many rivers are already overabstracted and overlicensed”.—[Official Report, 27/1/2014; col. 1025.]

Just about everybody agrees that reform is sorely needed. The question is when it should take place. Many are impatient for reform, and I include myself, but the Government, in their handout, Upstream Competition and Abstraction Reform, say:

“We should not rush this: if we get it wrong, there will be real consequences for a range of business and industry, including farmers, food manufacturers and the power sector, as well as the environment”.

Quite so—they do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The handout goes on to say that any abstraction reform will take place “in the early 2020s”. That could be 10 years away, which, to say the least, is disappointing.

Is there anything that we can put into this Bill that will help improve the current system? I believe that there is. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned Trevor Bishop, who is head of water resources at the Environment Agency. When he gave evidence to the Commons Committee, he said:

“Most of the damage due to over-abstraction is because the licences were passed a long time ago”.—[Official Report, Commons, Water Bill Committee, 3/12/13; col. 63.]

The older licences are still allowed to abstract, regardless of whether water is abundant or scarce, but there are restrictions on newer licences. The hands-off flow condition allows the Environment Agency to reduce or stop abstraction altogether if river and ground water levels fall, but this does not apply to the older licence holders—the vast majority of total abstractions. This puts newer licence holders and, indeed, the environment at a disadvantage. Surely, the first step should be to bring all licences up to date with modern requirements, especially the hands-off flow condition and, indeed, any other condition deemed necessary. I would like to see a provision in the Bill similar to the proposed new paragraph (c) in Amendment 74 in the previous group, which says that if the variation,

“cannot be achieved by agreement”,

the authority can vary the licence by order or terminate it. This would bring all licences in line, protect the environment and give flexibility to vary all licences as and when necessary. It would also bring this in now rather than waiting for 10 years

The next thing is abstraction charges. I looked at the Environment Agency website, which lists eight charging regions in England and one in Wales. There are two charges: the standard charge and the environmental improvement charge. The environmental improvement charge is different for water companies and for non-water companies, which I presume includes energy companies. The standard charges are not standard at all—they vary region to region. Of the eight regions in England, the Anglian and Northumbrian regions are charged the most, at about £28 per 1,000 cubic metres of water, while the north-west region is only charged about £12.50 per 1,000 cubic metres of water—less than half. Why is there this variation when it is called a standard charge? The Minister might say that the Anglian region, being in an environmentally sensitive area, attracts the highest charge in the country to cover the costs of managing the resources available. However, here I got muddled, because that is surely an environmental issue, and any extra charge ought to be levied under the environmental improvement charge, not the standard charge. Can the Minister explain?

I move on to the environmental improvement charge for non-water companies. Again, the Anglian region pays the most, at £13.71 per cubic metre of water, which is what one might expect, given that it is an environmentally sensitive area. The lowest environmental charge is 62p, for the Yorkshire region, while two regions—the Midlands and Northumbrian regions—pay no environmental improvement charge at all. Why? I do not understand the logic behind the charging and would like the Minister to explain.

Water Bill

Earl Cathcart Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill. We all take water for granted but we should not because it is our most precious resource. Until now, 95% of the water we get goes straight into the sea. I think that everyone welcomes making it a primary duty of Ofwat to secure the long-term resilience of water supply and sewerage systems. But should there not be a national policy statement for water? We already have one for waste water, so why not one for water supply—our most precious resource?

I will talk mainly on the Flood Re scheme, but before I do, I would like to make two points. First, the Government are trying to encourage landowners, such as farmers—I farm in Norfolk—to build reservoirs and then sell excess water to the water companies. At first, that seems a great idea, but I am sceptical about whether it will work as on-farm reservoirs will probably be too small to make any meaningful contribution. Even if they did, the quality of the water from the on-farm reservoirs may not be very good, as it may have high levels of nutrients, pesticides and metaldehyde. There may also be problems for farmers piping excess water from their reservoirs across other people's land to a treatment plant.

We need the water companies to build more large reservoirs themselves to store the necessary water. In the south-east of England, the last time a reservoir of any size was built was probably the Bewl Water reservoir, which holds 7 trillion gallons of water over a site of 1,200 acres. It was built in the early 1970s; 40 years ago. Since then, the population and number of houses in the south-east have risen dramatically and will no doubt continue to rise dramatically. It is alarming that the Office for National Statistics estimates that if the current trend persists, the population of this country could double over the next hundred years—a frightening thought. If we do not build more reservoirs to capture water in times of plenty, all that will happen in times of drought is that the water companies will continue to extract water from the rivers, which by then will themselves be gasping for water.

Secondly, I share the concerns of those who say that it is cackhanded to be bringing in upstream competition in water trading before the existing water abstraction system has been reformed, given that the Environment Agency says that many rivers are already overabstracted and overlicensed.

Moving on to Flood Re, I have been an insurance underwriter, including home owners’ business, and I have worked in the London insurance market for about 30 years. Hundreds of underwriting businesses make up the London insurance market and getting all those underwriters who write home owners’ business to make considerable compromises and agree willingly to this deal has no doubt been no mean feat. I have no doubt that negotiations have been very fragile and it has taken three years to get this far. The not-for-profit Flood Re mutual, which will be owned and managed by the industry, will offer flood insurance to the 500,000 home owners most at risk, with an excess of £250 and a premium of between £210 and £540, depending on council tax band.

The scheme helps to solve many of the current affordability problems, but there are a few exceptions. The first is that homes built after 2009 will not be covered. That is not a new exclusion. Every developer has known that under PPS25 homes should not be built in flood risk areas from that date. Underwriters were insistent that they did not want anything in the scheme that would encourage unwise or irresponsible development. Also, the Government emphasise that where the Environment Agency objects to a development on the grounds of flood risk, 97% of those risks are refused by planners, so that is good news. Or is it? Of the 455,000 planning applications, the Environment Agency looks at only 6.6%. Obviously, it cannot look at all of them, but 6.6% does seem worryingly low.

The second exclusion is small businesses, which buy commercial insurance that has a range of cover different from that of home owners: business interruption, loss of profits, different levels of stock cover and employer’s liability insurance, to name a few. The third exclusion is band H and I properties, on the basis that their owners should be able to afford the higher risk-reflective premiums, and be able to take the necessary actions to reduce their flood risk. Happily, my band H home is not in a flood risk area. Also, there is an understanding that genuinely uninsurable properties—properties that are continually flooding—should not be covered by Flood Re. However, it has not been possible to agree a definition, and I believe that negotiations are continuing.

Flood Re is a good scheme. It might not be perfect, and we could probably all pick holes in it, but it will offer flood insurance to the vast majority of home owners seeking it, at a relatively cheap premium and a low excess. However, I do have three concerns.

My first concern is our being tempted to pass amendments to this scheme with the best intentions that might render it unworkable. For instance, we might want to include small businesses in the scheme, because, after all, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that 20% of small businesses were affected by flooding in 2012. The Association of British Insurers and the Government looked at this and concluded that it threw up more problems than it solved, hence the agreed exclusion.

My second concern is that there is significant scope in this Bill for the Government to make secondary legislation. I do hope that this Government, or indeed, a subsequent Government, are not tempted to bring in any secondary legislation without first having consulted and agreed with the Association of British Insurers, so that any rules or refinements needed use Flood Re’s own procedures. We might then get the intended answer.

My third concern is the clauses relating to the flood insurance obligation. I understand that the Government feel that these are necessary in case Flood Re proves unworkable, but the obligation would be a very unusual measure that would effectively force a private insurance company to sell a product whether or not it wanted to do so. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that every effort will be made to get Flood Re up and running, so that the obligation will never be needed. I look forward to debating these and other matters in Committee.

Water: National Grid

Earl Cathcart Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I know nothing of that proposal so I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord’s question. Reservoir capacity is important, of course, but even more important is the opportunity to connect up existing river resources and water resources so that they are available across water companies. That is the point that I wanted to make in response to my noble friend’s Question.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, we pipe and store gas and oil around the country, so why not water? The Roman aqueducts did it 2,000 years ago. The Minister previously cited the difficulty in getting water uphill. Quite so, and no doubt the £30 billion or so cost of establishing a grid is also an issue. Why cannot we use wind turbines to push the water uphill? Is not the provision of water a far greater and essential benefit to one and all, rather than getting a few people to Birmingham a few minutes earlier? We should get our priorities right.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is possible to achieve both but it is not possible to make water flow uphill as my noble friend rightly points out. I would use the analogy that the amount of money that my noble friend is prepared to spend to put petrol in the tank of his motor car is a great deal more than he would be prepared to pay to fill his bath with water. Some of the difficulty comes from the fact that we as a country do not recognise the importance of water and value it enough.

EU: Sow Stalls Ban

Earl Cathcart Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As my noble friend will know, the framework of public procurement is complex and it is not easy to lay down criteria that are not covered by directives. However, following the sow stall ban, it will be possible to ensure that that is the case. At the Oxford farming conference recently it was said that 70 per cent of pig meat imported into this country would be illegal if produced here under our regime.

[Earl Cathcart]

I hope the Government’s response to the pig directive is more robust than their response to the egg directive. As an egg producer, I am appalled that the Government’s answer to the import of eggs produced in illegal battery cages is not to send the lorry back to the country of origin, not to fine the importer or impound their vehicle, not to destroy the illegal eggs, but to send the eggs for processing into food for sale in the United Kingdom. Why do the Government not see what a devastating effect this will have on the UK’s legal egg industry, which, frankly, is stunned by their feeble response? When we joined the Common Market in 1973, we were promised a level playing field. After nearly 40 years, is it not about time we got one—or might pigs fly?

Agriculture: Egg Industry

Earl Cathcart Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the timing of this debate. With EU civil servants failing to reach agreement on 28 October, this issue is to be discussed today and tomorrow at the meeting of the EU Ministers. Like my noble friend, my son has a free-range egg contract through Noble Foods, which takes place on my farm. With Brussels failing to reach agreement, UK egg producers fear that Britain will be subjected to a flood of cheap imports from countries breaking the law by still using illegal cages. While Commissioner Dalli says he will not postpone the introduction of this new legislation, he will not permit the destruction of illegal eggs. He has come up with a number of proposals to soften the blow for those countries which, unlike Britain, have failed to comply with the law. In effect, he will be postponing the introduction of the legislation.

It is important to appreciate the magnitude of the problem. There are expected to be 80 million illegal laying hens from 1 January 2012, laying between 20 and 25 billion illegal eggs a year. Italy will have a staggering 25 million illegal hens, France 9 million, Poland 17 million and Spain 20 million, which is about half its total laying hen population.

Let us look at some of Commissioner Dalli’s proposals. First, he wants on-farm inspections followed by legal proceedings. Call me cynical, but I cannot see the Italian or Spanish inspectors bothering. They have not in the past, so why now? Secondly, Dalli proposes that all illegal first-quality eggs must be processed into liquid or powder. This would be totally impractical. There is neither the processing capacity nor the market demand for the processing of nearly 25 billion illegal eggs a year. In Spain, currently about 15 per cent of eggs go into processing. How on earth is its processing going to be increased to 50 per cent of its total egg production within the next two months? It is just not going to happen. Thirdly, Dalli proposes that no more pullets are to be housed in illegal cages from 1 January. This is impractical; for example, many of the pullets to replace the 20 million Spanish hens in illegal cages from 1 January have already been reared, as they will be delivered when they are already 16 weeks old. Where else can all these birds go if not into illegal cages? I cannot see the Spanish destroying them.

Fourthly, Dalli proposes a final cut-off date of 31 July to comply. Unfortunately this date makes no sense, as the life cycle for laying hens is 14 months, not seven. Even if there was the will to comply with the directive and the money was available to finance the required changes, this timescale is not achievable. It takes at least six months to refit or build a poultry house and there is not the capacity or money in the EU to erect housing for 80 million laying hens in the next nine months. It is completely unrealistic. Fifthly, Dalli proposes that if illegal cages are to be used, the current stocking requirement of 550 square centimetres per hen must increase to 750 square centimetres to give each hen more room. For most illegal cages, this would mean removing two hens per cage. Can you imagine this really happening—that the foreign farmer will slaughter his surplus hens, hens that have been making him a perfectly good profit? I do not think so.

Dalli plans that these and other proposals will be implemented under a gentleman’s agreement. He does not propose any new legislation or regulations to enforce them. Can you see it? Once Dalli leaves the door ajar, the illegal egg producers will storm through it, entrenching large-scale illegal production in certain EU states and creating a deeply uneven playing field. UK producers would be at a permanent competitive disadvantage just like in the pig industry. Frankly, I do not believe that any gentleman’s agreement would be worth the paper it is written on.

Where now? What do we want the British Government to do? First, the concerns felt by the British egg industry need to be conveyed to Brussels as a matter of urgency: that Dalli’s proposals are unworkable and totally unsatisfactory as far as UK producers are concerned; that Britain will not import any illegal eggs, egg products or prepared food containing egg products after 1 January; and that Britain, along with other compliant countries, should insist that no illegal eggs or egg products can be exported from the country of origin, even for processing.

There is a chink of good news. Last Monday my honourable friend Jim Paice, speaking at the Egg and Poultry Industry conference, confirmed that anyone in the UK using eggs or egg products from illegal cages would be breaking the law. He went further by saying that it needed to be made clear to owners of branded food products that the law applies to their ingredients. He added that any company using eggs produced from illegal cages from 1 January would be breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law. Of course, this is most welcome, but what plans does Defra have to ensure that known importers of eggs or egg products from the continent are alerted to the change in the law—that the importation of eggs and egg products produced from banned cages from 1 January will be illegal? Will they be fined or threatened with closure if they persist? Treating like with like, if a UK egg producer still used illegal cages after 1 January he would be heavily fined and his business shut down. The same two questions apply to the owners of branded food products. Will the Minister alert them and will they be penalised if they break the law?

We joined the Common Market in 1973 thinking we would get a level playing field for trade. After 38 years, is it not about time we got one?

Draft United Kingdom Marine Policy Statement

Earl Cathcart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Grand Committee

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their progress in this matter. The marine policy statement will be critical for effective planning at all levels. Marine plans will then be developed under and guided by the marine policy statement. But marine plans are not forecast to be completed for all UK waters until at least 2020. This marine policy statement will therefore be particularly important in areas where no effective marine plans exist at the time decisions are being made in relation to marine licensing and regulating sea users. We therefore need a strong marine policy statement to guide decision-making across the UK waters.

I have a number of concerns with the document’s drafting, and any criticism should be taken in a constructive manner. First, it comprises simply a collection of existing sectoral policies and objectives and does not set any strategic direction or policy prioritisation or provide a clear steer for marine plan authorities or marine decision-makers. Secondly, it does not achieve its legislative purpose of clearly identifying policies which will ensure that the marine planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. It fails to adopt strong sustainability by recognising that ultimately all economic and social activity is dependent on the natural environment, its resources and the ecosystem services it provides. The Government’s work on the Charting Progress 2 assessment of the state of our seas needs to be referred to more extensively in the marine policy statement. It clearly illustrates how our marine environment is being utilised at an unsustainable rate, with habitats and species generally in decline. Environmental limits based on strong science need to be clearly recognised in the marine policy statement.

Thirdly, there is also a problem specific to England. The aspirational nature of the marine policy statement, which includes only high-level policy statements and objectives to allow for UK-wide application, creates a gap between the marine policy statement and marine plans and decision-making. This should be filled by some form of national strategic planning, as is proposed in Scotland and Wales. Strategic planning benefits any planning system by providing a framework for cross-boundary co-ordination, harmonisation of standards, comprehensive assessment of environmental capacity and space for public discussion of these issues.

Fourthly, the way in which reasonable alternatives have been treated in the appraisal of sustainability of the marine policy statement is not satisfactory and is not in full compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and regulations. Only the marine policy statement and no marine policy statement alternatives have been fully addressed. In reality, the appraisal of sustainability has actually assessed only one option—that is, the marine policy statement as drafted. All reasonable alternatives should be fully—“fully” is the key word—and properly assessed in compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and regulations. I could elaborate on that but time does not permit me to do so.

The marine policy statement will be critical for effective planning at all levels. It should be a policy driver and set the direction for marine planning, which the current draft does not achieve. It is not, in my opinion, sufficiently prescriptive or robust.

Common Agricultural Policy

Earl Cathcart Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I declare that I farm a few hundred acres in Norfolk and therefore receive the single farm direct payment and environment grants.

My first point is that this is a common agricultural policy, but it is not common in the sense that all 27 states are not treated financially equally, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The EU 12—that is, the last 12 countries to join the EU—received only around 25 per cent of the subsidy on joining, with the amount increasing until they are fully phased in by 2013. Even then, the EU 12 states will still average out considerably below the EU 15 states. This has led to demands from the EU 12 for an EU-wide flat-rate payment from 2013 onwards. However, those original EU 15 states, which have been getting a larger slice of the cake, believe they should continue to do so. It will be interesting to see who wins.

The Common Market was set up originally to have a level playing field for trade. Here we have the largest single expenditure item of the EU so I cannot see how anything other than equal treatment for all member states can be the answer. However, the French farmers are excellent negotiators and they, no doubt, will argue that some states are more equal than others. We will have to see.

Secondly, this is primarily an agricultural policy. The most important thing that a farmer does is to grow food. As such, food production must be the top priority in any CAP reform. Having said that, alongside food production can come the environmental role, including development and climate change schemes. Britain and Europe must improve their self-sufficiency in food production and food security. With the explosion in the world population in our lifetime, there is an ever increasing need to produce more food. The top priority for CAP reform must be improved efficiency in food production.

My next point, or rather question, is: will Pillar 1 payments—the direct payments or the single farm payment, call it what you will—continue post-2013? I believe that they will as they are seen as a very important safety net for farmers by the vast majority of member states and their MEPs, who now, for the first time since the Lisbon treaty, have to vote to approve the CAP reform package post-2013. But not all member states take this view. It is interesting that President Sarkozy of France wants a return to support payments according to the volume of food produced rather than direct payments. If that happens, we may return to food mountains and wine lakes. The journal Agra Europe wrote:

“The President’s argument has little to do with maintaining the incomes of small, poverty-stricken peasants and all to do with maintaining the incomes of France’s large agribusiness industry… In income terms French agriculture is dominated, not by small peasant farmers of popular myth, but by large scale cereal, dairy and beef farmers”.

Perhaps Sarkozy has started the awkward phase of France’s negotiations already.

Last month the Commission’s draft document The CAP Towards 2020 was leaked, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Greaves. There are two things in it that I find curious. In fact, there are lots of things but I will mention only two today. First, the document considered limiting support to active farmers. What is an active farmer? We need the Government to keep an eye on what the definition of “active” is. Am I an active farmer if I engage in contract or share farming arrangements with my neighbour? Although I supply the land and pay for the input costs, I do not actually sit on a tractor on a day-to-day basis. If this is the definition, it will catch out a great many British farmers. Or is “active” meant to exclude the owner of land that could be used for farming but who chooses another non-farming use?

The second thing that I found curious was the reference to payment ceilings. This presumably means that no one farmer can receive more than, say, €100,000. I know that my noble friend Lord Dykes and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, argued the other way, but the contra argument is that this is illogical as the larger the farm, the larger the successful food production, which is what we need, but also the larger the capital outlay, the larger the overheads, the larger the cost of production, and, all in all, the larger the risk, and, therefore, it would follow, the larger the payment. Farmers are not fools, and they will reconstruct their businesses to avoid this ceiling. For example, if a farmer now receives €300,000 from the single farm payment, rather than be capped at €100,000, he might divide his farm into three separate legal entities and businesses—one part he farms as a sole trader, the second in partnership with his wife, and the third in partnership with his children, thus ensuring that he continues to receive the ful1 €300,000 as before.

There are two things that have not received nearly enough prominence and which the Government should ensure are given a much higher profile post-2013. The first is forestry, which seems to be almost forgotten in the commissioners’ thinking altogether. Britain imports 90 per cent of our timber needs and there are vast forestry interests in mainland Europe. The CAP should support the planting of woodland and responsible forest management so that people are encouraged to enhance the environmental value of forests. Secondly, as has already been mentioned, not nearly enough attention is being paid to science, research and development, not just for food production but for horticulture. My noble friend Lady Trumpington asked a very good question, which was ably answered by my noble friend Lord Plumb: if Britain and Europe are to produce more and more food because we need to feed an ever increasing population, then we forget science, research and development at our peril. There should be a level playing field for member states financially; food production should be the priority for the CAP, post-2013; direct payments will remain, because most member states want them to; and let us not forget forestry and science.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Earl Cathcart Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the growth in such attacks and in the number of people who have to seek hospital treatment as a result of attacks by dogs. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not the only piece of legislation available to local authorities and others dealing with those matters. There is the Dogs Act 1871, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We will certainly consider carefully the consultation started by the previous Administration and make appropriate decisions afterwards.

[Earl Cathcart]

Is not one of the problems of the Dangerous Dogs Act the unintended consequences of listing four types of dangerous dogs? Thousands of responsible owners have had their pets destroyed not because of how they behave but because of how they look. Surely new legislation should concentrate on irresponsible dog owners rather than on only the breed.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we will certainly look at the problems of irresponsible owners, but there are certain advantages in breed-specific legislation. The police are of the view that without the restriction that that legislation gives, particularly on pit bulls, there would be many more serious dog attacks.