Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks brief. I am concerned that a number of people no longer think that owning a dog, or indeed any pet, is a serious long-term commitment. That is shown by one statistic on dog ownership in the UK, which is that according to the RSPCA, one fifth of those who have bought a puppy within the last two years no longer own that dog. The definition of a commodity is

“a marketable item produced to satisfy consumer wants or needs”,

but puppy farmers consider only the wants or needs of the consumer. The wants or needs of their marketable item are irrelevant.

Britain is known across the world as a nation of pet lovers, but allowing the battery farming of puppies is cruel to the bitches involved and to their puppies. They are too frequently taken away from their litters far too early, unsocialised, traumatised and have health and temperament problems. With such a poor start in life, it is little wonder that they do not always settle easily into the families who buy them with such great hopes.

Allowing puppies who should become much loved family members to be traded as a commodity means that it is not only the dogs that lose out. People have also lost money, but many will also have lost their faith in dogs. The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and smaller dog rescue charities such as Friends of the Animals and Bracken’s Dog Rescue on the Isle of Wight, pick up the pieces. All those excellent charities know only too well that puppy farms add to the problems. Too many dogs, many of whom are still young, need good, loving homes, which are harder and harder to find. We should therefore look carefully at reducing the number of litters. Many people think that two a year, rather than five, is the appropriate number to license. Local authorities should prosecute every time they find bad practice in licensed breeding premises.

Sentencing guidelines should make clear that practices typically associated with puppy farming are a serious criminal offence. Someone convicted of cruelty or poor dog breeding should be barred from holding a licence or working in any dog breeding establishment. Only then will we be able properly to tackle the cruel practices and horrible repercussions of puppy farming.

Badger Cull

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it to proceed.

It is important that we acknowledge that the badger cull has been a catastrophic failure. It has failed farmers, it has failed taxpayers and it has failed the wildlife in our countryside. It failed to reach the 70% target that it needed to reach to be effective. As Members have said, the experts say that for a randomised badger cull to be successful, it should take about two weeks. The Government set a timescale of six weeks, but they did not even manage it in that period and had to extend it. It certainly failed on that score.

The cull failed DEFRA’s own perverse humaneness test. The test says that it is humane if it takes an animal only five minutes to die. I do not think that that is humane, but the Government failed that test as well. As other Members have pointed out, according to leaked reports, one in five badgers took considerably longer than five minutes to die. Of the 1,861 badgers that were killed in the cull, 335 took considerably longer than five minutes to die. The Government therefore failed the humaneness test.

The Government failed to stop the spread of the disease because of perturbation. All the expert evidence says that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said in her intervention, the Secretary of State himself acknowledged that the 70% target must be met, otherwise the cull would be a failure because of the problem of perturbation. The Government did not manage that, so on that basis, they have made the situation worse and spread TB even wider.

The Government have failed the value-for-money test as well. The Conservative think-tank, the Bow Group, has said that it cost £4,121 to kill each badger.

The Government have failed to acknowledge that vaccination works. They have failed to acknowledge what has happened in Wales. They have failed to accept that in Northern Ireland, where there has been no badger cull, the level of bovine TB has been reduced. We know that it is cattle movements and biosecurity measures, alongside vaccination, that will make the biggest contribution.

The Government have also failed to meet their commitments. Government Members have talked today about seeking cross-party consensus. The Government have failed to seek that consensus. The Opposition have offered an open hand to find a consensus. Hopefully, after today, we will find one, but the Government have so far failed to deliver on that.

The Government have certainly failed to listen to the public. Some 304,202 people signed the e-petition against the badger cull. The Government have failed to listen to scientific opinion, as I have pointed out. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is not in his place, spoke about the importance of proceeding on the basis of scientific evidence and said that we needed to wait for the report to be available. The overwhelming scientific consensus before the cull was that it would not work, but the Government felt that it was satisfactory to ignore scientific opinion. When it suits them they ignore scientific opinion, and when it does not they call for more scientific evidence to be made available.

Ministers cannot say that they were not made aware that the badger cull would be a disaster: hon. Members lined up to point out the folly of proceeding with it; the scientific world told them not to cull and that there was no scientific basis for proceeding with it; and the public were overwhelmingly opposed to it. The Government’s own former scientific adviser said it was a fiasco, and many other choice words have been used by scientists to describe it.

It is important that from today we move forward with some sort of unity and consensus. I am delighted that some Members who previously voted for the cull have now changed their minds in the light of the catastrophe that has befallen us in the randomised badger culling areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) talked about the importance of reaching a consensus, which is what the overwhelming majority of the British public want. We know that the current situation is putting the police in an impossible position. I have heard numerous reports—even while I have been sitting here listening to the debate, people have been e-mailing me—of those monitoring badger culls being harassed and even having shots fired at them. We cannot allow that to happen. We have to find an alternative way forward.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman mind looking at whether there is a difference in the policing costs for Gloucestershire and Somerset?

[Chris Williamson]

Policing costs are a significant contributory factor to the overall cost of the badger cull, but we live in a democracy and people have a right to monitor the badger cull and protest against it. We do not live in a dictatorship and those costs have to be factored in.

Flooding

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the issues that we on the Isle of Wight have experienced during the past few weeks. We have two main problems as a result of the terrible weather—flooding and land movement. Of course, the island has experienced flooding in the past, but the meeting that I called about three weeks ago, with representatives of the Isle of Wight council, the Environment Agency, Island Roads and Southern Water, was to discuss a totally different type and scale of flooding from that experienced in the past.

Flooding has occurred in rural areas of the island, in some cases fairly regularly, but, as in other parts of the country, it has been far more severe this year. There is no instant solution, but the rivers, such as the eastern Yar, have been neglected. There has been a lack of desilting—desilting, not dredging—and bushes and trees have been allowed to grow on the riverbanks. These mistakes must be corrected on an annual basis.

In urban areas, however, there have been quite new experiences. The unprecedented rainfall has led to more than 120 homes and businesses being flooded across many parts of the island, including along some main roads, such as in East Cowes and Binstead during the early hours of Christmas eve, and in places such as Cowes, Carisbrooke, Newport and Ryde.

In some cases, problems were exacerbated by narrow pipework, which was unable to cope with the extra volumes of water, and floodwater rushed through a densely populated area, reaching the height of windowsills inside people’s homes. In other cases, flooding was due to the extreme volume of water combining with a high tide, including in central Newport, in the street in which I live, Sea street.

Many local flood group meetings have taken place across the island. Would you join me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in paying tribute to the many islanders, as well our neighbours in the west country and the south of England, who have pulled together to help and support one another through these very difficult times?

[Bob Stewart]

I very much thank my hon. Friend for giving way. There has been a problem in my constituency in places such as Courtfield Rise and Sparrows Den, not with water on the surface, but with water underneath in the water table coming up and seeping through the ground. We cannot think of a way to stop that.

[Mr Turner]

It is difficult to stop—in fact, it is impossible. Occasionally, the Army was on the Isle of Wight, ready to act to tackle the problems that people were experiencing.

A more deep-seated issue from our point of view is the irreversible damage to land stability, which has caused significant problems across the island. To name just a few: the west Wight beauty spot, Headon Warren; the cliff fall and collapse of part of the road in Shanklin; and, in particular, the landslide along the Undercliff. I spoke on the telephone to a constituent, Barry Thwaites at his Undercliff home. He was concerned about subsidence. When I got there, part of his garden had fallen away, the next-door bungalow had partly collapsed and his neighbours were moving out.

To the west of Mr Thwaites’s home, the A3055 was closed, as it was under repair following a previous collapse. To the east, about a quarter of a mile away, all that remained of the road was a strip about 3 or 4 feet wide over a length of about 60 yards. The other side of the road had fallen to a depth of about 20 feet. Unsurprisingly, the neighbours were concerned, and there are fears that more properties may well follow.

Residents have now been advised to leave their homes for their own safety, and all but two of them have now moved. They face a worrying and uncertain future, not knowing when or even if they will be able to move back into their homes. For many of them, their home is everything they have worked for for their whole life.

Measures have quite rightly been announced to help householders and businesses protect homes and buildings against future damage from flood water. However, the insurance companies must make it an absolute priority to help householders and small businesses.

I should also like to mention the Totland sea wall. A specialist report from Mott Macdonald has identified the fact that the damage was caused by exceptionally heavy rainfall during the winter of 2012. Residents fear that with no effective protection from the sea their homes at the top of the cliff will be at risk. Those same residents will feel it unfair that damage caused by heavy rainfall in 2013 is dealt with by the Government, but not damage due to heavy rainfall in 2012. Will the Minister tell me and other islanders what will be done to address the long-term and deep-seated issues that arise as an indirect consequence of the unprecedented rainfall?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Dog Control and Welfare

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. There are about 15 minutes per person remaining.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman keeps making the same assertion. He should take the matter to the Office of Fair Trading. That is the body that oversees the groceries code of practice.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I am going to talk about something completely different. The Isle of Wight has three locations where ferries land. It was found that the ferry companies were not being reasonable. They could not find a solution and neither could anybody else. Exactly the same thing that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is describing with food is happening with ferries.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic representative of the people of the Isle of Wight. However, I would not want you to tell me that I am going off course, Mr Speaker, so if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will avoid the ferry analogy and stick to the adjudicator and the groceries code.

Let me get to the point that I have been trying to make from the beginning. It is amazing that all the people who would have been happy to vote for the Government’s programme motion to restrict the debate are anxious to intervene as often as possible on my speech, thereby prolonging the debate. I am sure that there is an irony in there somewhere.

The genesis of my new clauses is that the idea that supermarkets will flourish by making their suppliers bankrupt is the most ridiculous premise known to man. A supplier does not have much of an outlet for their goods if they are not bought by a supermarket. Equally, a supermarket does not have much of a shop if it has nothing on its shelves to sell. This is not a one-way street. The supermarket cannot manage without the supplier. The nature of the free market means that they have to work together on each other’s terms. If a supermarket upsets Heinz and has no Heinz beans on its shelves, it will not be a supermarket for very long.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

We were told about it and it became public knowledge on the day the announcement was made—on 15 January. This was an Irish issue and it was for the Irish to make the announcement.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

If the moratorium on EU meat products cannot be enforced under EU rules, how does the Secretary of State plan to ensure that more contaminated products are not sold in the UK?

[Mr Paterson]

I would not use the word “contaminated”; these products are “adulterated”. This is a case of fraud and mis-labelling; there is no evidence at all that these products are in any way a threat to human health. I have discussed this with Commissioner Borg today, and there is absolutely no reason under the current arrangements of European law to provide a basis for a ban. Should we find a product that is injurious to human health, we would obviously act very rapidly. The Commissioner agreed that in those circumstances we would put out a notice around Europe and all take unilateral action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

With respect to the hon. Lady, I am not the slightest bit interested in numbers or lines on maps. I am interested in an ecologically coherent network that can stand up to the independent scientific advisory panel, which stated that some of the 127 sites did not have enough scientific evidence to support them. When introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the then Government said, quite rightly, that the zones needed to be evidence-based. We have put lots of resources into getting more evidence—we will bring forward the first tranche of that any day now—and we will continue to progress this expensive yet important measure as years go by.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s proposed visit to the Isle of Wight. Is he confident that the economic impact of MCZs, particularly off the island, will be given sufficient consideration and weight before any formal decision is made?

[Richard Benyon]

Quite rightly, the Act allowed Ministers the discretion to consider socio-economic impacts in the designation of zones. I assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that we will take such considerations into account.

Dairy Industry

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I welcome the new Minister to his post and wish him well in his efforts to save the UK’s dairy industry. His predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), fought hard for farmers and has our thanks and respect.

People pick up milk from the supermarket or village shop without really thinking about it. If they consider it at all, many assume that it comes from cows in local fields cared for by local farmers, but that is usually wrong. Let us take the Isle of Wight as an example: 80% of island milk is ferried across the Solent to the mainland; meanwhile, milk from the mainland is being ferried across the Solent to the island. That is the economics of the madhouse.

It is well known by all islanders that separation from the mainland costs. Andy Turney, who owns farms on both sides of the Solent, calculates that milk produced on the island costs an extra 1.5p a litre, and he is a larger producer; for smaller farms it is more like tuppence a litre. Island farmers are not on a level playing field. Processing giants, such as Robert Wiseman, part of the German multinational Müller group, bring milk to the island, but it is believed that they bring more than their contracts allow in order to sell some milk below cost. I am writing to large processors, asking whether that is true. If it is, it may be a form of market distortion, which should be referred to the Office of Fair Trading, but even if it is not, the island’s dairy farmers are in crisis.

In the 1950s, there were more than 600 dairy farms on the island. Today, there are fewer than 20, and we cannot afford to lose any more. The whole of the island’s economy depends heavily on tourism. After the national dairy summit on 12 July, we called a meeting of the island’s dairy farmers. We know that we cannot solve all the country’s problems, but we resolved to do what we can to help ourselves. If more island milk was sold locally, that would cut out those unnecessary food miles, carbon emissions and costs and help our farmers, so a campaign was born called “I love Isle of Wight Milk”. The island has independently owned press and radio, and we have their full support. The Isle of Wight County Press, Isle of Wight Radio, the Isle of Wight Beacon, Island Life, The Island Advertiser and the popular blog On the Wight have all played an important part.

In August, we launched a public awareness campaign. Justin Birch, chairman of the dairy farmers group, took it on with Louise Hart and Jeremy Fisk—all youngsters. Many local shops on the island already sell local milk, but Tesco is the only supermarket that currently sells island milk. I thank it for that. I have written to the other island supermarkets, asking them to do the same and give their customers the choice to support local farmers. So far we have had interest from Waitrose, Southern Co-operative, Morrisons and Bookers. I am still waiting to hear from others. I am glad to say that last weekend Waitrose told me of its intention to sell Isle of Wight milk very soon. There is a way through this.

We have had generous support from processors David and Jenny Harvey of Rew Valley Dairies—so much so that we plan to introduce within a matter of weeks a new line of milk produced and processed on the island. It will be marketed and sold by the Isle of Wight dairy farmers. The aim will be to pay local farmers a fair and sustainable price for the milk that they produce.

We have had great support, so I would like to say a few thanks. Caroline Knox and John Heather of the island’s branch of the NFU, Liam Thom of Island Webservices and Judi Griffin of Briddlesford Lodge farm—the island’s milk queen—have given advice and support. I also thank Rachel Dangerfield, Brian Marriott and David Holmes. Genus, C & O Tractors and David Coombes, a local vet, have provided some sponsorship. Rapanui produced stylish T-shirts, which are bound to be a collector’s item. Very importantly, the island’s NHS has asked us to tender when its milk contract is to be renewed.

I ask the Minister to give us his support, because, in the words of David Harvey,

“If this doesn’t succeed, I don’t see any realistic future for dairy farming on the island.”

Once we have achieved our aim of getting more milk into island shops, hotels and restaurants, I would like the Minister to visit, enjoy the holiday atmosphere, taste our delicious Isle of Wight milk and, importantly, see whether there are any lessons that can be taken and used elsewhere in his work to support our nation’s dairy farmers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to use that statistic, which I have used many times. He is also right to say that I recently took a food trade mission to China, representing a number of sectors of the British food industry. The most important result was that we opened up the Chinese market to British pigmeat exports, which the industry believes could be worth some £50 million a year. What is interesting is that the industry would not just be exporting the conventional cuts that we eat in this country, because China has an appetite for other parts of the pig, sometimes called the fifth quarter, which will add value to many pigs, not just those exported as full carcasses. He is absolutely right about there being plenty of other opportunities. In particular, we are targeting the Russian market to complete the process of opening it up for the British beef industry.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

2. Under what circumstances the Forestry Commission may decline to comment on proposed developments on land for which it is responsible.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

It is for the planning authority to decide whether to grant permission for a development, guided by the national planning policy framework issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Environment Agency and Natural England are statutory consultees in the planning process. The Forestry Commission will provide factual information on request on a non-statutory basis.

[Mr Turner]

Parkhurst forest is an ancient woodland that is home to rare flora and fauna, and much of it is a site of special scientific interest. It is owned partly by the Forestry Commission and partly by the Ministry of Justice, which wants to site two 410-feet high wind turbines there, but the Forestry Commission has a policy of not objecting to schemes put forward by Government Departments unless there is a specific operational reason. Will the Secretary of State tell me who is responsible for evaluating the suitability and impact of these proposals on such sensitive sites?

[Mrs Spelman]

Natural England is responsible for the SSSI. The land in question, on which it is proposed that the wind turbines should be built, is not managed by the Forestry Commission; it manages land adjacent to it. It has studied the proposal and the environmental assessment and assessed that the application will not impact on land it manages or owns.

Access to Water (Chillerton and Gatcombe)

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I asked for this debate to highlight how Southern Water is treating residents of Gatcombe and Chillerton, two of the many delightful villages in my beautiful constituency. I also want to draw attention to the lack of any affordable route to get the dispute that exists with a monopoly supplier considered independently. I have raised those matters with Ministers before, but it seems that they fall down a deep, dark hole somewhere between the Ministry of Justice as a legal issue, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as a consumer protection issue, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is responsible for the supply of water. My right hon. Friend the Minister may have drawn the short straw, but I am particularly grateful that he is here to pick up the baton.

Southern Water charges some residents of the villages and surrounding areas of Gatcombe and Chillerton full rates for the supply of their water. However, owing to a number of agreements, most notably the Seely agreement of 1907, many residents in the area are entitled to free water or reduced rates for their supply. They pay full rates for sewage and waste water disposal—that is not in dispute.

The 1907 agreement was made between Sir Charles Seely and Shanklin urban district council. The Seelys are an old and distinguished family. Sir Charles was a Liberal Unionist and then Liberal MP for Nottingham, and his second son, Jack, was the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight from 1900 until 1906, and again from 1923 to 1924. It is said that he was in South Africa fighting in the Boer war when he received a telegram from his mother telling him he had been elected. He sent a telegram back asking, “Which party?” In fact, he served as both a Conservative and a Liberal MP. It is tempting to think that he would be comfortable with the coalition Government we have today, but all hon. Members know that the Liberals were a very different proposition from today’s Liberal Democrats.

The 1907 Seely agreement permitted Shanklin urban district council to install and maintain waterworks on privately owned land in Chillerton. In return, villagers living on that land were to receive a water supply either free or at a preferential rate, depending on where they lived. The arrangement was to continue for 999 years.

Such a clause would be typical of the Seelys. They were a philanthropic family who did many good works for the island and islanders. Southern Water is the successor in title to that agreement and bound by its terms—or at least it should be. Southern Water claims that the 1907 agreement has “run its course” and that people who live on that land today are not entitled to any discount on their water supply. In fact, some properties currently receive free water, some pay a reduced rate and others get no reduction at all. There appears to be no rhyme or reason as to who pays what.

It is clear that Southern Water is not behaving in a fair and consistent way. It has even asked my constituents for details of which of their neighbours are getting discounted water so it can remove the benefit. Needless to say, my constituents have not responded to such requests for information. Amazingly, Southern Water appears not even to know to whom it is giving discounts.

This issue does not affect thousands of people—there are only 352 electors, and not all of them are affected—but over the years a number of my constituents have tried to sort out the problem, including John and Adrienne Horne and George Nightingale, who have kept me up to date with what is happening. The parish council and county council have tried to help without success. I have written to Southern Water’s chief executive. Our most recent exchange was in March this year. It was unproductive.

Southern Water says that any financial loss to householders has long since expired, but seems not to understand that the benefit was always intended for the residents whether or not they suffered loss. It says that costs have gone up, that water usage has increased, and that water from the area may not meet current water quality standards. Finally, it says it would not enter into such an arrangement these days, and that it would instead make a one-off compensation payment to the landowner. All those arguments have been made before, but my constituents have received legal advice saying that none of it affects their rights as residents and Southern Water’s obligations to them.

As I said, my constituents have taken legal advice, including counsel’s opinion, all of which confirms their view that Southern Water is bound by the agreement, but all this has been to no avail, and we now seem to have reached a stalemate. Southern Water says that it is interpreting the law in a particular way, and that is that—if it says that a 999-year lease lasts for only 100 years, that, as far as it is concerned, is the end of the story.

As far as I can see, there is little basis on which Southern Water can legitimately argue that this legally binding 999-year agreement has no force in 2012 or beyond, particularly given that residents in some of the newer properties were given reduced rates on their water charges, because of the Seely agreement, as recently as 2008. Southern Water has claimed in correspondence that any benefit should have ceased many years ago.

The Seely land was given at a peppercorn price in 1907 in return for the long-term benefit to villagers, yet Southern Water sold some of it in 2004 for £50,000—houses have since been built on it—adding insult to injury. The Minister knows that Southern Water is a monopoly supplier and that my constituents cannot simply go elsewhere to get water. Ofwat, which regulates the market, states that consumers treated unfairly by water companies must go through the company’s complaints procedure. Afterwards, they have the right to complain to the independent Consumer Council for Water, which is a statutory body that should represent consumers’ interests in dealings with water companies, but the council has refused to get involved, saying it is a legal matter.

It seems that the only way my constituents can get proper consideration of their case is by taking Southern Water to court, but that would cost many thousands of pounds and is simply not feasible. That surely cannot be right. It has been suggested that residents should not pay the water rates that are not due, but Gatcombe and Chillerton residents are a sensible group of people and are concerned that such a course of action might have an adverse effect on their credit records.

We are left in the position where Southern Water, a financial giant of a company with a turnover of almost £650 million, is riding roughshod over my constituents. It realises that there is no realistic prospect of “the little people” taking it to court and that the regulator will not get involved, so it is applying the law as it wishes it to be applied—and tough luck to anyone who disagrees.

In short, there seems to be no way in which my constituents’ concerns can be examined independently without recourse to the courts, yet Sir Charles Seely knew, more than 100 years ago, that it was necessary to provide “the little people” with a means of settling disputes. The Seely agreement makes provision for independent arbitration of any dispute, but Southern Water is simply not interested. Sir Charles would be outraged, and so am I.

Taking into account that this is a regulated industry, I hope the Minister can help me to find a way forward that will ensure that the residents of Gatcombe and Chillerton get their legal rights. We need to find a way of getting these agreements examined and, if appropriate, enforced consistently and fairly. Furthermore, Southern Water must be made to deal properly with the residents of Gatcombe and Chillerton.

Finally, I would like to thank the Minister very much for being here to respond to this debate. I wrote only recently to his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), inviting him to come to the Isle of Wight for a number of reasons, and this was one of them.