Sale of Puppies and Kittens

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

As a member of the Backbench Business Committee I am pleased that we are debating this subject, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on his speech. I agreed with every word.

In this country we have a wonderful record in animal welfare, in contrast with a number of other countries. If the Minister responds in a positive fashion to what he has heard this afternoon, and to the huge number of representations made by constituents throughout the country, I think our stock will grow further. Before this debate, behind the scenes, I tried to do something about this issue, and I had a meeting with the splendid Lord de Mauley. He listened carefully to everything I said, and at the end of the meeting he suggested that I write a letter. I say to the Minister, in a kind way, that I want him to be brave this afternoon. I want him to tear up the speech drafted for him by civil servants, and—unlike my colleagues who feel that we do not need legislation—I want him to respond in a positive fashion to what he has heard. We all know that on occasion civil servants will say, “No, Minister.”

I had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which amended the Protection of Animals Act 1911. The 1986 Act was groundbreaking at the time and dealt with a huge range of cruelty that was meted out to animals in this country. Since that time there have been many other attempts, and in my rather ham-fisted way I tried to promote the Dogs Bill in 1989, and the Pet Animals (Amendment) Bill in 1990. I therefore say to my colleagues that although I agree that we as Conservatives are against legislation, we need to do a tidying-up exercise.

I want to praise Clarissa Baldwin of the Dogs Trust, Rosemary Smart of the Kennel Club, the wonderful vet Marc Abraham, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan). All those people are judges in the Westminster dog of the year show, and I will be entering—yet again—my two rescued pugs, Botox and Lily. They are somewhat depressed after parading before the judges, year after year, and getting absolutely nowhere. I have now got them into an arranged marriage, so I think the least that they could be awarded would be the prize for best married dogs in the show. I will not mention kittens because I will leave that to my good friend Ann Widdecombe.

I congratulate all organisations that have worked so hard on this issue. The provisions in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 are inadequate. The wording of the Act is confusing and leaves too much space for individual interpretation. Producing five litters every year is absolutely ridiculous—two is quite enough. I hope the Minister will respond positively to that.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I came to the House on the same day, and he will recall that since the late Nicholas Ridley abolished the dog licence, there has been resistance by successive Governments to the establishment of a “Swansea for dogs”. The fact of the matter is—the Minister needs to understand this—that unless and until every animal sold is properly registered, vaccinated and documented, and there are proper controls over the breeding and sale of not just dogs but cats as well, the problem will not be solved. The time has come for legislation.

[Mr Amess]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have stood shoulder to shoulder for more than 30 years, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and I hope that the Minister will forget his brief and respond positively to all the remarks made this afternoon.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

When pressing the Minister, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is all very well our hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) saying that an amount of self-regulation can be involved—such as insisting on seeing the mother of the animal—but that does not take into account the emotional side and what people feel when they see a puppy? Therefore stronger legislation and restrictions need to be in place.

[Mr Amess]

I agree with my hon. Friend, although I am not sure about his earlier remarks about the castration of his dog. It is crucial that puppies are exposed to extensive social interaction and stimuli during the first 12 to 14 weeks of their lives, but that is more than commercial farmers are willing to provide. As a result, dogs coming from commercial puppy farms are undoubtedly more aggressive, less responsive, and less trainable. Current legislation regulating the operation of pet shops dates back to 1951—a very long time ago. We need to change the legislation, particularly to reflect the impact of the internet, which is the issue that has brought so many colleagues to the House this afternoon. The Pet Animals Act 1951 appears only to address the physical requirements that pet shops need to meet. It takes no account of the mental well-being of a pet being sold, or of dogs that need physical exercise. Clear guidance needs to be provided to local authorities.

I have also been made aware of the growing problem of illegal dog importation to the United Kingdom, and I urge the Secretary of State to examine how the influx of puppies from rabies-endemic eastern European countries can be addressed. I say again to the Minister: be bold, tear up the speech, and do something to stop puppy and kitten farming.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

One of the major changes in this round, which we did negotiate, was absolute freedom for the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom to reach their own arrangements in regard to CAP reform and the way in which it is implemented. All four regulations are a matter for local politicians in Northern Ireland to resolve.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

8. What recent estimate he has made of levels of UK fish stocks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea assesses the state of EU fish stocks annually. The next round of advice for the majority of European fish stocks, including those in UK waters, will be released on 30 June, and will inform decisions on 2015 fishing quotas that will be made at the 2014 December EU Fisheries Council.

[Mr Amess]

Given that fishing is such an important part of Southend’s economy, it is very disappointing that stocks of sole, plaice, cod and herring have been depleted as a result of channel deepening via suction dredging. Will my hon. Friend please look into that, and ensure that the Thames estuary is pollution-free and full of fish again?

[George Eustice]

This issue was raised with me during a recent conference of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, and my hon. Friend has written to me about it as well. The chief fisheries science adviser at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has subsequently overseen an initial investigation of the issue, and has prepared a detailed report that acknowledges that there has been a decline in stocks recently. The cause of the decline is not clear, but some have pointed the finger at the London Gateway development. Other possible causes include the discharge of surface water that may contain contaminants. Another meeting is planned for July, when next steps will be decided on.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

We are examining the various leasehold options with the aim of ensuring that Flood Re deals with the problems of the least commercial leaseholders. Some large commercial landlords have leasehold properties, and we want to make certain that flood relief is focused on domestic policies. Of course, it will be possible for the contents insurance policies of leaseholders of all types to be ceded to Flood Re should that be necessary.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

T6. Does my hon. Friend agree that the practice of puppy farming is a disgrace, and will he do all that he possibly can to discourage pet shops from selling kittens and puppies?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is a long-standing champion of this cause. I agree with him that irresponsible breeding and selling of dogs is unacceptable, and we think that the relevant authorities should clamp down on it. Anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs must have a valid licence from the local authority, and must also abide by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Many pet shops have already stopped selling kittens and puppies, but we are more concerned about internet sales of puppies, to which animal welfare charities have drawn our attention.

Badger Cull

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I do not want to provoke my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), but as a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I must tell him that I am delighted that we chose this subject for debate. I have enjoyed the debate, particularly its passion. It is such a shame that the passion demonstrated on animal welfare today has not been demonstrated on all such issues during the years that I have been in Parliament. If it had been, we would have had a much better outcome for God’s creatures than we now have. If I had been told when I spoke from the Back Benches on Third Reading of the Protection of Badgers Bill, which was piloted through by the noble Lord Waldegrave in 1992, that I would now be here to support the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) about badger culling, I simply would not have believed it.

I do not want to antagonise any hon. Friends who represent farming communities—I am well aware of the pressures I face from my hon. Friends—but I am only too well aware that badgers are not warm cuddly creatures and that they can be dangerous when cornered. Some people claim that there are too many badgers and foxes, but that is a completely different matter and is not an argument for today’s debate. I represent the urban area of Southend West. When I made that speech about protecting badgers many years ago, I had no idea how difficult it was to move a sett from an urban area to somewhere else.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amess]

Madam Deputy Speaker has given the impression that she does not welcome interventions, so I will continue. [Interruption.] I give way.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

My hon. Friend mentioned that he represents an urban area. Will he agree to come to Shropshire to meet our dairy farmers, because he will see that we have slaughtered more cows this year than last year—up to 2,125—and that the misery for our farmers is absolutely palpable?

[Mr Amess]

I am trying to keep within my eight or nine minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is like when I expressed my views on the city of culture and had offers to visit constituencies all over the country. If I can, I may at some time visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. When I represented Basildon, which had 32 farms, I gained some understanding of the pressures that farmers are under.

All hon. Members probably have the same briefings—depending on which side of the debate we are on—and many of the arguments have already been made. There have been two culls, and we now face a decision about the way forward. I will not get into the argument about the expert panel’s report, but it has apparently found that pilot culls have failed in the two tests set by the Government, namely effectiveness and humaneness. Many hon. Members have made points about that, so I will not repeat them.

Different parts of the world have been mentioned, so I will say that badgers are a unique species. When comparisons are made with possum culls in New Zealand, or with culls in north America, they do not take into account the unique culture of the species. It is like comparing a dog with a whale. I just do not think that those comparisons are real.

The pilot culls, as well as seemingly being ineffective, were very costly. The costs of conducting and monitoring the target culls soared, especially when the policing costs are taken into account. That was big expense. The preliminary calculations put the cost of the pilot cull at more than £4,000 per badger killed. That is absolutely crazy. It has been estimated that £10 million has been spent on the cull so far. We live in challenging economic times and that is a lot of money.

The evidence suggests that the adoption of free-shooting as a means of culling badgers did not meet the necessary guidelines on humaneness. DEFRA set the standard of 95% of badgers dying within five minutes. However, as we have heard, the independent experts found that up to 18% of the badgers exceeded that limit. According to Natural England, badgers were often shot in the wrong area of the body, necessitating a second shot to kill them. The monitoring of the culls has been deemed “woefully inadequate”. On the 41 visits made by Natural England’s monitors, they witnessed only nine badgers being killed by controlled shooting.

It would be wrong to highlight the concerns without putting forward a solution, which is what all hon. Members want. I think that badger vaccination should be treated seriously. Using an already licensed injectable vaccine represents a more cost-effective, compassionate and less divisive way of managing infection in badger populations. The House is saying that it would be good if we could agree on this matter. That solution could be implemented by using the data that have been provided by Natural England, which has recorded accurate information on the location of badger setts. I argue that badger setts could be successfully inoculated by using that information.

The speed of vaccination is an important consideration. It would be disingenuous to suggest that vaccination is a quick process. Admittedly, the process would be gradual. However, vaccinating badgers is a long-term and sustainable way of reducing the prevalence of bovine TB. That is what the House is coming together to say. It wants to see the prevalence of bovine TB reduced.

Obviously, inoculation will not eradicate badgers that carry the disease. It will just prevent the disease from spreading to other badgers. Therefore, those who are in favour of the badger cull may well argue that, on the face of it, the cull brings a quicker resolution to the problem. However, the evidence suggests that if we want a long-term, sustainable resolution to the problem, culling is not the answer. There is no doubt that badgers contribute to the problem of TB in cattle. My hon. Friends who have represented the concerns of their constituents have been right to do so. However, the only way to manage the problem is to vaccinate badgers. I will not comment on matters in Wales.

I want to make one or two remarks to the Minister. I commend the Government’s investment of £250,000 a year to support and encourage badger vaccination using the existing injectable BCG vaccine. I also commend the Department for continuing to invest in further research into cattle vaccination and for pressing our European partners to reform EU legislation, which will be a tough task.

Finally, it is important to note that the fact that they oppose the method that was adopted in the recent culls does not mean that those who champion vaccination as an alternative are not on the side of farmers or that they do not empathise with the emotional and financial implications of losing cattle to TB. The evidence is that we can make a serious attempt to reduce the levels of TB in farmers’ livestock, while upholding the welfare of these unique animals. I urge the Minister to seriously review the evidence from the IEP and to consider a more effective, compassionate and less costly alternative that serves the interests of farmers, as well as meeting ethical standards. Today, hon. Members have clearly demonstrated their general concern about animal welfare.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I think the hon. Lady may have misinterpreted my comments. I do not handle policing; I handle disease in animals. This is a zoonosis, which has to be brought under control. It will take 10 years for a programme agreed with the European Commission to develop a cattle vaccine. Labour Members need to recognise that we cannot sit around as they did, waiting for a new tool to arrive. We have to use the existing tools, which have effectively reduced the disease in other more sensibly run countries.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We have a robust package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and improve public safety. New powers will allow local authorities and the police to deal flexibly with local dog issues. There will be new legal protection against dog attacks on private property and stiffer penalties for those who let their dogs kill or injure someone.

[Mr Amess]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. With my rescue pugs, Bo and Lily, about to take part in the Westminster dog of the year show, does my hon. Friend agree that I will be responsible for their behaviour—may God help me—just as all dog owners are responsible for the behaviour of their own dogs?

[George Eustice]

May I wish Bo and Lily the very best of luck in the Westminster dog of the year competition? I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) earlier that his own dog, Cholmeley, will be there offering competition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) makes a very good point. I had a rescue dog—a border collie called Mono, and these dogs make for loving and dedicated companions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that getting responsible dog owners is the way to get good dog behaviour.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and the House for not being present at the start of the debate. I am a member of the Backbench Business Committee, so I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and her colleagues were successful in obtaining the debate. Unfortunately, I thought that it would start at 1.30, and I have been entertaining a newly elected member of the United States Congress, Mr George Holding, who represents the 13th district in North Carolina, together with Congressman Robert Pittenger. I am sorry.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That causes some difficulty. We have now had three Members in a row taking part in a debate that they have not heard on the basis that they were busy doing something else. As all hon. Members know, when wishing to take part in a debate, one has to make a choice between being in the Chamber and doing other things. On this occasion, I have called each Member, but I want to put it on the record that the convention of the House is that, if you wish to speak in a debate, that is your priority, and you should be here to do it. The hon. Gentleman, being the third Member in a row to give a reason for not being here, gives me the opportunity to make that point. Those Members have not had the benefit of hearing the other speakers.

[Mr Amess]

I have been a Member of Parliament since 1983 and I absolutely agree with everything you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Throughout my time in Parliament, I have supported sensible animal welfare measures. Indeed, if anyone had time on their hands, they could look in Hansard and see that my views on animal welfare have been pretty consistent.

[Thomas Docherty]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s reasons for being late. Does he agree that doing television is a poorer excuse for not being here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amess]

The late Member of Parliament for Newham, North-West, Tony Banks, was a great champion of animal welfare measures, and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with him on the subject of the debate. It saddens me that, nearly 30 years on, we have to revisit the issue.

I was flattered last year when Dods gave me an award as charity champion for animal welfare and environment, which I accepted on behalf of the animal welfare kingdom. Indeed, I promoted the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988, and I also supported Bills on the welfare of dogs—the list is endless.

However, I want briefly to consider live export of animals. I am pleased that it is not a growing industry, and that it is shrinking. I note that, for example, the transport of live calves fell from 93,000 in 2007 to just 7,000 in 2009. That is real progress. I hope that, in time, such a debate will be unnecessary.

I associate myself with the views of the RSPCA, which is a wonderful charity, and which I hope will continue to promote sensible animal welfare issues. It wants an end to long-distance transport of live animals, with the aim of carcass-only trade. It wants a maximum eight-hour journey time for all animals travelling to slaughter. It wants a change to current law to allow ports to refuse to partake in the transport of live animals trade. It also wants the organisations involved in the trade, not the taxpayer, to bear the costs of veterinary and animal health inspections, alongside other costs.

[Mr MacNeil]

I disagree about animal exports, but would the hon. Gentleman concede that sometimes animals can be exported for breeding purposes, not just for slaughter, so stopping it altogether might have other consequences, which are not the focus of the debate?

[Mr Amess]

I recognise that hon. Members rightly represent all sorts of interests. I have said that I support responsible animal welfare measures. I would not want to use the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has introduced to bash farmers and the farming community. I therefore understand the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made.

[Thomas Docherty]

Like me, the hon. Gentleman supports banning the use of wild animals in circuses. One of the solutions is to export those wild animals to new homes. If I understand the matter correctly, an unintended consequence of a blanket ban would be that we could not find new homes for those wild animals.

[Mr Amess]

I cannot believe for a moment that that would be the result if the motion was supported. I want to stick to my script. I was not present when other issues have been discussed in the Chamber, so I would like to stick to the specific issue that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, said that we should talk about.

I want to see an end to the long-distance transport of live animals. There is a clear case for the ending of the transport of live animals altogether. It is a cruel practice that regularly leads to the distress—or worse, the death—of animals. Indeed, recently we saw terrible pictures of little puppies who were dead, and rare, exotic fish dead in their containers. For example, inspectors, when they were able to investigate, found one animal with a ripped horn that had to be euthanised. In another incident, a vehicle had to offload all its sheep and 46—yes, 46—had to be euthanised for various reasons. Any practice that regularly inflicts such pain on living creatures, and, worse, regularly leads to their deaths, should be ended as soon as possible.

This is not an impossible dream. More often than not, animals are now slaughtered in their country of origin and then transported to whichever country they are going to. That is a much more humane way to approach the transportation of animals. Another reason why it is right to pursue the end of this practice is that even if we manage to transport live animals effectively and safely, we cannot ensure that the countries the animals arrive in live up to our high standards.

Compassion in World Farming has issued a report that shows that many member states do not provide penalties that are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. While some countries have shown recent signs of improvement, namely the Czech Republic, Italy and Romania, the European Union Food and Veterinary Office indicates that they, and other countries, still need substantial improvements in enforcement levels. Those two reasons—the cruel nature of transportation and the worrying lack of enforcement in other EU member states—are reason enough for wanting the practice of live transportation to be stopped altogether. That said, until that aim is fulfilled, there are other curbs that could be applied to the industry to protect transported animals. For example, there should be a maximum eight-hour journey time. Journeys for calves can be up to 19 hours, and for horses and pigs up to 24 hours. For horses and pigs, 29 hours can be an incredibly long time before a 24-hour rest. That is cruel—to make any creature travel for 29 hours before having a rest is very cruel indeed. At the very least, a middle ground should be found that enforces shorter breaks after eight hours, and then a longer 24-hour rest at the current limit.

On ports, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states on its website that when dealing with animals it is important that vehicle loading and unloading facilities are designed and constructed to avoid injury and suffering. While that may be the case for road vehicles, I have concerns about the UK ports that animals leave from and about the ships that transport them. According to the RSPCA, the Joline, an old Russian tanker, currently transports animals from Ramsgate. It is too slow, and is overly exposed to poor weather conditions. I urge the House not to accept such poor conditions for animals who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

It appears that the ports of Ramsgate, Ipswich and Newhaven do not all currently live up to the standards set out in section 23 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Ports have no choice but to opt out of the transportation of live animals due to the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. I believe strongly in choice. Ports that currently do not have the right facilities to transport animals to a high standard must be able to choose whether they wish to partake in this practice.

On veterinary costs, the economy is going through tough times at the moment. There are a lot of elderly people in Southend West, the area I represent, and animals are their lives. Animals are everything to them and we should not trivialise how important they are to them. Veterinary bills can be very high. The taxpayer foots the bill for veterinary checks on animals in live transportation. If that cost was shifted to those involved in the industry—I know that hon. Members with farming interests will say that that would be yet another burden passed on to them—not only would the taxpayer save money during these hard times, but the industry would be incentivised to look after its animals well, as the cost of veterinary bills could otherwise be very high.

The last topic I wish to touch on is labelling. It has come to my attention that a sheep or cow can be born, raised and fed here in England, transported to France and, once slaughtered, labelled, “produce of France”. If, as I hope, the EU agrees to stop this practice, surely the incidence of live transportation will fall as the pressure to have and eat home-grown food in each European member state will grow. I therefore urge hon. Members to support any such law on labelling.

In my brief speech I hope that I have highlighted a number of issues I feel strongly about that have not already been covered concerning the suffering of animals. Maximum journey times must come down if at all possible. Ports must be able to opt out if they do not feel that they have the resources to adequately look after animals. Veterinary costs should not be met at the expense of the public purse. Labelling issues need to be addressed.

We must look after animals to the best of our ability. The fact that we need this debate at all sadly reminds me of the quote attributed to Frederick the Great:

“The more I see of men, the more I like my dog.”

I then think of the quote from Ghandi:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

I said that I entered this place 30 years ago. We are hardly pressed for time in this place. We used to sit until 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the morning. We used to sit for five days a week—we certainly put the hours in. Hon. Members no doubt love to pat dogs and like to see cats in their constituencies. They are concerned about their constituents, who feel that their animals are important. They should demonstrate their support for animals by supporting the motion introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I would hope that most hon. Members feel that transporting live animals in horrendous conditions is totally unacceptable. We live in an era where we no longer write letters to each other. MPs respond to e-mails, blogging, Facebook and so on. There is not the amount of personal contact that there used to be.

I was privileged recently to attend two carol services for animals. I feel very strongly that the quality of our nation should increasingly be judged by how we treat the animal kingdom.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am intrigued about the carol service for animals. Was it per chance, “The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes”, or something of that sort?

Fisheries

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I apologise, Ms Clark, but I have to chair a Bill Committee at 2 o’clock, so rather than make a speech, I can only intervene. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea believe that the Marine Management Organisation has behaved absolutely disgracefully in not allowing vessels under 10 metres to catch a reasonable amount of fish?

[Mr Doran]

I was not directly aware of that, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am sure that others will want to expand on it.

My first question to the Minister is this. In previous debates, he has mentioned that he proposes to publish a list of quota holders. We have been waiting for that list for some time. I would be interested and pleased to get an update on progress from him. In particular, what are the reasons for the delay?

Another important issue is health and safety in the fishing industry. Usually in these debates, we remember those who have lost their lives in the industry, which I am sad to say is still the least safe industry in the country in which to work. I have some figures from the Library, which I will mention later.

Badger Cull

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for not being present throughout the debate. I was chairing proceedings in Westminster Hall, and before then I was with you at the Westminster dog show. The House will wish to congratulate you on your rottweiler coming third; my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on owning the runner-up; and my two rescued pugs, Lily and Botox, on winning best pugs in the show. They were presented with a bottle of champagne by the worshipful mayor of Southend and are now both sloshed.

I hope that my record on animal welfare is well established—it is there in the green bound copies of Hansard. Indeed, the Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 is in my name. In 1991, I spoke in the Third Reading debate on the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which was introduced by my noble Friend Lord Waldegrave. I thank Professor Brian May and Lorraine Platt from the Blue Badger campaign for all the advice and assistance that they have given to me and others.

I welcome the Government’s decision to delay the cull. Key alternatives, such as vaccinations and biosecurity, must be considered. They could be a viable alternative to the cull. I now represent an urban area, but I had 32 farms in my constituency when I was MP for Basildon, so I have some insight on the difficult situation that farmers face. However, I have a number of concerns about the cull and the number of badgers that might be injured.

Given that badgers are nocturnal creatures, how will the shooting be supervised at night? I am also concerned about the balancing act required for the cull to be effective. It has been reported that at least 70% of badgers need to be culled to reduce bovine TB effectively, but culling much more than 70% could entirely eradicate local badger populations. Balancing that is very important.

I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said about vaccinations, but we should take the issue further. DEFRA has wisely invested in research into badger vaccination, which I support, and I welcome measures already taken on biosecurity.

When I spoke in the 1991 debate, I showed some naivety. I said then that I would be joining the badgers at the bottom of my garden in celebrating the passage of the Bill. Little did I think that, over 20 years later, the badgers must have got together and decided to try to tunnel under my own house. Whether this is a socialist conspiracy to collapse the house on top of me I do not know.

I represent an urban constituency. When my constituents get badgers in their back gardens, it is a nightmare. I do not know whether they have all got together in Southend West and said, “Right, the door’s open tonight. Let’s get into the back garden.” I have three cases in my constituency where it has taken two years to deal with Natural England, English Heritage and DEFRA to get the badgers moved. It is very difficult in urban constituencies to get badgers moved.

In conclusion, this has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a member, on selecting it. The Government have got a good deal right: they have a policy of action rather than inaction; they are investing £15.5 million over the next four years in the crucial oral vaccine; and biosecurity has been promoted and will continue to be promoted. I urge the House, though, to consider the way forward carefully and how effective the proposed cull would be. I strongly encourage vaccination, including the development of a better oral vaccination.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Amess Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I commend my hon. Friend, who made an excellent speech on this subject on 7 February. Like me, he comes from the west midlands, which is badly affected. Let me reassure him that we will certainly pursue this matter with vigour. I support the ban on cash payments for the purchase of scrap metal and, indeed, the increase in penalties under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which will provide the police with greater powers to enter illegal sites as well as registered sites.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

16. While the popularity of metal theft does not seem to have extended itself to removing that dreadful lot of junk on College green called “cutting edges”, will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government are doing to streamline overlapping measures to deal with the scrap metal business?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am disturbed to hear that there was any threat to Henry Moore’s beautiful sculpture on College green—that is news to me—but it reminds us of the dreadful depths to which these criminals have sunk in removing metal from statues and, particularly, from war memorials, which has brought misery. Yes, as part of this clampdown on metal theft, we will streamline regulations. From April, for example, the Environment Agency will consider convictions linked with metal theft alongside other criteria when scrutinising the applications for an environmental permit to run a scrap metal yard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to confirm that the final proposals we made to the House—the only ones that matter—did not include total disposal. The hon. Lady knows full well the contents of the consultation, and they did not include total disposal. In fact, it could be argued that the amount that would have been disposed would have been much less than that, as there would have been considerable leasehold. Turning to the question of the forestry portfolio, first, this year I will be far busier with common agricultural policy negotiations and, secondly, my noble Friend Lord Taylor has now joined the team, and he has special knowledge of the horticultural sector and plant and tree disease, which is very topical at present.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

T7. The fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), responded to a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate that I secured last week. He heard that my constituent Paul Gilson had been fined £400,000 for catching too many fish. Please will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will now address the very unfair situation whereby under-10 metre fishing vessels comprise 85% of the fleet yet are allowed to catch only 4% of the stock?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

As I made clear in that debate, seeking a fairer deal for the under-10s has been one of my main priorities. I will shortly announce the launch of six pilot schemes, under which fishermen will have more opportunities to catch fish. We have employed three coastal liaison officers to support them in both the management of their quota and the marketing of their produce.

Fishing Quotas

David Amess Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Southend and the sea enjoy a symbiotic relationship; of that there can be no doubt. It gives us our character, our image, even our name—it is why we are called Southend-on-Sea. For many locals and tourists, the sea offers leisure, providing chances to enjoy our historic seafront, our pier—represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—and our arcades, known as the golden mile, which the Queen had the privilege of driving past some years ago.

For others, the sea provides employment and opportunity, and that is the purpose of this debate. Nowhere is that more true than in our historic fishing community at Leigh-on-Sea and Old Leigh. Boats there have been working the waters for centuries. Indeed, boats from the local fishing community were used to rescue injured people from Dunkirk. The fishermen and the wider community have a long history of patriotic support. The utmost respect has always been given to one of mother nature’s most powerful forces, but now the industry, which has adapted and survived through the ages, is facing its greatest ever challenge. The threat comes not from our old friend the sea but from within our ranks, and it threatens to strike at the heart of Britain’s ancient fishing fleet.

Let me say immediately to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no point in any Member of Parliament having an Adjournment debate for the sake of it, for press releases or for various people to observe. I always see a purpose in an Adjournment debate. However, I understand entirely that for all sorts of reasons, he will be constrained in responding, given matters pending in court. If so, I ask simply that he reflect on what I will share with him and consider whether something can be done in the fullness of time to help.

The Marine Management Organisation is, in its own words, supposed to make a “significant contribution” to the marine area, yet for many fishermen, it has become an increasingly vindictive organisation managed by people with no practical knowledge of the industry that they are regulating. Astoundingly, only one member of the board and executive committee has any physical experience of fishing. I would have thought that that alone would be cause for concern. The MMO’s implementation of law is inconsistent and draconian, particularly in regard to small inshore fishing boats. I refer to the under-10-metre fleet, which is subject to the harshest possible sentences for minor offences. Sentences can be so extreme that some fishermen receive the same punishment as drug dealers and gang members.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem was created by the last Labour Government when they underestimated the catch of the under-10-metre fleet? The quota available to that fleet is disproportionate compared with the quota for larger vessels, most of which is held by producer organisations.

[Mr Amess]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the debate. She has much more expertise in the sector than I do. I agree with her point about the last Government’s responsibility, which is why I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I understand that he is constrained by current regulations.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The points that he has raised alarm me. It is the proverbial sledgehammer used to crack a nut. It is like sending in the SAS when a bailiff would do. We need to get back to common sense in regulatory matters, on sea or on land.

[Mr Amess]

I will call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend, and I know that I speak for everyone in wishing his father a return to rude health. He must have read my speech, where I have used the expression “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”. I agree completely. The issue centres around what I believe is a complete misuse of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Worryingly, those who speak out against the MMO seem to be dealt with the most severely. That is totally unacceptable.

I will personalise the issue by talking about a constituent of mine whom I regard as a friend. His court hearing was held on Christmas eve, with all the stress that that involves, and he was recently fined £400,000. Although I was not there to hear the judge’s summing up—I am not criticising the judge; he was only interpreting the law as it stands—he apparently said that if not for my constituent’s references, the fine could have been as much as £600,000. The fine was for bureaucratic offences relating to his catch, the majority of which concerned offences relating to sales notes.

The gentleman to whom I am referring is Paul Gilson. Like generations of his family before him, he has fished the waters of Leigh-on-Sea since childhood. He is a highly respected member of the local community. In the late 1990s, I went with him, the gentleman who was then running my office, Lionel Altman, and the then Member of Parliament Bob Spink to do battle with the famous fisheries commissioner Emma Bonino. It was game, set and match to the Paul Gilson contingent. He is skipper of the historic boat Endeavour, which I am delighted to tell the House will be travelling in the flotilla for Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. A seat has been reserved on the boat for me, but as I suffer from seasickness, I will be giving the opportunity to someone else, however flat the River Thames is on that day.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Take pills.

[Mr Amess]

Unfortunately, pills do not work with me.

Paul Gilson is so highly thought of in Southend that he was awarded the freedom of the borough, which says everything about him. He is an honest, hard-working man, and such a sentence is an outrage, especially given that two other recent sales note offences received sentences of £3,500 and £6,000. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on that or whether the sentence should have been appealed, but how can two people be given sentences of £3,500 and £6,000 when Mr Gilson was given a sentence of £400,000? That is absolutely not acceptable. It is a coincidence that if someone is a critic of the MMO, they seem to be dealt with particularly harshly.

I am not denying that if an offence has been committed, a punishment should be given. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said earlier, this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The punishment should fit the crime. The 2002 Act, under the right circumstances, is an effective deterrent, but Paul Gilson is neither a gangster nor a drug dealer. The judge even conceded that there was no evidence at all to suggest that Mr Gilson had enjoyed a lavish lifestyle—indeed, if he had done so, no doubt I, as a friend, would have expected to have benefited from it to an extent—or had been motivated in any sense by greed. There is clearly an abuse of the 2002 Act by the MMO, and Paul Gilson is not the only example.

A number of colleagues have sent me briefings on the matter. In particular, three fishermen who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) will appear before Colchester magistrates court on 29 February—obviously, I will not go into the details, as the case is before the courts and the Minister cannot comment on it. Apparently, in a similar case, while a judge recommended a fine of £2,000, the MMO pushed for a prosecution, again under the 2002 Act, to the tune of £156,000. That is absolutely outrageous.

A fisherman from a historic fishing town is being harassed at every opportunity, while three men from the Colchester area are about to appear in court charged with similar offences, and they fear for their livelihood. That is simply vindictiveness beyond belief and a serious waste of taxpayers’ money. As we found out only too well with the Harry Redknapp trial, which cost about £8 million, the money is all coming from the public purse. Money should not be wasted in criminal proceedings unnecessarily, and the case is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Departments are supposed to be making significant cuts, and I respectfully ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on that. Money is being wasted in the pursuit of small-scale fishermen, largely guilty of nothing more than omissions in paperwork. My goodness, if I was to be looked at by how some of my paperwork is dealt with, no doubt I would have something to answer for, so I have tremendous sympathy for Paul Gilson and the other small fishermen.

The problems run deeper. The whole issue with the cases of Mr Gilson and others like him results from mismanagement in the industry and archaic, impractical laws regarding quotas, which my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) has brought to the attention of the House. I have been reliably informed that fishermen are losing out on their catches. Fish are being left uncaught but are not being replenished in the quotas for the following year. For example, Dover sole and skate in the North sea are being under-caught by hundreds of tons. There is also inconsistent implementation of quotas in the industry.

Two excellent articles appeared in The Times on 14 February. One of them is titled, “All at sea: historic fleet that can’t catch its own cod”, and I refer to my hon. Friend the Minister the circumstances of the Hastings fishing fleet. The other article was about a cartel on fishing quotas. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who is the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that it was astounding that the Government did not know who owned the quotas that they handed out, while my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) described it as an absolute scandal.

The current system of quota allocation has resulted in fishermen with boats less than 10 metres long being denied access to the seas. Those boats comprise 85% of the UK fleet, yet receive only 4% of the annual quota. That just cannot be acceptable. If owners of smaller boats want a share of the quota, they usually have to rent it, but many cannot afford the price demanded. They claim, rightly, that the system forces them to discard tonnes of fish.

Government figures suggest that larger boats are fishing less than a third of their quota and renting more than half to smaller vessels. That leaves up to a fifth of quotas left uncaught. Why are they not passed on to the struggling under-10s, or at least replenished in the pot? The system forces smaller boat owners to discard tonnes of fish to comply with regulations. Such practice is ludicrous and wasteful.

I read recently about the privatisation of the seas, whereby private producer organisations manipulate the market to boost their profits, despite being given 90% of quotas for free. Those organisations are on the verge of securing personal control of Britain’s fishing rights. Worryingly, it has been confirmed that the Government do not know, as I have already said, who is profiting from the arrangement—an admission echoed by the MMO. The quota cartel hits the under-10-metre boats particularly hard, as I have mentioned. It leaves men and women struggling to make a living. It is well to remember that they are fishermen, not bureaucrats, and it is madness that they spend as much time doing paperwork as they do fishing.

All that is killing our historic fishing industry, overseen by an apparently vindictive organisation that has no experience or understanding of the industry. Fishermen are rapidly and quite rightly losing faith in the MMO. Add on top of that the absurd, restrictive laws on quotas and the anonymous cartel that manipulates the markets for its own gain and it is easy to see the terrible state the under-10-metre fishing industry finds itself in.

Fishing is an art as old as man itself. It has survived everything that mother nature can throw at it, but it seems that it might just be defeated by our own ludicrous legislation and pointless policy-making. Something has to be done, to help not only my constituent Paul Gilson, but the constituents of all Members present and in the rest of the House.