Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 General Committees

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. May I compliment the Minister on an admirably economical exposition of his proposals today and, more specifically, on disregarding whatever official brief had been provided for him, which made his speech more intelligible and enjoyable?

I will not detain the Committee for long, but with all such reorganisations, there is a danger that they become a new form of delay, or a new bureaucracy to replace the old. The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Minister, but he has already established something of a reputation and he will not want that to be marred in any way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North talked about the savings to be made and the greater efficiency of the accelerated process, which we are all aiming at. We will be able to use the overall savings as a way by which to monitor the reorganisation, but could we also have some more specific figures—just in very simple terms—about the effectiveness or otherwise of the reorganisation that the Minister is about to carry through? Often we are plunged into reorganisations that are ill thought through and that get us in a bigger mess than what we set out to solve in the first place.

I thought that the Minister seemed a little complacent about the extent of our success at recycling waste. I think that our recycling levels are still notoriously bad compared with some of our better European neighbours, although I would love the Minister to correct me on that, if he can do so. I do not think that we should be complacent in any way, but if he could tell us how far we are behind the best exemplars in this particular sphere, I am sure that the Committee would be interested.

[Rory Stewart]

Let me deal briefly with the two challenges that have been set. First, I take on board the points about examining the effectiveness of the compliance and comparing European rates with the British one. To take that last point first, it is absolutely true that we have a lot to learn from other countries, and not only outside the United Kingdom, but even within the United Kingdom. Wales, for example, is doing interesting stuff on getting a single, unified recycling system across the nation, and that is something that we would like to see, particularly for household waste. It is also true that the United Kingdom’s approach to packaging waste is very different from that in Belgium or Germany. We have created a market, effectively by trying to incentivise companies such as Tesco to reduce their packaging waste through attaching a cost to that waste and then allowing them to decide how to act, whereas some continental European countries simply take a much stronger legislative approach that involves compulsion.

That said, we are about mid-table at the moment, and our rate of 64.5% is pretty good in European terms. Germany and France have higher rates, but they have much more expensive systems. It is difficult to compare apples and oranges, as their systems are compulsory, rather than market-based, and they are achieving their rates through huge public expenditure that we do not incur. However, we are considering the PRN system carefully, and we will be taking the matter forward through the circular economy discussions in Europe to find out whether there are things that we can learn. Our gut instinct will probably be to encourage other European countries to follow our lead, but I agree that we in Britain should never be too complacent, and we have a lot to learn from other people.

[Mr Robinson]

Although those countries have more expensive systems, the point is the net effect. Is that paid for by the higher rates that they achieve? How do the Scandinavian countries fare, particularly Denmark and Sweden? There seems to be a little complacency about how the artificial market that we have constructed is working.

[Rory Stewart]

That is a deep and important question. It goes back all the way to the design of the scheme in the mid-1990s, when the decision was made to create a market-based system rather than a compulsory one. Our view is that we have the right balance at the moment between recycling rates and costs. It would put a huge burden on businesses and the public purse if we were to adopt a compulsory system, but I would be comfortable about sitting down with the hon. Gentleman outside this room and having a more fundamental discussion about the market-based system.

We are, however, here to talk about not the market-based system itself, but issues such as operational plans and how they are implemented. Moving on to the challenges rightly made by the hon. Member for Stockton North, I welcome the fact that he is taking on board three out of four of the changes: having a simple, single port of call; ensuring that the system is delegated down to the appropriate level within the company; and ensuring that the change of approving body goes through.

On the removal of operational plans, the central question is what we are trying to achieve. Obviously, we are trying to drive up our packaging recycling rates. We have moved away from an operational plan system to a compliance system because, unfortunately, although the operational plans sounded good in theory, we discovered that people were not reading or updating them, and they were not a very useful tool for monitoring how people did packaging recycling. Ultimately, 80% of the operational plans did not represent useful information for achieving what we want—to increase the packaging recycling rate.

We believe that moving to a compliance system will allow the Environment Agency to take a more risk-based approach and will, above all, allow it to use more intelligently the market system that I have just been debating with the hon. Member for Coventry North West so that it can examine the data provided and the number of PRNs being traded, and ensure that we are achieving targets as they are set. We have heard a lot about that, for example in relation to aluminium this year. We do not believe that the operational plans are the correct way to achieve that.

That brings me to the challenge from the hon. Member for Coventry North West about how we will check that the system is working. There are two ways to do so. First, through my colleagues at DEFRA, who proposed the regulations and are working closely with the industry. The second point is that, to be honest, those in the industry with which we are working, from the packaging industry through to Tesco, are not quiet lambs who will go gently into a system that they believe to be bureaucratic, wasteful and not effective at achieving targets. One reason why we have introduced the changes is that we have had a lot of active, energised conversations with the industry over 10 or 15 years. I would expect those people to keep pushing hard. If they do not feel that they are achieving the savings that they want and the recycling rates that we need, they will come back to us in a tough way.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be taking part in this debate. Like other Members, I would like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). He and the colleagues who have supported him so well have taken us into a most important debate. Clearly this matter strikes a chord across the country. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) correctly, about 125,000 people have now put their names to the e-petition. I am very pleased to say that my family’s names are proudly inscribed on it. We are a house of dog lovers. We can boast three Great Danes and a disgracefully overfed Labrador—well, a fat Labrador, which might not be uncommon in other Members’ households. My wife has gone to the trouble of rescuing three donkeys—now five—from various distressed situations in Britain and Europe. Their only function seems to be to ensure that we keep a very organic way of gardening under way at home. There are many humorous stories that we could all tell about our experiences of the pets in our families. A love of animals is deep in the psyche of the British people. We would do well to respect that and, more importantly, to respond to it in any way that we can.

I think that we can all agree that pre-eminent among the 125,000 people is Marc Abraham. His Pup Aid programme has touched the consciences of many people throughout our constituencies. One such person in my constituency is Joy Yeates, who has written to me unremittingly on this topic and who wanted to ensure that I was here today to contribute. I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just want to read a short excerpt from the letter that she sent me most recently:

“Puppies need more than a cage, food and drink, as their emotional needs cannot possibly be met in this crucial period of development.”

I am sure that we all utterly agree with that. She continued:

“For that reason, Pup Aid is seeking a ban on the sale of puppies in pet shops where the mother is not present.”

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I just want the hon. Gentleman to know that many people in Wokingham entirely echo his sentiments and those of his constituent. She has put it extremely well.

[Mr Robinson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is very welcome, coming as it does from such a distinguished intellectual quarter of the Conservative party. It was up to his usual high intellectual standard.

Joy Yeates then urged me to attend this debate. I am pleased to be here and to give the point of view of those who want practical steps to be taken.

Although he is not present, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has been foremost in saying that a huge strength of organisations are in support of us here. There have been a string of legislative attempts to tackle different aspects of the problem. Those have all been made with the best of intentions. Those of us who took part in the debates on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 know that. I am pleased to say that I had a role in that. It is not easy to legislate in this area, and I caution against early legislation—certainly primary legislation. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who will speak for the Opposition today—although there is no party divide on this issue—agrees with me about that entirely.

There is a lot that we could do by looking at the series of legislation and guidance, and at the responsibilities as they are currently defined within local government. We could bring together and simplify the plethora of different and sometimes not wholly complementary sets of guidance and regulations to ensure that we know who is responsible for pursuing each aspect of the problem.

I do not expect the Minister to be able to say much about my next point. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South insisted that he did not want to get distracted by the internet, but we have to face the fact that if we succeed in bringing breeding under control, the internet will become the problem. My experience, in both north Wales and Clacton, was that the breeders were very responsible. Twelve weeks was the minimum period for which the puppies stayed with their mothers, so those were very good breeders. However, if we manage to do all that we are setting out to do, the internet will still be there and it will become ever more attractive as the other sources of puppies and so on are stopped. If the internet is as viral as I expect, in the sense that it attracts so much attention and demand—I hope that it will not be—we will have to find ways of dealing with it. That might mean having some mandatory restrictions on websites. I will leave that with the Minister, as well as the other problems.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister a coherent, clear-cut set of proposals that have been worked on, which will deal with the problem in a practical and sensible way, with minimal additional fuss and bother in terms of paperwork from the Government. I am very pleased to have taken part. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Badger Cull

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I speak in this debate very much as a layman. I am not a farmer or an expert on the scientific issues, and I do not think that we have the disease in Coventry, so I cannot even claim a constituency interest, but I have a deep hatred of unnecessary suffering in animals, and so much of it goes on, with vivisection and all the rest of it. Where there is no compelling evidence that such suffering is necessary, we must seriously question our consciences and our policies.

I am also aware, as I am sure is every Back Bencher—I heard the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made at a party meeting last night and again today—that this horrid and hideous disease is hated right across the country. We feel deeply for the farmers who are wrestling with it on their farms. The worst thing we can do when we cannot see a way forward is grasp at the nearest solution that might do some good. The Government will then say, “We have no confidence that this will work, but if you want to pay for it, we’ll license it,” and that is when we know that we are at a dead loss. That is shown by the figures, because there has been a catastrophic failure—it cannot be considered anything else. It is not scientific evidence, but empirical evidence of people not being able to shoot enough badgers. It is as simple as that.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I met farmers in my constituency to discuss the cull, and they did not believe that it would be effective. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the remarks about suffering made by Professor David Macdonald, who chairs Natural England’s science advisory committee:

“I fear there will be two tragic losers, the farmers who are paying the crippling bill for extending this trial and the badgers whose lives may be lost for little purpose.”

Is that not the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

I thoroughly agree and thank my hon. Friend for that apposite intervention.

The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who represents a farming constituency, and who indeed is a farmer himself, was right when he said that vaccination would not have been an absolute solution for mad cow disease and that it is not yet a science-based solution to this problem. I will mention in passing something I read in the March edition of a scientific journal—I do not suppose many colleagues will have heard of it. It talked about novel particulate vaccines utilising polyester nanoparticles, or bio-beads, which I assume would be ingested orally, that work rather counter-intuitively with the animals and could be a way forward. I do not know about that, but it is clear to me that much less research is now being done. Could not all the money that is being spent—wasted, frankly—on the culls be put into vaccine research? Ultimately, that is the only solution. A vaccine will not be a silver bullet, but it could be effective alongside all the measures the Government are considering, as part of a shared policy.

I will end my remarks by joining Members on both sides of the Chamber in saying how great it is that this debate has been arranged by the Backbench Business Committee. It is absolutely perfect. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds is perhaps lucky that the report is not yet out. If it had been, he might have had much less to say. He must accept that there is never a perfect time for these things. I congratulate the Committee, because I think that this has been one of the best debates.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend not think that there is sufficient evidence from Scotland showing how the vaccine worked there?

[Mr Robinson]

To be honest, I do not know. I have read as much as I can. But I do know from the evidence so far that a vaccine would be much more humane and, if we put the resources into getting it, much more likely to succeed, taken with other measures, than the culls. The culls are counter-productive, because they are spreading the disease. They are miles off their targets. I cannot imagine why farmers would want to waste more money on them. I hope that the Government and the Opposition will now get together to find a way forward, because it is urgently needed. It is a challenge, but there is no better time to get a cross-party policy on the matter.

Dangerous Dogs

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which I think has been welcomed by all parties in the House and by areas throughout the country. For that reason, I hope we can keep the debate on the strictly all-party basis it deserves. That will certainly be the tenor of my remarks throughout.

More than 6,000 postmen a year are bitten or attacked in one form or another by dogs. There are approximately 10 attacks per constituency per year, so it is a matter in which we all have a direct and important interest. Indeed, the devolved Parliament in Scotland has legislated on the issue, and Northern Ireland is in the process of doing so.

The reason why I have called for this debate relates to a nasty incident in Coventry involving a young girl, Alicia Foskett, whose mother, Sarah, has, without a great deal of encouragement, led a campaign. Under existing law, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 excludes private property from any criminal provision, so Sarah Foskett felt that, at best, she got passive help from the police and local council. That might be understandable in the context of the present law, which I wish to address. I hope to leave as much time as I can for the Minister and other MPs to respond, but I cannot leave too much time because it is only a half hour debate. The support for Sarah Foskett seemed inadequate, so she led a strong and courageous single-woman campaign to raise the profile of the issue in Coventry and has done extremely well. I am pleased to say that the police are now giving her a lot of support in the civil action she intends to take.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is only after the event that the police are actually doing something. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pity they did not do something beforehand?

[Mr Robinson]

I agree. They should have given much more positive support beforehand, but they could not take any action under the existing legislation. I will come back to that in a moment, but it is one of the principal things that needs to be addressed. As things stand, the case is for a civil action rather than criminal proceedings.

As I have said, this is not a party political issue. Indeed, the Prime Minister in a letter to the Communication Workers Union just before the election, when he was Leader of the Opposition, made it clear that he and the Conservative party were very much in favour of the action that I wish to recommend. He wrote:

“We support extending dangerous dogs law to cover all places including private property”.

That is a clear statement from the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister. I hope that the Government can find some impetus in the light of that support.

The more general statistics are interesting, but I will not detain hon. Members with them for too long. I have already mentioned that 6,000 postal workers are injured every year. Some 2,500 adults and 2,700 children are treated for injuries every year. In the past four years, six children and two adults have been killed. The attacks seem to come in spates. The past few years have seen a further spate of attacks in London that have been so bad that the Met has set up its own special dog unit in response.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine, Mr Naylor, has asked me to raise this very point with my hon. Friend. The burden on the authorities and the taxpayers is growing daily because of the lack of control and responsibility exercised by owners. We need more control over the behaviour of owners, whether that be via an insurance policy—that idea has been floated in the past—or some other mechanism. We cannot have the general public picking up the bill for irresponsible dog owners.

[Mr Robinson]

Getting all dog owners to pay into an insurance fund relating to a small minority of dogs would tar everybody with the same brush. Over the centuries, dogs have been man’s greatest friend. They are appreciated in families such as mine and by children. That idea would also be grossly unfair at a time of extreme stringency for all families. It is a question of getting the owners to change their behaviour and become responsible. I regret to say that that is a more general problem throughout society at present.

In the case of Mrs Foskett, the owner refused to even have the dog looked at. He shunted it off to a friend. We do not know where it is yet, but it continues to be on private premises and to pose a danger, which is not good enough. He even refused to have the dog put under the temporary care of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals while it undertook training. That is, by any standards, irresponsible behaviour. I agree with my hon. Friend that part of the solution is to change that, but the application of criminal law—the greatest sanction the country can impose on any individual—would be a good step forward. Making the law apply to individual premises would begin the change of mindset that my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) are seeking.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I congratulate his constituent on her work. Does he agree that it is not the breed of dog that seems to be the problem? It seems to be a problem with all dogs. A common theme seems to be that cases are not treated as seriously as they could be by the police, and that far greater resources need to be given to making prosecutions.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and agree with her to some extent. In Scotland, they have brought the “deed, not the breed” distinction into play. I do not know how useful that would be; I would go for “and the breed”. It was a Staffordshire bull terrier that was involved in the incident in my constituency, and there was dreadful scarring to the young girl’s face. The breeds are fairly identifiable. Indeed, the Met’s conclusion is that they are being bred in London by young men and others almost as trophy items to display. That is a problem, and I do not think that we lose anything by having a category. It should also be made clear that no other breed of dog is excluded, and that the criminal law will apply to them if there is any doubt, which I do not think there is.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

An additional issue that has been brought to my attention by some of my constituents is attacks by out-of-control dogs on wildlife, particularly swans. There has been a distressing increase in the number of swans killed or injured by dogs. At present, rescue groups such as the Gwent Swan Rescue, which is now called Swan Rescue South Wales, cannot claim back the veterinary fees from irresponsible owners. Surely that must be put right.

[Mr Robinson]

I agree. This is pointing towards a consolidation of all previous laws—many of them go back many years; one of the most useful was enacted in 1871—into new, modern statutes to deal with some of the points that are not clear in previous legislation. In addition to dogs attacking defenceless, beautiful animals such as swans, I have even heard of dogs attacking guide dogs. It largely comes back to the owner. We must put in place the sanctions that make it clear we are not going to tolerate this situation any more.

Without rehearsing the whole history of the issue, I shall give hon. Members a flavour of it. Related Acts were introduced in 1839, 1847, 1861 and 1871. This is, therefore, a recurrent theme in society and our pet community. It is no good denying the problem; we must simply do the best we can to minimise it, even if we cannot totally eliminate it. That means introducing sensible, modern legislation. I hope that some Conservative Members have time—as they can probably tell, I am trying to get through my speech as quickly as I can to leave time for others to speak—to join us in supporting such an approach. The consultation has been carried out, and finished in June 2010.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two clear things need to be done? First, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 needs to be got rid of and replaced by sensible, effective legislation; and secondly, we need a workable law that introduces compulsory micro-chipping for all dogs.

[Mr Robinson]

I am coming to that in a moment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman but the point is: why are we not getting on with it? We must face the fact that we need legislation to deal with the problem and, if we all agree on that, we could go one step further and say that it needs to be consolidated. Let us have fresh legislation that takes all recent experience into account. This is not a criticism of the Prime Minister, the Government or the Conservative party, but the consultation was completed a year and a half ago and I cannot think what is holding things up. There is widespread support in the House for dealing with this problem, which exists throughout the country, so let us get on with sorting it out.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have consensus among a range of organisations—such as the Kennel Club, the dog wardens’ body and, indeed, the postal services union—on the need to introduce consolidated legislation that works in the 21st century?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

Absolutely. I could not agree more. We have little influence with the Government these days, but the question is whether Conservative Members can influence the Government to get on and produce the legislation. This is a time of party political tensions. There have been bitter disputes in the House about the economy, social welfare and a range of issues, and it is difficult for parties to agree in this time of extreme danger in the economic sphere; but this is an issue on which we could get ahead, do something useful and be united. The country would feel much better for it. There is every reason for taking action.

I will finish my speech by 11.15 am. It is only a half hour debate, and I hope that the Minister will not take too much time and that others can contribute if they still wish to do so. I am not going to legislate now, but essentially, the basis of the new legislation should definitely be to extend the criminal law so that section 3 of the 1991 Act includes private premises. We also need to consider the issue of micro-chipping. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said, there is widespread agreement among, for example, the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club. Everyone recognises the need to deal with these issues—even those on which we are not known for agreeing. We could push ahead, but we should do so sensibly and clearly.

We should also consider the issue of dog control notices. The no-fault personal injury compensation scheme should not be paid for by all dog owners. That is unfair and unnecessary. There must be some other approach—one that does not impact, I hasten to add, on the public purse.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Much has been made of the fact that breed-specific legislation does not seem to work. Does my hon. Friend know of any analysis of whether such accidents or attacks are breed-specific? We seem to be talking simply about statements made by one side or the other.

[Mr Robinson]

I made a statement, for which I do not have any statistics, based on my personal impression—which may well be wrong—and the examples I have seen in and around my constituency and in London. In Scotland, for example, they have rejected that view and are taking a deed-based approach. However, by definition, such an approach accepts that damage has to be done before action can be taken. I do not know what the phrase “deed and breed” might add to the legislation, or whether it might confuse matters; but I am not against that approach.

[Katy Clark]

If the list is breed-specific, people simply swap breeds and find new ones. That is one of the reasons why looking at the deed is considered more helpful.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, that is why I said that we cannot focus just on the breed; we also need to consider the deed. We do need, however, to focus a little on the breed, just to make people conscious that other breeds are available. To ditch that approach after a certain amount of effort has been put into it would be unnecessary.

I have covered the personal injury compensation scheme and micro-chipping. Tougher penalties for and punishment of irresponsible owners should be applied through the criminal law. That would be the single most important legislative action we could take to influence owners’ behaviour, which is clearly what we must do.

I will now open the debate to others who wish to take part. All I am saying is this: it has come to the point when we owe it to ourselves, our constituents and the young children and adults who have been scarred for life by these dogs, to deal with such legislation properly. We need to produce something that is comprehensive, clear and up to date. That is the minimum we can do to prevent such scars from blighting people’s lives in future.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I am coming to the point that he raised earlier.

A number of people support the idea that if breed-specific legislation is not repealed, then owners should be allowed to apply to the courts to have the dogs added to the index of exempted dogs. I want the police to have the final say on whether a dog is seized, and there may also be scope for not kennelling other types of dogs that are not a danger. In all cases, the police would need to be satisfied that the dogs are in the care of a responsible owner. That idea would undoubtedly save money for the police who, under the existing law, must first seize the dog pending the outcome of court proceedings. However, we also need to consider whether such a proposal would allow for the public safety factor of each application to be properly considered.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), another proposal under consideration is to extend the criminal law on dangerous dogs to all private property. That would allow the police to investigate dog attacks on private property, and we have sympathy with that desire. That may, on the face of it, be an easy thing to do, but we should consider the effects of, say, a trespasser with criminal intent who is attacked by the home owner’s dog. Do we really want a trespasser successfully prosecuting a home owner because the home owner’s dog has acted in a way that many people would consider only natural? I point that out as just one example of where it is not a simple binary decision. There are some major implications in extending the law into the home. Before going down this route, we would need to be sure that all the potential risks are understood and can be addressed, but I assure the hon. Lady that we get the problem and are very keen to move position, which I think all hon. Members would—

[Mr Robinson]

The Minister said a moment ago that not all organisations agree about every detail—that is true, and they never will. However, what everybody agrees on is the extension of criminal law, and everybody agrees with a natural exemption if there is a trespasser or a burglar. That happens in all criminal law. It is not a real problem, unless the Minister wants to make it one. We have no timetable for any sort of legislation to deal with the issue.

[Richard Benyon]

We are mindful of that point. We believe that we can get through it, but it indicates how the issue is not straightforward.

Turning to the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and for Romsey and Southampton North about microchipping, I worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on this issue before the election. There are obvious side benefits to the compulsory micro-chipping of dogs, one of them being the ability to identify the owner of a dog that has become dangerously out of control even if the owner is not present at the time of the incident. Better traceability of owners could discourage them from letting their dogs run loose, and hence reduce the likelihood of attacks. However, I consider that the principal benefit is that it would enable the police, local authorities and rescue centres to reunite lost and stolen dogs with their owners. It may also help where dogs have been stolen, which is a big issue in my constituency. That is an important step forward, and one that I believe that we can support, but would it reach the problem owners we are talking about? That is a fundamental point that we have to consider.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

The answer to the first question is that my noble Friend Lord Henley is responsible for this policy within the Department. The answer to the second question, which is completely fallacious, is that we are not doing nothing. We have already made it clear that we will introduce a tough licensing regime soon.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Minister not aware that advisers, including legal ones, advise and Ministers decide? In reaching this decision today, he appears weak-kneed. He has agreed to see one of his hon. Friends afterwards on the question of legal advice, but perhaps he could include an Opposition Member in that meeting. There can be nothing in the legal advice that is remotely binding on this issue and he is failing to respond to the feeling in the country and in the House, which goes way beyond the number of animals involved. It is a question of principle.

[Mr Paice]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, and of course Ministers must make the final decision. We accept that responsibility. Advice to Ministers can sometimes be fairly evenly balanced and sometimes pretty heavily balanced in favour of one side or the other. The outcome of the ministerial decision is likely to depend on that.