Pet Abduction Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

I can absolutely assure my right hon. Friend that it is specifically stated in the Bill that it is a defence that a person is picking up stray animals, or is involving themselves with someone else’s animal for good, honourable and noble reasons.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

This Bill is really important for a lot of people. Is it not the lesson of both “Six Dinner Sid” and Granny Meow—of course, at the end of “Six Dinner Sid”, Sid also went to the vet six times, which was not what he was looking to do—that we really want to encourage people to get their pets chipped, so that any confusion about ownership can be resolved? That is the same for cats as for dogs.

[Anna Firth]

I thank the hon. Member for her excellent point—in fact, there is another excellent private Member’s Bill on that topic further down the list today. She is absolutely right: we do not seek to criminalise anyone who looks after Sid, George, or any other stray cat.

The Bill includes an enabling power to extend the offences to other species of animal commonly kept as pets. If there is evidence of a significant number or a rise in cases of unlawful taking, the Government will be able to react in a dynamic way. When listening to the radio last night, I was very struck by the number of people who phoned in to talk about birds—in particular, birds of prey—being stolen, so that may well be an area that we look at in the future.

We have heard concerns about the fact that good behaviour should not be criminalised. I want to assure Members that while the Bill proposes offences meant to punish those who purposefully abduct a pet, it also creates exemptions for certain connected persons and subject to certain defences, such as a reasonable excuse for taking or detaining an animal. For example—we have already heard some examples—the offence will not apply in situations where a couple have got a cat or a dog while living together, then have a disagreement about the ownership of that pet and go their separate ways. That could include someone who is fleeing an abusive relationship taking their valued pet with them. Refuge has raised that specific point and is very happy to see that situation exempted in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a genuine pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow the comprehensive report by the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), the expertise of the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and, of course, Granny Meow.

should declare that I have often voted in the Westminster dog of the year competition—I have obviously voted for everybody’s beautiful dog, if anybody asks—but I have never participated. I still own a rather elderly cat, who would probably not win any awards, except from me. She is not of any particular breed, apart from loved. But we recognise that pet ownership is an intrinsic part of many people’s lives, and for good reasons. There is a lot of evidence that owning a pet can help with stress. Perhaps that is why they should be mandatory in Parliament. I always thought we should be able to have them in our offices. Maybe that would help some of our conversations. They lower blood pressure and they are good for loneliness. As a nation, half of us own a pet. In fact, the quarter of people who own a cat own more than one. We might have more people owning dogs, but we have more people being owned by multiple cats—those Six Dinner Sids.

The message the Bill sends is that this is not an insignificant matter. That answers the question from the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) about the need for additional legislation. One reason to legislate in this place is when we see widespread patterns of harm. There was an explosion in the number of cases of pets being stolen during the pandemic, and the response people received from the police tells us that there is something wrong with the way things are being dealt with. By legislating, we are sending a very clear message that we want that to be different.

This is a long-overdue change and I pay tribute to the pet theft taskforce—one can only imagine what its meetings were like and whether they took place in dog or cat cafés around the country. The way in which things have been slightly re-jigged for cats and dogs is also right. As Granny Meow, Six Dinner Sid and most of us know, cats are different creatures, whether they act like their owners or their owners become like them. More seriously, it is a worry to me that the experience of my constituents who have sadly experienced this challenge—one reason why I wanted to speak and support the Bill—has been so difficult with the police. The emotional impact or, frankly, the financial consequences are not being taken into account. In my short contribution, I want us to be clear that, yes absolutely, we recognise the emotional distress when somebody’s cat or dog is taken, but the trade behind that is also why legislating for this specific offence and addressing it is very worth doing.

I want to share some of the experiences of my constituents. One constituent had a Bengal cat stolen. Bengal cats can go for up to £5,000 if it is a particular type of breed. There are no other items under theft legislation of such value that we would then expect the police to say, “Well, it’s a civil matter. Sorry about the loss of your cat, but we are not going to investigate.” It is actually a very valuable item, in addition to the emotional distress. Another constituent’s son’s ex-girlfriend stole their dog. The dog was microchipped, so it was very clearly owned by the family, but the police told her that it was a civil matter and therefore they would not assist.

Again, I would just point out that there are other examples of those kinds of disputes where items have been taken and the police have clearly recognised it as theft. After all, often breaking and entering is facilitating the seizure and abduction of a pet. That is partly because some of the breeds we are talking about are incredibly valuable. A siamese cat can cost between £300 and £400 to buy. An English bulldog is £2,000 for a puppy. A dachshund is £1,500, and even a cocker spaniel is £300 to £600. It is not, therefore, a surprise that there is a trade in stealing animals and pets to re-sell. When the police response is simply to dismiss that and not even investigate, we are giving a green light for that to continue.

I fully support the Bill and the message we are sending by the clarity of having specific pet abduction legislation. It is important to have data from police forces about the scale of the crime. As we know with other crimes, data is the start of the investigation. If we do not know where these crimes are taking place, we cannot then look for the patterns that help us identify the people behind them. I also recognise the distress that this crime causes. The constituents who come to me are devastated when their pets have been stolen and they feel that nobody else cares. The message we are sending from Parliament today is that we do think somebody should care and we do think it is a serious matter.

Finally, I join others in congratulating all the brilliant voluntary organisations that help us as a nation of pet lovers. The hon. Member for Southend West talked about Tilly’s Angels. We have Waltham Forest for Cats and Waltham Forest 4 Dogs. They are two separate groups, obviously—like Sharks and Jets, never the twain shall meet. Those organisations rightly reflect that love and affection.

There is a lot going on in the world and, obviously, some very serious matters are facing us, but there is such a level of agreement across the Chamber that it is right to clarify things and have this legislation. We have had the frustration and disappointment of having done all the work, looked at the law and found a way through the challenges that people have identified, only to see the legislation dropped, I hope that Minister will recognise that there is full support in the House for the Bill. We just need to get this done, put the protection in place and help ensure that the 54% of us who have one can take our pet out to the park—we will try to shut our doors to prevent our cats from leaving the house and becoming the Six Dinner Sids. In that way, we will generally be confident that our pet welfare is one of the best things that we can look forward to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Jane Stevenson.

Border Target Operating Model: Health Certificates and SMEs

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for securing this important debate. As she will know, the upcoming implementation of the first phase—I stress that it is the first phase—of the border target operating model is a really important milestone for the UK and reflects a long period of intensive work across Government. I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about what is in place and to address some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised, but I am sure she will accept that she had a very long list of questions. I will do my best to answer them, but if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that she gets some written answers. I hope that is acceptable.

Introducing biosecurity controls on imports is not optional. Now that we have moved away from the EU’s rigid biosecurity surveillance and reporting systems, we are responsible for protecting our own biosecurity from threats such as African swine fever, which is really serious for our pig industry, and Xylella, which would be terrible for our plant communities in this country. Such threats could devastate UK industries and cause significant damage to the environment, public health and the wider economy. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that geography matters; that is why we are taking the issue so seriously. We have to keep these threats out of our country.

Biosecurity controls are also essential to protect our exports and our international trading interests. Our trading partners want to be reassured that we maintain the highest biosecurity standards. We have the option to introduce additional controls if there are diseases that we really need to get a grip on. As I am sure the hon. Lady will know, we introduced some additional measures on swine fever back in 2022, which shows how importantly we take the issue.

The overall ambition of the border target operating model is to introduce robust, risk-based controls that protect biosecurity while reducing administrative and cost burdens for importers. Recognising that the introduction of these essential new controls could pose challenges for businesses, we developed the border target operating model in extensive consultation with industry, including many small and medium-sized enterprises, as I am sure the hon. Lady is aware. During that design phase, some 10,000 participants joined our many stake-holder events, we received 200 written responses to our invitation to comment through our online portal and we had over 650 detailed responses at focus sessions with food retailers and producers, the logistics sector and many others.

We have responded to the feedback that we received, as will be evident in the implementation of the first phase of the border target operating model from 31 January this year. For example, we have designed a new certification logistics pilot to support the movement of goods from hubs in the EU. We have provided further facilitation and guidance for importers using groupage models—the hon. Lady referred to groupage models, where a lorry delivers a whole lot of different models in one lorry—in terms of moving sanitary and phytosanitary goods into the UK, in order to make the system of certification more streamlined.

The phase approach implementation will allow businesses time to familiarise themselves with the new requirements before full implementation, on 30 April this year. The measures will make the process of complying with the sanitary and phytosanitary controls easier for a wide range of businesses, including SMEs. For example, the certification logistics pilot will allow certain businesses moving goods by groupage to use a single export health certificate from the point of origin through to the goods arrival in Great Britain. Amendments and simplification of export health certificates will mean individual certificates can now cover multiple types of animal products, which should help some of those groups such as dairy or cheeses.

Over the long term, as promised when we published the UK 2025 border strategy in 2020, the border target operating model will introduce a range of technological advances to ensure a fully 21st century border that facilitates UK trade. The development of the single trade window will make the process of importing to the UK simpler and more streamlined, enabling importers to meet their border obligations by submitting information only once.

To clarify, the single trade window will be coming in later. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the platform is being developed and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is working on that. Ultimately, the border target operating model achieves the lowest regulatory obligations for businesses, consistent with the need to protect biodiversity and public health, in addition to facilitation from better use of technology and data. That is achieved through a more proportionate approach to risk.

We have already removed import health controls for fruit and vegetables, such as citrus and mangos, which are either not produced commercially in the UK or present a negligible risk. The hon. Lady referred to vegetables; lots of vegetables have been looked at to come up with a simpler system. I have checked and if it is seen that a risk might arise to do with any of those commodities, such as vegetables in particular, we have a right to change that later .

For low-risk animal products, as a matter of routine we will require only electronic prenotification, which is already in place. Low risk plant produce, such as fruit and vegetables, with no specific disease or pest risk associated, will be removed from import health control requirement altogether. For example, cucumbers and gherkins are classed as low risk. On all high and medium risk goods, while we will retain health certification and physical inspection, more UK-specific targeted risk categorisation allows for lower inspection rates than under the EU model, while documentary-only checks will be performed remotely.

As a result, the additional costs to businesses associated with the new system—the BTOM—are substantially less than they would have been if we had extended the inherited EU model to all of our imports. Compared to the original import model that was scheduled to have been introduced in 2022, we believe that the new model will reduce costs to businesses by around £500 million per annum, by reducing the complexity and volume of paperwork associated with the importing.

I have time to refer quickly to a couple of questions.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady asked a whole range of questions, which I can skim through. Shall I do that first?

[Stella Creasy]

It might help if I clarified which particular questions, as I recognise that there are many there.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady mentioned that she has had a number of letters from and exchanges with Baroness Neville-Rolfe on the whole data issue. As has already been conveyed to her, it was decided that His Majesty’s Government would be unable to release the full inputs of the modelling that were included in the data because some of the sources are commercially sensitive, particularly in relation to other ports and so forth. I think she was probably going to ask me about that again.

In terms of food price inflation, initial analysis has indicated that the policies introduced would lead to an approximate increase in consumer food price inflation of less than 0.2% over a three-year period. We also have to consider the potential cost of a major disease outbreak, such as foot and mouth, which would have far more serious consequences. The 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak cost about £12.8 billion in 2022 prices: £4.8 billion to the Government and £8 billion to the private sector. We have to look at all that. The Government’s modelling on the inflationary impact of the border target operating model has been undertaken through a peer-reviewed econometric model; there has been a huge amount of modelling. I hope that answers that question.

[Stella Creasy]

Can I be critical? We are talking about something that is potentially coming in in 12 days’ time. I recognise that I gave her a long list of questions because there is so much that comes from this policy. Let me give her three that we would really appreciate a direct answer on. First, what checks will be done in 12 days’ time at our border on the lorries? Will there be any checks at all on the health certificates? Secondly, what will the common user charge be in April, in 100 days’ time? What will businesses have to pay to import? Thirdly, will she say on the record, here and now, that there will be no impact on food pricing or food availability in the UK as a result of these policies—yes or no?

[Rebecca Pow]

On the last question, I have given the hon. Lady the information on what our modelling highlighted about the potential approximate increase of food price inflation: less than 0.2% over a three-year period. In terms of checks on lorries at ports from January, health certificates will be needed on medium and high-risk goods. There will be a change in the pre-notification methodology, but not on introduction of the new requirement. A sample of remote documentary checks will be required on some medium-risk consignments. Obviously, we will still be educating and working with businesses about what they need to do and how to comply.

We will definitely write to the hon. Lady if there is any further information because the issue is very detailed, and it is hard to try to race through the answers here. I thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues. Obviously, this is a whole new regime for businesses to get used to. I think I have laid out that it is a much simpler system—more transparent and risk based—and that it was based on a great deal of consultation. I shall leave it there.

[Stella Creasy]

Can I just put on the record on behalf of British business—this is mad? We are talking about something that is happening in 12 days’ time. Trucks do not know whether they will need to provide a PDF of the check at the border. In 100 days’ time, there will allegedly be a charge, but nobody knows what that charge will be, so nobody can factor that into their costs, let alone—

[Rebecca Pow]

Can I just intervene—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. One at a time, please.

[Stella Creasy]

If the Minister can tell us what the charge will be—please, do let us know.

[Rebecca Pow]

I just want to put on the record that the common charge is not set yet. We have consulted on a rate and will be publishing the rate immediately. There will also be no checks on the border, and documentary checks—as I said, actually—will be remote. There is going to be no stopping of consignments.

[Stella Creasy]

So there we have it: in 12 days’ time, businesses will have to pay for these certificates, but they will not be asked to provide them, and in 100 days’ time they might have an extra cost but they do not know what it is—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The Minister has sat down; I took it that she was giving way so I allowed the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) to come in, but the Minister has now clearly sat down, so that is the end of the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 General Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Hosie. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has said about this matter, and I hope that the Minister can offer us some reassurance and clarification about this SI and how it fits into the broader remit of management of toxic substances. After all, many of us across the Committee are concerned to assure our constituents that we are not letting persistent organic pollutants pop into their lives unpleasantly or unnecessarily.

The Minister sets out that this legislation was required because several things were written in error. That matters, because she will be aware that, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill mentioned, this is retained EU law. This House will be debating the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, starting tomorrow in Committee, because of the Government’s demand to delete 4,000 pieces of legislation overnight. That will affect thousands of laws, including this one.

My questions for the Minister are about how this SI will interact with those proposals. Before us we have regulations that are affected by the Retained EU Law Bill. Let me set out for the Minister and her officials precisely what I mean. These regulations edit regulation EU 2019/1021, which is retained EU law. As such, can we therefore presume from the fact that the Government have introduced this statutory instrument that they will not be abolishing that regulation at the end of 2023, as the REUL Bill provides?

These regulations allow the use of decaBDE—I hope I am pronouncing it correctly, because I am sure that will make a difference for the officials when they look up what I mean—when making electronic equipment. I think we all recognise that there may be circumstances in which people want to use these toxic substances. Use of decaBDE was covered by regulation EU 2018/858 of the European Parliament, which is also listed on the Government’s dashboard, so I am sure the officials in DEFRA are aware that it is up for consideration for deletion. If it is deleted, what happens to this statutory instrument and the use of decaBDE in our communities? For example, if local businesses use these chemicals—they might be involved, as the Minister says, in the production of spare parts for cars, or for electrical goods—will these regulations still apply?

Of course, that is not the only question that this SI raises about the EU dashboard and the deletion of 4,000 pieces of legislation. This SI also allows the use of decaBDE under the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012. Those regulations were made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, but they do not appear on the EU dashboard.

I know that Ministers and officials from DEFRA have been looking at that closely. We know from press reports that the number of pieces of legislation expected to be deleted overnight by the REUL Bill is closer to 800 than to the original estimate of 500. Can the Minister at least confirm that the Government have identified that the 2012 regulations should be on the dashboard, because they are affected? Will she set out for us how that may affect this SI, which relies on those regulations? If they are not listed, does that mean that the Government are, in fact, hoping to retain them? After all, you, as a Government, have just put before us this SI, which refers to those regulations. I raise these questions not to give the officials a headache, but simply to flag that we are—

[The Chair]

Order. All the remarks had better be through the Chair and to the Minister. The officials are, to all intents and purposes, invisible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

But like the toxic substances that we are talking about, they are incredibly important—I am sure you would agree, Mr Hosie.

I raise these questions because I think it is important before we pass such a piece of legislation that we are all confident that it rests on stable legislative foundations. Given the destructive nature of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which comes before Parliament tomorrow—there are no amendments to it that I am aware of, as a member of the Bill Committee, that might address these concerns and therefore address the question whether this statutory instrument will remain in standing after 2023—these seem to me to be fair questions. I hope that now the Minister has had some notes from those invisible people who are charged with dealing with the consequences of a piece of legislation that has been described as being as destructive to our legislative process as the previous Chancellor’s Budget, she will be able to answer those questions.

The Minister said that the draft regulations simply make technical changes to maintain existing regulatory standards. That is only the case if those other pieces of retained EU law remain on our statute book, and at the moment the Government have made no commitment at all to replace any of this legislation. Like these chemicals, might this SI go up in a pop of smoke if we do not have that other legislation?

I hope that the Minister is able to answer these questions. If she would like the details of the retained EU law that is not yet on the dashboard—law that her colleagues at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy perhaps have not yet identified—I am happy to give her those details. All of us want legislation that is sensible, and all of us recognise that a toxic approach to Brexit will create a hazardous substance for us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is why we are working hard on it but also really engaging with industry. This matter is so critical to a whole lot of businesses, not to mention all the products we use, and of course it is very serious stuff in terms of the hazards, risks and dangers that chemicals represent to us as a society. It is incredibly important. It is interesting that more than 95% of all manufactured products in the UK contain inputs from the chemical industry, so this is a huge thing that we are working on. But trust me—the strategy will be out in due course.

On that point, the hon. Member for Walthamstow talked about safety. I think it is wrong to scaremonger to people. We are taking this matter extremely seriously. Yes, we have left the EU and its system, but we will have our own very safe system. We are working with the Health and Safety Executive as well on our future chemicals regime. We are not deleting thousands of laws. Of course we have the Retained EU Law Bill. I will be going through all the laws that relate to my portfolio in DEFRA, which includes chemicals. We are taking that very seriously indeed.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister does not quite recognise the seriousness of the questions that I ask if she thinks that it is scaremongering to ask them. She said that she is going through the Bill, so can she confirm that the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012 and Regulation (EU) 2018/858 should both be on the dashboard? One is and one is not, but both are affected by this SI. Ministers should not confuse being scared of answering these questions with being asked to be accountable for the detail of the consequences of their actions.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will write to the hon. Member with the detail so that we get it correct. She needs the exact details, so I will get back to her about the 2012 regulations and their treatment under the ongoing regime of the Retained EU Law Bill. I think that is the best way to leave that, so that she gets a satisfactory answer.

Of course, under the Retained EU Law Bill, we will be going through all the laws and retaining everything that needs to be retained. We will also look at whether some laws need tweaking, altering or changing, and make sure that we have a whole regime that is bespoke to us.

I thank the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. As he recognised, we have worked very effectively on the draft regulations across all the devolved Administrations.

I think I am going to leave it there. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I have already said that I will get back in writing to the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

[Stella Creasy]

Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to replace the relevant regulations—which I cited—that this SI depends on? Yes or no? It would be incredibly helpful if she could clarify that, as it would mean that this SI was rooted in a firm piece of legislation.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for that. I will put it in writing; I just think that is altogether safer. At the moment, we are dealing with the details of this particular SI; I think she is moving into other territory and not sticking to what we are supposed to be talking about, which is very particular.

I have outlined—I am part of this, as the Minister in DEFRA—that we have already conducted a detailed scoping exercise on the Retained EU Law Bill. We are in the process of analysing all those laws, as I have already pointed out to the hon. Member, and we will of course be looking at all the laws that are critical to keeping not just us, but wildlife and the whole environment safe.

Let me get back to the regulations we are debating today. We have made no changes to existing policy to tackle the restriction and management of POPs. This instrument will ensure that we have the operable regulations that we need to continue to protect the current and future health of the population, wildlife and environment of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. As I have outlined, all the changes introduced by the instrument are technical operability amendments that are required to ensure that the UK is able to continue to implement the Stockholm convention to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs. That is the critical thing that I point out to the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Government Food Strategy

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises some important points. We are watching the situation closely on fertiliser supply. Our current assessment is that production at the Billingham plant, which has the lion’s share of UK production, is continuing. We understand that it has had strong orders during the course of the year and farmers are managing to source their fertiliser by that route. We are also successfully continuing to import fertiliser from countries such as Norway. However, we monitor that closely because it is important that we ensure that farmers can get access to fertiliser, particularly for next year’s winter wheat crop.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will find many of us who will support him in seeing food prices as a massively important issue as we all have constituents who are not choosing between heating and eating because they cannot afford to do either. On the question of how we can cut the cost of food and support British farming, the elephant in the Chamber is that he has not talked at all about the impact of leaving the European Union yet the evidence from the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank is very clear about the impact of that on food prices. The children of this country cannot eat red tape, yet that is exactly what has been imported into this country and is now strangling British farmers. What conversations has he had with his colleagues in the Department for International Trade and with the Prime Minister about how to cut through that and make sure that we can export all our British delicacies and put food on the plates of our constituents?

[George Eustice]

I think the hon. Lady is wrong on food prices for this reason: EU-produced food can still enter the UK completely tariff-free, and at the moment we are not even requiring export health certificates or other paperwork. The impact on food prices of leaving the European Union and the single market is negligible; the real driver of food prices is oil prices and exchange rates, and that has always been the case.

Restoring Nature and Climate Change

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady is right, as is the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who spoke from a sedentary position. Later in my speech, I will make that point.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is exceedingly generous in taking interventions in this important debate. I pay tribute to the Walthamstow Wetlands—I hope they will be on his tour—and to my local authority, which has planted 5,000 trees in the last year alone in Waltham Forest.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is right when she says that we need to look at what Government can do. Many of us are interested in ideas about carbon pricing and how we can further incentivise rewilding as part of tackling climate change. Frankly, it is not enough to leave it to local communities and local authorities, which do individually brilliant things; in this time of climate emergency, we should ask national Government to incentivise rewilding. Does my hon. Friend have a view on that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I had a wonderful day out in Walthamstow with my partner earlier this year, when we came to see some of the wonderful things that have been done there. On the point of urgency, my hon. Friend is right. The conclusion to my speech will lay down the challenge to the Minister about the degree of urgency we face, which I am sure he will respond to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What steps he is taking to reduce the effect of rises in water bills on the cost of living.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to reduce the effect of rises in water bills on the cost of living.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Thank you very much for your welcome, Mr Speaker. May I quickly thank all hon. Members from across the House who have kindly sent me good wishes?

In November, I wrote to water companies stressing the tough times that households are facing and the vital role the industry can play to help reduce costs. Companies have responded positively. Most are holding bills down in 2014-15, with flat or declining bills proposed from 2015. The Government encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable consumers. Three companies now have them in place, with at least nine more expected by 2015.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but two weeks ago his officials told the Public Accounts Committee that his Department did not actually have a target or a measure of what “affordable” means, so when he says that water companies are acting to bring bills down, does he even know what target they are aiming for?

[Mr Paterson]

We believe this is an issue that should be decided locally by local companies consulting local consumers, and I am very pleased at the progress being made by companies in the current review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have explained to the House on a number of occasions, we invite devolved Ministers to attend every Council meeting, which means that we meet them once a month, as there is a meeting virtually each month. In addition, we have meetings at Westminster. As for conacre, the Minister of State raised the issue at last month’s meeting on behalf of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. When she plans to publish her proposals on dangerous dogs.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I am pleased to say that we are close to finalising a package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog owners. We are considering the benefits of compulsory microchipping of dogs, along with requiring the details of non-prohibited dogs to be held on a central database. We will announce these measures very shortly.

[Stella Creasy]

Residents in Walthamstow live in fear of the growing numbers of people in gangs who keep and train dogs to use as weapons and to fight in our local parks. My constituents have now been waiting more than two years for progress on this issue. Will Ministers promise them not just another consultation on tackling dangerous dogs, but real powers, including dog control notices and a responsible dog ownership education programme?

[Mr Paice]

Is it not amazing how we started a new world two years ago, without any reference to the inaction of the previous 13 years? I fully understand the anger of people who have to face gangs of youths using dogs as weapons, which is already unlawful. The Home Office will bring forward its own proposals, separately from our announcement, as a result of the consultation that it has carried out on measures to deal with precisely the issues to which the hon. Lady refers.