| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.8 pm
Mr. Rooker: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). The Bill's two key parts--access to information and improvement of the enforcement mechanism--although discussed only briefly in Committee, were debated to the satisfaction of hon. Members, who considered the matters both before the Bill entered Committee and in Committee. This House is not the final arbiter. Down the corridor, the other place will also look at the Bill in its entirety, and if it is dissatisfied, it will send it back.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter): I reassure the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that although I have taken on a Bill that was around for a long time and dusted it off, that does not mean that I do not feel strongly about the issues that it raises. The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) made the important point that there is growing public concern. There is also a certain amount of scientific evidence that increases concern about long-term effects of pesticide use and consumption, especially in relation to cancer and infectious diseases.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I want to make it clear that I have no objection to the Bill. I object to the Bill, worthy as it may be, not being debated in Government time. The Government have pinched private Members' time.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am not here to defend a system about which I am still learning after only 10 months in the House.
The hon. Member for Hexham also said that the Bill was draconian. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that it was a dormouse of a Bill. I hope that it is rather more than that, and that it is not as draconian as the hon. Member for Hexham would have us think. Some of the measures that he mentioned, such as bursting into people's homes and boarding hovercrafts and boats, are in the original Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which is nothing to do with my Bill. This Bill simply makes the enforcement procedure fairer and more effective. He may also have overlooked the fact that the Bill is concerned with not only pesticides in agriculture but those used in people's homes. To deprive enforcement officers of the possibility of being able to enter a home and take photographs, or to pass other measures in the amendments that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wanted to move, is to lose sight of an aspect of pesticide control.
We have had a full and open debate, and I do not want to hold up procedures any longer. I know that other hon. Members' Bills, about which their promoters feel very strongly, are yet to be discussed. I hope that the House feels that the Bill improves public access and the enforcement system. In the light of recent food scares, it is in the interest not only of consumers but of producers and the industry that public confidence in the safety of food and the environment is increased. It is a question of credibility. I hope that the Bill will help to restore and safeguard that confidence, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Pesticides Bill was described as a mouse of a Bill, but this Bill is protozoan in its modesty. It will, however, significantly improve animal welfare. It is a one-clause Bill intended to perform two functions.
The first function is to give more security and certainty to laws that stipulate that premises where animals are held in quarantine are secure. That ensures that animals do not escape and that any case of rabies does not spread from animal to animal or from animal to human.
The second function is to fill a gap in the law. At the moment, inspectors have no right to enter kennels where there might be misuse of animals. Unfortunately, I have heard of 100 distressing cases of animals being neglected or misused, or where symptoms of ill health have not been spotted. I shall not burden the House with the details.
The quarantine industry is well run. Of the 81 existing kennels, all but five have a good record of abiding by the voluntary code of practice laid down by the Ministry. Three have refused to take part, and two, when examined, did not come up to the necessary standards. Those are improving their standards. I do not wish to name the offending kennels that are not covered by the Bill, because I hope that they will be persuaded by the example set by the Bill and come in and adopt the necessary standards of welfare.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
I welcome the Bill for several reasons, not least because it strikes me as being almost the ideal candidate for private Members' legislation. I say to its promoter, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), that it is modest but important in its aspirations, and relatively non-controversial. It also has another quality that to me is as important as anything: it carries no direct public expenditure implications, and therefore does not require a money resolution or a Ways and Means resolution.
I also welcome the Bill because it seeks to strengthen and reinforce the excellent and long-standing system of quarantine that we enjoy in this country, which I strongly support.
I wonder in passing how possible it is that the intentions and effects of the Bill may give rise to an increase in costs at kennels, and therefore in charges made for quarantine purposes. To the extent to which that may happen, could the Bill risk deterring people from going through the proper quarantine procedures, and encourage them to seek to evade the rules?
There is a balance to be struck--I accept what the hon. Member for Newport, West said about that--between making quarantine secure and attractive, and causing any danger of costs escalating to the point where we could move in the opposite direction and find that we were deterring people from using quarantine properly. I mention that possibility simply to put down a marker.
There is another reason why I welcome the Bill. My eye was caught by an article in the New Scientist on 17 January, entitled, "Price of Pet Freedom". It pointed out that, apart from safeguarding us against rabies, which is the element of the system usually mentioned,
That important element of our quarantine system is sometimes overlooked, and people tend, understandably, to discuss it more narrowly in terms of rabies alone. The fact that they then construct an argument for doing away with our quarantine provisions is wrong, based on that narrow view, and regrettable. One of the valuable aspects of the Bill is that, to the extent to which it strengthens our quarantine provisions and makes them more secure, it helps to perform a useful public service, in trying to ensure that those other diseases do not come into this country.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
I, too, support the Bill, but wish to raise just one issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on, as he said, filling a little gap in the legislation. However, one aspect of the impact of the Bill to which he did not refer is that it would allow the Minister to make regulations on animal welfare in quarantine kennels. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has already said that although the minimum standards are acceptable, the code of practice requires higher standards, which should be legislated for.
If the Government use the Bill as a basis for improving welfare standards in quarantine kennels, the owners of those premises will incur costs. I do not wish to debate whether it is right or wrong to improve welfare standards; I am concerned only about the cost that would be incurred as a result.
1.12 pm
"quarantine also guards Britain from other dangerous diseases."
The article continues:
"quarantine kennels regularly detect and treat other animal diseases that are prevalent on the Continent".
It goes on to list some of those. I shall not attempt to do so myself, mainly because I could not pronounce them--but they sound pretty frightening to me.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |