Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have four important Private Members’ Bills to consider today. I draw colleagues’ attention to the advisory speaking time. If we all stick to that, we will be able to leave the House at a reasonable time, and it shows respect to colleagues who come in later.
Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, in England, if you vote at any election, whether it is for Parliament, a local authority, a mayor or a police commissioner, you can apply for a postal or proxy vote online. In Wales and Scotland, you can vote having applied online only for parliamentary or, in Wales, for police commissioner, elections; there is no facility for applying online for a postal vote or a proxy vote for elections to the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd or to local authorities in Scotland and Wales. What happened was that, when the Elections Act 2022 was going through its stages in both Houses, neither the Welsh Senedd nor the Scottish Parliament gave legislative approval for that Bill, for various reasons that your Lordships will probably recall. The consequence was that the ability of Welsh and Scottish electors to apply online for postal votes was not passed. This Bill will ensure that that anomaly is overcome—and it is absolutely vital, because it is very important that people in this digital age can apply for votes online.
Bizarrely, some 10 or so years ago, the then Prime Minister decided to make me the Minister for Digital Inclusion. It was a particularly odd appointment, alongside my being Welsh Secretary. But it was very interesting, and I discovered and learned a lot—how in those days 17 million people were not online. In this digital age, being able to apply online for a postal or proxy vote has become infinitely more important, to such an extent that in the last general election, of 2024, 84% of those who applied for postal votes in Great Britain did so online, as did 93% of those who applied for proxy votes.
The provision for online voting is made by the United Kingdom digital service, run by the United Kingdom Government, which is why we are debating this issue here in this Chamber and why it is not being debated initially in the Chambers of the Welsh Senedd or Scottish Parliament.
The Bill is supported by all the parties, and it is obviously supported by the United Kingdom Government. It has the backing of the Electoral Commission and, most significantly, it is supported by the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The Bill was sponsored in the other place by my honourable friend Tracy Gilbert, the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh North and Leith. It passed its Third Reading on 4 July 2025.
The Bill has three main provisions. First, the Scottish and Welsh Governments can bring forward regulations to enable electors to apply for postal and proxy votes online, using the United Kingdom digital service, which is a reserved issue. Powers would be given to Scotland and Wales to make secondary legislation to include an identity verification recommendation, which would be the national insurance number—or, if that cannot be used, alternative evidence. It will align postal voting cycles; electors will have to reapply for postal or proxy votes every three years, with renewals for devolved elections matching the reserved elections.
That is the basis of the Bill in front of us this morning. I shall briefly go through each clause—it is a very short Bill, as noble Lords can see. Clause 1 will enable regulations to be made that would allow electors in Scotland and Wales to make and submit applications online for absent voter arrangements for local elections using the UK digital service. Therefore, if you were voting for a Scottish or a Welsh council, this clause allows you to apply for postal votes online. To support this integration of absent voting applications for Scottish and Welsh local government elections into the UK digital service, it enables regulations to be made that will apply the same identity checking requirements used in reserved absent voting applications to devolved voting applications. Noble Lords will have heard me say that it is the national insurance number that will be the usual identification there. Clause 1 will also enable a route for any elector who is unable, for whatever reason, to provide a national insurance number to submit documentary evidence to confirm their identity.
The clause amends the time for which postal voting arrangements for local elections remain valid in Scotland and Wales. Postal voting arrangements are currently potentially indefinite, with a signature refresh requirement of five years for local and devolved parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. This will now align it with the rest of the United Kingdom, so it will be set at a maximum of three years before the elector has to reapply. This is important for electors, obviously, who would find it confusing and inconvenient to have different postal voting arrangements lengths for different types of elections.
Amendments were made in Committee in the Commons to Clause 1 to enable Ministers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to make transitional provisions for proxy voting arrangements for devolved local government elections.
Clause 2 enables regulations to be made to allow people to apply online for a postal or proxy vote for the elections to the Scottish Parliament. As the digital service is reserved to the United Kingdom, those provisions also ensure that Scottish Ministers may not make regulations under this clause without the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, where those provisions relate to the UK digital service. I understand that there have been extensive discussions between the Governments of Scotland, Wales and the United Kingdom on this aspect—I cannot see any difficulty on this in times ahead. Clause 3 does the same for the Welsh Senedd.
Clause 4 will provide for commencement and inserts a power to make a transitional or saving provision. That power allows provision to be made to align the expiry dates of postal voting arrangements of a person where they already hold a postal vote for both UK parliamentary and devolved elections and provides for the ending of existing postal voting entitlements for devolved elections. In some very limited cases, it may be necessary to end existing postal vote arrangements for devolved elections. Finally, Clause 5 refers to the territorial extent and name of the Bill.
When this Bill receives Royal Assent, it will then go to Edinburgh and Cardiff so that the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru can pass their own regulations. There are ongoing discussions with the devolved Governments about the timeframe for those changes. It is my sincere and earnest hope that, in Scotland and Wales in May next year, people will be able to apply online for postal and proxy votes for the hugely important elections in those two countries. I beg to move.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I first voted in favour of Sunday opening in Pembrokeshire many years ago. I could attempt the Welsh; I think I would probably get it correct, but I fear that there are others here who might be more precise on the pronunciation. I was then a parliamentary candidate in Carmarthen—my first effort to get elected to this Palace. I might describe myself as having come a distant extra.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord in introducing his Bill; I also hope it will reach the statute book and can be fully operational in time for the important elections next year. I echo the comments of Paul Holmes in the other place that it is
“a sensible and timely move to enhance voter access and uphold the integrity of our electoral system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/25; col. 595.]
That is a good summary of the Bill.
I will make only two comments on this legislation, one addressed to the Government and the other a broader comment on the process of Private Members’ Bills. The PACAC report HC 487 says in its opening summary:
“There is a clear consensus in our evidence around the necessity and benefits of simplification and consolidation of electoral law. We are concerned that the Government do not share this view and so have called on them to make their position clear”.
I think we will hear comments from all around the Chamber today advocating that electoral law is a mess at the moment and should be substantially consolidated as soon as possible. I welcome this legislation because it is a small step in that direction.
My other comment is addressed more to the authorities of this House and the Commons. Most Members are not aware that when Private Members’ Bills from this House complete the process here, they go to the bottom of the pile of the overall process in the Commons. When Private Members’ Bills come here from the other place, they go to the top of the pile. The authorities in this House try to make sure that Private Members’ Bills have completed their stages as much as possible so that, before we start receiving legislation from the other place, there is no interruption of our efforts, but it makes it virtually impossible for Private Members’ Bills from this House to become law. I am fortunate in that I was the last Member of this place to have got a piece of legislation—an electoral law change, the Ballot Secrecy Act—on to the statute book, but it is much more difficult from this House. I encourage all the authorities involved to look at this anomaly by which we are treated disadvantageously in relation to Private Members’ legislation.
I support the Bill and hope it makes rapid progress through this House on to the statute book because, as the noble Lord said, it is important that these changes are in full operation for the elections next year.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and congratulate him on bringing this Bill so speedily before this House. Now that Wales has much better digital services and the young use digital means in preference to postal and other services, it is a timely measure. I wish to make two comments.
First, we ought to congratulate those in the other place, particularly Tracy Gilbert, on getting this Bill into such good shape. It shows that that House is capable of doing something that normally has to be done in this place. That is a lesson to be learned. The other place really does deserve congratulations.
Secondly, and a point which flows from that, we ought to show that we can do our bit to get legislation speedily through. We have to go through each part of the processes, because that is essential for its constitutional integrity, but it seems to me that if there is really very little to be done, this ought to be done quickly. The reason for that is that this needs to be law by the end of October. It is traditional to allow at least a month off for Christmas, which is realistic though maybe not desirable, and so if this is to be in effect in time for the Senedd elections in Wales and the parliamentary elections in Edinburgh, it must be passed. Can we as a House match what the other place has done?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I strongly welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the Bill introduced by my honourable friend Tracy Gilbert. As has been said, and I am sure we all agree, it is vital to ensure that all electors are able to participate in the process and choose those who represent them. While many people will continue to vote in person, there are those who face challenges that make this difficult or even impossible. Absent voting arrangements—the option to vote via post or proxy—are vital.
As has been said, currently, voters in UK Parliament elections can make use of the online absent vote application process, alongside the traditional paper application process. So too can voters in England and Wales, I think, to vote for police and crime commissioners, and it can be used in all local government elections in England. However, voters in Scotland and Wales do not have that option in devolved elections, which puts them at a disadvantage and can mean some voter confusion.
This Bill gives the Scottish and Welsh Governments powers to regulate to allow absent voting applications to be made online in devolved elections. This will cover both postal and proxy votes enabled through the use of the UK digital service. Given the proximity and profile of the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales, this is an important Bill which provides the key means to address the confusion and inconsistencies that could potentially face voters in Scotland and Wales. My understanding is that, if the Bill is passed within the timeframe, it will give those involved in the delivery of elections, and those participating, enough time to manage such processes.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Tracy Gilbert MP, whose work I know well. She is thorough, extremely competent and assiduous, which is clearly evident in her handling of this legislation. She has consulted widely and has the support of key electoral stakeholders, including the Electoral Reform Society. Furthermore, this Bill has cross-party support. I am pleased to note the respect for devolution that runs through this legislation and in the handling of it. I am particularly pleased to emphasise the positive co-operation and agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments. That has not always been the case, but it is happening now, and this enables us to be confident in the handling and content of the legislation.
Moreover, as the noble Lord said, the Bill includes alignment of postal voting cycles across devolved and reserved elections, and the alignment of identity verification requirements, all of which improves consistency and efficiency. This ultimately leads to improved electoral arrangements and voter experiences, which can only assist in greater voter participation. I reiterate my support and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and Tracy Gilbert. These are necessary steps that have to be taken and which, I hope, can be implemented in time for the important elections in 2026.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, as introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, this Bill has a simple yet important aim: to make it easier for voters in Wales and Scotland to apply for postal and proxy voting. It achieves this by giving the Welsh and Scottish Governments the necessary powers to bring forward regulations for devolved elections. In my brief remarks today, I will focus on Wales.
The use of postal voting in Wales has continued to rise. At the 2021 Senedd election, over 458,000 postal votes were issued—an increase of 16% since 2016. This demonstrates a clear and growing demand for greater flexibility in how people vote. Yet significant challenges remain. In 2023, the Electoral Commission found that nearly 400,000 people in Wales were either incorrectly registered or missing entirely from the electoral register. This appears to be a consequence of an outdated system that disadvantages certain groups, particularly young people, private renters and those who have recently moved. This is especially concerning in Wales, where the franchise has rightly been extended to include 16 and 17 year-olds in Senedd and local elections. The ability to register online for absent voting could alleviate some of this, and that is why I support this Bill. However, I believe we should go further.
In May 2022, 16 and 17 year-olds were able to vote in local elections in Wales for the first time, yet around only one in five registered and turnout among the under-35s was the lowest of all age groups. I return to a point I have raised with the Minister before. As this Government plan to introduce votes at 16 in England too, why not introduce a national voter registration day to mark this important alignment across all parts of the UK? This could be targeted at young people, perhaps during registration class in schools and colleges. If registering to vote takes less than five minutes, why not take five minutes in school to do just that? Previously, the Minister kindly said he would look into this, so I would be grateful to hear if he has given it further thought.
Of course, this must be part of a wider improvement to citizenship education, so that younger people understand not just how to vote but why their vote matters, how to identify misinformation and how to hold decision-makers to account. I certainly enjoy playing my part in this through the Learn with the Lords programme, and we all have a duty to encourage participation in our democracy.
Taking this further, Wales is already trialling automatic voter registration. The pilot scheme is currently underway in Gwynedd, Newport and Powys, testing how automatic voter registration could help reach vulnerable and underregistered groups, including those needing to register anonymously. Scotland has moved in this direction as part of a recent Bill which includes provision to fund the introduction of automatic voter registration at schools, colleges and universities. The UK Labour’s general election manifesto included a commitment to improve voter registration. Will the Minister outline the Government’s current position on automatic voter registration?
To conclude, this Bill represents a simple and positive step towards improving access to democracy in our devolved nations by removing the unnecessary hurdles and enabling Governments to modernise voting procedures. I support this Bill and hope the House will do the same.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, as someone who has spent the vast majority of their career helping to run election campaigns across the UK, I add my support to this common-sense technical legislation. It makes no sense that a voter in Scotland and Wales can apply online for a postal or proxy vote in a UK parliamentary general election but the same voter cannot do the same for local elections, when they could do so if they lived in England. This Bill will resolve that. Bringing the identity check requirements in line with other elections at which online applications for absent voting can currently be made is also sensible. I note there is both cross-party support and Electoral Commission backing for these changes. I expect this legislation to pass without controversy and, as other noble Lords have said, I hope it passes quickly.
However, while all this is welcome, it is a very minor tweak. I take this opportunity briefly to spotlight a broader concern, as already highlighted by my noble friend Lord Hayward. There are currently 100 pieces of electoral legislation and likely thousands of pages of guidance to try to explain it. The Law Commission has described the current system as “complex”. Such complexity does not serve to increase or improve democratic engagement. Indeed, it leads to areas of uncertainty. This means that even the most professional political parties and well-trained professional agents may run the risk of falling foul of the law through no fault of their own. Our politics and the way we campaign are now changing at pace. The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission have all raised similar concerns. The Minister will be pleased to know that I do not propose to set out my views today on how the law should be reshaped, but I believe it is long overdue a full overhaul to consolidate and simplify electoral law very soon.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend, and I agree entirely with the points that he has just made in support of my noble friend Lord Hayward on a consolidation of electoral law. It is long overdue. I declare my interest as a member of the Remuneration Board of the Welsh Senedd, which settles salaries and conditions of employment for Members of the Welsh Parliament and conditions for their staff.
We have today that rare event of a piece of legislation that everybody can support. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on introducing it so lucidly and crisply. I have little to add, except that it is extremely important and I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that we should pass this legislation expeditiously so that it can be brought into force in both Scotland and Wales ahead of the Welsh and Scottish parliamentary elections—that is desirable. In Wales, the Senedd elections are epoch-making; they are very different, so we need to encourage people to vote in them. We have multi-Member constituencies coming forward, a list system, more Members and a lower voting age, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. I associate myself with what she said about encouragement to vote, and I hope the Minister will perhaps say a few words about that very important topic.
I once more congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on bringing this legislation through to your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to it becoming law.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the expertise of many Members of your Lordships’ House in electoral law matters has once again been demonstrated in this debate. From these Benches, we supported the provisions in the Elections Act 2022 to make it easy for people wishing to vote by post or proxy to apply to do so online. Similarly, we now support this Bill to allow the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments to extend the provision of online applications for absent voting to all elections in those countries.
Modernising the conduct of elections encourages participation. It can also cut costs, with the money saved invested elsewhere in our democratic processes. Fundamentally, we need as few barriers as possible to voting, subject of course to measures to maintain the security of the ballot process. I remain concerned that there are more problems with absent voting, and the abuse of the processes involved in it, than with voting at polling stations.
I supported the measures in the 2022 Act to try to deal with postal vote fraud, but the new rules introduced then to prevent parties or candidates harvesting postal votes still seem ineffective and unenforceable. If we make voting by post easier, we must try to do more to make sure that postal votes are completed in proper conditions of secrecy. Can the Minister tell us whether there may be further provision in forthcoming legislation about the security of postal voting in particular?
I have a more fundamental question about our overall approach to electoral legislation. This very sensible measure has come to us by way of a Private Member’s Bill. As the noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Bourne, and other noble Lords have suggested, this highlights the need to reform election legislation not in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way but fundamentally, so that when changes are made—such as those in the 2022 Act—they are not so open to charges of partisan interference in election rules.
For some years, many of us have been hoping for a Government who will accept the Law Commission’s proposal to consolidate all our electoral legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, quoted the Law Commission, and I refer to what it said in 2020:
“Electoral law in the UK is spread across 17 statutes and some 30 sets of regulations. It has become increasingly complex and fragmented; it is difficult to access, apply, and update. Much of the law is rooted in 19th Century language and practice, and doesn’t reflect modern electoral administration”.
Can the Minister please say whether the Government agree with that? Will he stand by his words, his vote and those of all his Labour colleagues in the last Parliament to end the provision for a Secretary of State to direct a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, thereby undermining its independence?
This Bill is a small step in improving our electoral arrangements. Many things need to be put in place to improve them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, said, we need above all to ensure that our systems are modernised so that everybody legally entitled to vote is enabled to do so by being on the electoral register.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all Members of both Houses for their hard work in progressing this Bill. The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, and it is essential that we take the necessary steps to ensure that voting is as accessible as possible for all constituents. I am sure that your Lordships’ House is united in both praise and gratitude for the electoral staff across this country on whom all our democratic rights and freedoms depend.
On this side of the House, we welcome the Bill. It was first proposed under the last Conservative Government and it takes important steps to improve voting accessibility in Scotland and Wales. It also builds on strong foundations, not least the Elections Act 2022. The Act made real progress in strengthening the security of our democracy, including the requirement for digital imprints on online campaign materials.
This Bill implements significant measures to ensure that those who may have accessibility requirements are best equipped to exercise their democratic rights. It is right to make the voting process as seamless as possible for those who may be disabled or have particular challenges; allowing them to register digitally for absent voting takes large steps to ensure that this is the case. However, effective fraud checks are needed for both paper and electronic absent vote applications. Safeguarding the integrity of elections is a core duty of government, and Ministers must act decisively to modernise the system and block malign influence, whether that be domestic or from foreign powers.
That is why I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to working closely with the Electoral Commission and others to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of UK elections and referendums. I urge them to ensure that this is not just rhetoric but reality.
I welcome the provisions of the Bill to ensure devolved voting in Scotland and Wales is in clear alignment with the electoral procedure for the UK-wide elections. The Bill provides Ministers of the Crown and the Scottish and Welsh Governments with powers to regulate how the service is used. This will enable Ministers to provide for and address any issues they may have, whether it be partial completion of applications, signatures or evidence requirements, in a manner they deem most fitting. I support different Governments and legislatures being better equipped to make policy choices for their respective jurisdictions. However, I hope that a large degree of alignment can occur between Governments as far as practically possible to ensure the smooth administration of elections.
While supportive of the provisions the Bill contains to make voting more accessible and efficient, I strongly caution the Government to cease their plans to weaken voter ID requirements. Of course, we should make every effort possible to ensure that voting is made as accessible as possible to all in our democracy, but I urge the Government to think again. The trade-off from loosening the voter ID requirements is simply not worth the considerable risk this would pose to the integrity of the voting process.
In conclusion, we on this side of the House are pleased to be in unity with the Government’s stance on the Bill. The Conservative Party is, and will always remain, the champion of democracy and supports any legislation that empowers people’s democratic rights. That said, we should be cautious of any legislation which could jeopardise the reliability or security of that precious democratic process. I hope the Government take these considerations seriously and work closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure the democratic system operates effectively and with integrity, so that we can all continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms it provides.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with a few words of thanks, first to my honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who has worked very hard in bringing this important Bill through the other place and to this noble Chamber. I also extend thanks to my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. His introductory speech has made clear the benefits of the Bill, and his commitment to working to support it through this Chamber is clear.
I thank all noble Lords for being here today to discuss this important legislation. Postal and proxy voting is an important enabler of democratic participation, one we are proud to champion, and I am pleased to see there is interest across the Chamber in these measures.
The Government share my honourable friend’s commitment to the Bill. At this moment in time, voters in Scotland and Wales can use the online absent vote application service to apply for postal and proxy votes, but only for reserved elections, such as to the UK Parliament. If those same voters in Scotland and Wales wish to use the new online service to apply for an absent vote for a devolved election, then they will find themselves unable to do so. This means any voter in Scotland or Wales who wishes to apply for a postal or proxy vote in a devolved parliamentary or local election still needs to complete a paper application form.
The Bill creates a legal framework to give voters in Scotland and Wales an equal choice in how they apply for their absent voting arrangement for use in Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland and Wales. The Bill also includes some changes to align application procedures, as my noble friend has outlined.
To bring these services online, further regulations will be designed and delivered by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have responsibility for devolved elections. There are clear benefits to introducing the online absent vote application services to voters in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections, for both electors and administrators.
By introducing these services, people in Scotland and Wales will get the choice to apply online for a postal or proxy vote for devolved parliamentary and local elections, as well as retaining the existing option for electors to apply using a paper application, if they wish to do so. One such clear benefit is the removal of the need for duplicate applications to be made by electors if they desire an absent vote for both devolved and reserved elections. This means that electors will spend less time making applications, and administrators will spend less time processing them. The Bill has been welcomed by the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, and those working in the Scottish and Welsh electoral sectors.
I will now quickly respond to some of the points that noble Lords have raised. In particular, the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Hayward and Lord Mott raised consolidation of electoral law. While we understand the calls for consolidation of electoral law, major reform would require careful consideration and an extensive amount of time. A full-scale consolidation and simplification would require an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation; to achieve this would be the job of more than one Parliament.
This Government have an ambitious agenda to improve our elections, including giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all elections and strengthening the rules around donations to political parties. We are focused on delivering that agenda. However, we are cognisant of the challenges facing elections teams and will continue to look at areas which help to modernise and improve electoral process and delivery.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, made a point about automatic registration. We are taking action and laying the foundations to make the registration process simpler and more automated in the coming years. Moving to an automated registration system will happen gradually and will take time. We intend to actively explore and test new and more automated methods of registration. For example, in Wales, the Welsh Government are already piloting approaches to automatic registration, and we will eagerly await the results of those pilots.
The point about a national registration day in schools and colleges is an important one. I assure the noble Baroness that I will take that away to my colleagues in the Department for Education to make that representation and see what more they can do to promote registration among 16 and 17 year-olds, and even 18 year-olds, in the future, so they have more awareness and education of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is right to remind me of what I said about the policy and guidance statement, and my voting record. However, I say absolutely clearly to the House that an independent Electoral Commission which discharges its duties without fear or favour is vital for public confidence in our democracy. The Electoral Commission remains operationally independent, with electoral commissioners and the commission’s executive leadership responsible for determining how the commission should discharge its duties, including its strategic priorities and day-to-day operations.
The action we are taking to strengthen enforcement of the political finance framework will mean significant new powers and responsibilities for the Electoral Commission as a regulator. In light of these new responsibilities, the Government intend to designate a new strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, to reflect the Government’s priorities for elections and the commission’s increased roles and responsibilities.
To conclude, as my noble friend has mentioned, the Bill requires further legislation to be made through the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. The Scottish and Welsh Governments alone have the responsibility to make any decisions relating to implementation. We recognise the drivers behind any decision that the Scottish and Welsh Governments may make, including the importance of communicating clearly with electors, and maintaining the Gould principle as much as possible, to reduce the risk of critical errors undermining electoral integrity.
Regardless of the implementation timetable, the Bill lays the essential foundation for this service to come online for future devolved elections. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments moving forward, including on technical aspects of the Bill’s implementation.
I very much hope that all noble Lords will support this important Bill before us today.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a short but very interesting debate, and I am grateful for the unanimous support across all Benches for this short but important Bill.
If one theme has come through, it is the theme of speed and the necessity for the Bill to go through Parliament, this House and any other stages it might have to elsewhere, but also for the Welsh and the Scottish Governments to pull out all the stops to ensure that next year, people will be able to apply for postal and proxy votes online for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd elections.
Like all of us here, I am unable to vote for Members of the House of Commons. That means that the only postal vote I can apply for is for the police commissioner for Gwent. I hope that next year I will be in a position to apply for a postal vote for the Welsh Senedd, but I rather fancy I will be walking to Llantarnam church hall. I beg to move.
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will know of my enduring commitment to animal welfare. As a veterinary surgeon and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, I have tried to be a vocal advocate on a range of animal health and welfare issues.
I am honoured to present the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill to the House today. I thank all those involved with its successful passage in the Commons, notably the Member for Winchester, Dr Danny Chambers. It is a real pleasure to acknowledge Danny’s contribution, because I was privileged to be one of his academic teachers at the University of Liverpool’s veterinary school when he was a student and I the dean; I got to know him very well at that time. I was heartened to see how well the Bill was received in the Commons, and I am confident that it will achieve broad support in the House of Lords and that, together, we can tackle the illegal pet trade that causes such substantial welfare harm to our most popular pets.
It might be useful to outline briefly some of the history that has led us to the current situation. The Bill covers dogs, cats, and ferrets for two reasons. First and specifically, because they are all highly susceptible to rabies, a terrible and universally lethal viral disease, affecting both animals and humans. Because of their close contact with humans, those species are the most likely source of rabies infections in humans. Secondly, because of more recent criminal misuse of the existing travel rules, the welfare of our most popular pets is being seriously compromised. Before 2000, the UK kept our animals and us free of rabies by requiring all imported dogs, cats and ferrets to undergo six months of quarantine. However, with the advent of effective vaccines for dogs, cats and ferrets, and increasing human travel, substantial public pressure grew to replace quarantine with compulsory rabies vaccinations, thereby allowing people in the United Kingdom to take their pets abroad, often to Europe, and back without quarantine. Since then, however, there has been a huge increase in pet movements, and data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency shows that the number of non-commercial pet movements in 2011 of 100,000 rose to over 368,000 in 2024. That was compared with figures from a 1995 Hansard, which suggest that approximately only 8,000 dogs, cats or ferrets were imported per year before quarantine was abolished.
This huge increase gives rise to concerns that the less stringent pet travel requirements intended for genuine pet owners are being abused by commercial traders, who are moving pets for sale or rehoming, and taking advantage of the increased demand for pets, particularly dogs. Published sources have estimated that we need approximately 950,000 puppies per year in the UK to maintain our current dog population, but there is insufficient UK supply to provide those numbers. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, some of this demand is therefore being met through the illegal imports of young dogs. In 2021, for example, an investigation by FOUR PAWS International found that about 50% of puppy adverts surveyed on the UK’s Gumtree website were found to be of illegal imported origin.
Every responsible pet owner wants to give their new puppy or kitten the best start in life. However, it has become apparent that unscrupulous pet traders are exploiting loopholes in our pet travel rules. Often, these illegally imported animals have been raised in poor conditions abroad, transported for many hours in bad conditions and have arrived in their destinations not in the best of health and perhaps not vaccinated against various puppy diseases. These animals may thus have health and behavioural problems, and may not have socialised properly with humans, which can create serious problems both for the pet and, subsequently, for the owner. This Bill will close these loopholes by making it more difficult and less profitable for these traders to import animals under the guise of owners travelling with their own pets.
Including kittens alongside puppies in the Bill mirrors other key pieces of animal welfare legislation to ensure that there is parity for cats and kittens alongside dogs and puppies. The Bill’s changes to non-commercial pet travel rules also extend to ferrets. As I mentioned earlier, this species is susceptible to rabies, and, as a country, we take our biosecurity very seriously; it is paramount that we continue to protect our rabies-free status as well as improve the welfare of our pets.
On the non-commercial pet travel rules, the Bill will supplement the current rules and close loopholes. It will reduce the number of pets that can be brought into the country in a single commercial movement under these rules, from five per person to five per vehicle, and three per foot or air passenger. Currently, deceitful traders can claim ownership of up to five pets each. Therefore, if you pack a van with five people, you can perfectly legally bring 25 animals into the country under the current conditions. Reducing the number of pets permitted in a non-commercial movement will make it harder and less profitable for disguised trades to take place.
The Bill will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet can take place only within five days of the movement of its owner. The new rules will ensure that pets can be moved only by an authorised person if the owner also completes the same journey within five days of their pet. This addresses a loophole that has been used by traders claiming to be authorised persons as a way of bringing animals into the country commercially for sale. By introducing a tighter link between the owner’s and the pet’s travel, the Bill seeks to ensure that authorised persons are used only by genuine owners for genuine, non-commercial pet movements and not for disguised trade.
The Bill also provides the Government with the discretion to determine that a movement should still be treated as non-commercial, even where it does not comply with the new requirements. This will, in effect, enable the Government to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that groups with protected characteristics—for example, assistance dog users—are not adversely impacted, provided there is sufficient justification for the exemption. The ability to grant exemptions will also allow flexibility in emergency situations, such as when genuine owners are unexpectedly unable to travel within five days of their pet due to medical emergencies, natural disasters or other unforeseen circumstances. The Government have been clear that these exceptions will be granted only in very limited circumstances; they will be tightly controlled and subject to strict criteria to prevent misuse. I am sure the Minister will touch on this later in her response.
In addition, the Bill will introduce a regulation-making power to restrict the low-welfare movement of animals into the UK. The first time the Government use this power, they must do so to restrict the bringing into Great Britain of puppies and kittens below six months old, heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and dogs and cats that have been subjected to non-exempt mutilations, such as cropped ears.
On the minimum age of import of six months, we currently see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or younger, despite current rules prohibiting that This can have health and welfare implications for the animals and, indeed, it transgresses current rabies vaccination requirements. Puppies and kittens can be aged more accurately at six months old, enabling this limit to be successfully enforced.
On pregnancy, if this restriction were not introduced, traders might respond to the restrictions by importing more pregnant pets instead. Therefore, the new regulations to be brought forward by the Bill will prevent dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant—that is two-thirds of the normal gestation—being brought into the Great Britain. At that stage, pregnancy is much more easily judged—for example, by abdominal swelling and mammary gland development.
Finally, the Bill will introduce a power to restrict the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations such as cropped ears and docked tails, and declawed cats. These mutilations are illegal here in the UK, unless they are performed under specific exemptions. If we were to allow animals that have suffered mutilations to be brought into Great Britain, that would undermine the enforcement of the prohibition in the UK.
The main enabling power provides flexibility to introduce exemptions to these prohibitions via secondary legislation. That is a very important point to note; however, such exemptions must be carefully considered to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited.
The Bill introduces a limited power to create criminal offences. These may be created for breaching any of the three prohibitions I have just set out, for breaching any other restrictions or prohibitions that may be created under the main enabling power, for breaching any conditions attached to exemptions to such prohibitions, or for breaching the requirement to carry out checks on animals being brought into the UK.
To aid authorities in enforcement, criminal offences that may be created may also include obstruction offences. The Bill will strengthen the current enforcement regime by introducing powers to make regulations in regard to dogs, cats and ferrets that have been seized or detained. These regulations will enable enforcement bodies to recoup costs associated with care and accommodation, and to rehome animals in cases where they have been abandoned. That is extremely important, because it is very costly to hold on to animals that have been seized. The Bill also provides powers to make regulations which enable monetary penalties to be imposed, in order to strengthen compliance and deter unlawful activity.
The changes the Bill makes to the non-commercial pet travel scheme—including amending the limits on the number of animals permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement, and introducing an express requirement for travel to align closely with the owner’s movements—will apply in England, Wales and Scotland. The Bill grants regulation-making powers that extend across all four nations of the UK: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, the duty to enact the prohibitions the first time the enabling power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. I stress that movements within the UK are unaffected by the Bill.
The Bill is a significant step forward in preventing this cruel trade and will significantly improve animal welfare. It is supported by multiple relevant organisations, including the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS International, Battersea, our Animal Sentience Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, and many others. Two similar Bills in the past few years have not successfully completed their passage through Parliament, for various procedural reasons. In a further consideration of this Bill, let us make this third time lucky. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill and thank our two parliamentary veterinary Members, Dr Danny Chambers in the other place and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for their sponsorship of this measure, introduced with the backing and support of the Government. This is an enabling Bill, setting minimum thresholds on welfare and conditions for the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets, long linked through their susceptibility to rabies. That subsequent and changeable regulations can be introduced following this measure to combat further ingenious exploitations of potential loopholes is to be welcomed as a step change in effective control.
I received many submissions on animal welfare, on dogs in particular, and I declare my interest as a BVA honorary associate. I thank all those who have written to me, and the British Veterinary Association in particular, which has conducted many surveys of its members, who have to deal with the unfortunate consequences of the huge rise in puppy smuggling. I also thank Andreas Milligan of the Metropolitan Police, a police dog handler who is familiar with the circumstances behind this trade, the abuses that occur and the necessary measures to combat them.
This Bill is important to deter the smugglers, improve the welfare of pets during non-commercial importation, reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases entering the UK, and protect potential customers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his excellent introduction to the Bill.
If I have one reservation about the Bill, it concerns what happens to seized pets detained at the borders. The Bill makes little mention of them other than in Clause 1(6) and (7). Can the House understand what provision is envisaged under forthcoming regulations? Clause 1(7)(a) allows for
“a specified person to meet the costs of detaining”
the animal. Crucially, Clause 1(7)(b) enables
“ownership of a dog, cat or ferret to be transferred in specified circumstances”.
Paragraph 24 of the Explanatory Notes does not provide any more clarity. I ask my noble friend the Minister, what is envisaged? If ownership is transferred, could the animal be put down in various circumstances? Furthermore, this provision could be used as a loophole to rehome rescued mutilated animals, defeating the object of the Bill. Can my noble friend provide clarity on this point?
I received many submissions from people anxious that rescue organisations will not be able to help mutilated animals in the future. Can my noble friend confirm that mutilated animals must never be imported and that rescue organisations can continue to receive distressed animals through the commercial route for importing animals?
The RSPCA reports a frightening 2,000% increase in ear cropping over the last 10 years. Does my noble friend agree that more clarity is needed on rescue situations to avoid unnecessary distress?
On further provisions and regulations to brought forward, has my noble friend considered building into future reviews asking front-line officers to come forward as a group with recommendations and reflections on their experiences in undertaking inspections at import points? This could well provide necessary information on how the legislation is working and its effectiveness in ending this malpractice.
I hope the Bill passes without amendment to give it every chance to become law.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for setting out the detail of this Bill and for his long-standing commitment to animal welfare—and, indeed, human welfare. He makes a compelling case for its swift introduction, and I am grateful to him and the Minister for the meeting earlier to discuss the details of the Bill.
I fully support this Bill and hope that it will move through this place quickly and unamended. We know why it is important. We are seeing the exploitation of the current non-commercial route system of imports, and this is impacting animal welfare. We have all heard distressing stories about the treatment of animals being imported through this non-commercial route. We are seeing a burgeoning illegal trade, where criminals are exploiting the current system in an organised and lucrative way, with a clear focus on money rather than the health and welfare of animals. We are seeing a lack of consumer protection, with well-meaning potential pet owners finding it difficult to get the knowledge and reassurance that they would like. So I fully support this Bill, and I hope that in her response, the Minister can come back on a few points.
First, I would like to hear more about enforcement: have the provisions in the Bill been discussed with the police and Border Force, and do they feel that they are sufficient? Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, we have been contacted by organisations concerned that the Bill will stop the rescue and bringing in of animals that have been mistreated through mutilation. Can the Minister confirm whether these organisations should be using the commercial or non-commercial route? If the reduction of the number of animals allowed to five per vehicle, rather than five per person, is not sufficient to stop bad practice, can she confirm that this could be reduced further, though not increased, through secondary legislation? I do not think that we should risk losing this Bill, as we have done previously, by bringing forward any amendments, but I should be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on those points.
Finally, on public education, I am very much an aspiring dog owner, and I hope that one day I will have the opportunity to care for a dog in the way that I would like. Until that day, I bide my time considering where I would find my future dogs: researching both pedigree breeds and breeders and rescue organisations and charities. Of course, it is not just their breeding that can detrimentally impact the future health of a pet; the treatment that they receive in the first few weeks and months of their lives can also have a permanent impact on their behaviour. I speak from experience here, as the owner of two rescue cats that are, sadly, deeply and seemingly permanently traumatised because of abuse that they suffered in the first weeks and months of their lives, most probably at a kitten farm. There is a wealth of information out there, but it can be difficult to navigate to get the assurance that animals have been cared for in a way that any responsible owner would like. Alongside this Bill, is there more that the Government can do to help educate prospective pet owners about what they should look for to ensure that they have a healthy and happy pet?
This Bill, when fully enacted, will lead to a marked improvement in animal welfare. It will tackle the burgeoning illegal trade in animals, and it will improve consumer protection. I hope all noble Lords will support it.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this long-overdue Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on skilfully steering it through this House. My noble friend Lady Fookes has asked me to say how much she wishes she had been able to be here—she is at a long-standing event for the War Widows’ Association—and that she, too, supports the Bill.
I want to talk specifically about the plight of cats and kittens being smuggled into the country. I declare an interest as patron of International Cat Care. I am also grateful to Cats Protection and Battersea for their tireless work in this area. I declare an interest as a cat owner, as I know is the Minister, proud owner of Sid. The commercial market for cats has been changing over the last few years. Cats Protection’s Cats and Their Stats report for 2024 revealed a significant rise in the number of pure bred and pedigree cats in the UK. For the first time, the number of these cats acquired over the last year has overtaken the market for moggies like my own, with significant consequences because of the increase in the smuggling of such cats from abroad. According to the Cats Protection survey, 4% of the cats acquired in the 12-month survey period were from abroad. That is an astonishing 65,000 cats and kittens.
As any cat owner knows simply from a visit to the vet, travel is very traumatic for most cats, particularly for very young ones. It causes severe stress, in turn causing serious clinical symptoms. Yet far too many cats are being transported or smuggled into this country in distressing conditions, often many in a vehicle at the same time. This Bill will help tackle the problem by banning the import of kittens under six months and of pregnant cats in the last one-third of their gestation period, and reducing the number of cats that can enter in a single motor vehicle to five. That is still a large number and, ideally, I think that number should be three per vehicle, which is still a significant number and would not impact in any way on the vast majority of UK cat owners. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the number was set at five, not three.
The result of all that will not just be an improvement in the welfare of imported cats; it will, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, protect humans from imported diseases. Cat smuggling is known to be a public health risk, with some diseases being zoonotic: they can spread from cats to humans, with potentially fatal consequences. We need to ensure we avert that risk.
I have often raised the issue of the horrendous impact on cats of mutilations undertaken for cosmetic or designer purposes. One important aspect of this Bill is to ban the importation of cats with mutilations, particularly those that have been declawed, a barbaric and painful procedure. As noble Lords know, declawing is illegal here, and we must deter any market interest developing in bringing such benighted animals to the UK.
If I have one problem with this Bill, it is that it is enabling legislation, requiring national authorities to make regulations and opening up the possibility of endless consultation and delay. That has become an issue with the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023, the subject of an Oral Question earlier this week. The Minister heard the concern of noble Lords across the House about the delay in implementing it. Two years on from its reaching the statute book, we are stuck in a doom cycle of consultation and delay, highlighting the problem of enabling legislation, We also encountered problems under the last Government with the regulations concerning electronic shock collars, inexplicably delayed before the general election. Nothing has been heard of that since, and cats and dogs are still suffering needlessly. The same thing must not happen to this legislation. I ask for a commitment from the Minister to implement it with the maximum possible speed and not to allow it to become victim to the same problems that have affected other animal welfare laws. With that caveat, I strongly support this Bill and wish it well. Let us get it on to the statute book unamended as soon as possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, when I first read the Title of this Bill, I did wonder about the ferrets, but now I understand, because dogs, cats and ferrets can carry rabies and are kept as pets—although I have never kept a ferret, but, obviously, who knows about the future?
I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black, but I agreed with his closing statement about the need for speed. This is obviously an outline; it will need a lot of subsequent work from all sorts of stakeholders to make sure that it becomes binding legislation, so that it is clear that we can catch criminal gangs and put disturbed, traumatised, vulnerable animals out of their desperate straits.
I strongly support this Bill, as does the Green Party. It seeks to improve animal welfare and reduce the illegal, criminal exploitation of non-commercial pet travel rules. This Bill is apparently also known as the puppy smuggling Bill, because criminal gangs have been exploiting loopholes in the law and avoiding health and welfare checks that the UK strongly requires. This process is going to need a lot of work in future to stop all further illegal exploitation. To stop animals being imported, having experienced great cruelty and becoming very traumatised, is going to be a lot of work. I loathe the whole idea of subsequent legislation that we never get to comment on, but it is, in this case, absolutely crucial.
We know that heavily pregnant bitches are sent in cramped conditions without concern for their well-being or their future. Puppies are removed from their mothers at too young an age, transported in unsafe conditions, possibly unvaccinated, often with mutilations such as docked ears or tails, or cats are declawed. When I first read that, and even reading it now, it made me feel quite ill that we can treat animals in this way.
Having read the background to this Bill, the many emails and briefings, I thank people who have written to me to say that they have fears about the legislation. I understand those fears, and I accept that there could be problems going forward, but I am afraid that this is a Bill that has its time, and its time is now. When I read about animals in war zones that need rescuing and rehoming, I feel incredibly sad for them, but at the same time we have to be sure that here in the UK we have stringent welfare conditions for our animals. Of course, I thank Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for its excellent briefing and strong push to support this Bill. Similar Bills have failed in the past, but we cannot afford to let this Bill not be passed and become legislation, and I look forward to co-operation on all sides of the House. How unusual to have a Bill that everybody supports. It is a real pleasure.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. His veterinarian background gives him great knowledge of and expertise in animals and animal welfare.
I declare an interest as a lover of animals and the proud owner of two dogs and a horse. The thought of animal cruelty is absolutely abhorrent, as is the thought that criminal gangs can dupe new owners into buying sick pets, so I am delighted to support this Bill. Animal welfare is a cause very close to my heart; I spent nine years on the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and I am an honorary BVA associate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said, it is so good to speak on an issue where there has been so much cross-party support, both in the other place and on these Benches today. It carries on the work agreed under the last Government and the former Conservative MP for North Devon, Selaine Saxby, who led the last version of the Bill until it failed simply due to the general election. This Bill has attracted a wealth of backing from the public. I thank the Countryside Alliance, the BVA, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and other organisations for all their briefings.
As we know, the British are a nation of animal lovers. Dog ownership skyrocketed during Covid. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, it has become difficult to fulfil demand in recent years as we do not have enough dog breeders in the UK. If people cannot find an animal in the UK, they look to bring one in from abroad.
As we have heard, the Bill seeks to address animal welfare criminality in the pet trade, and to protect consumers by stopping the illegal trade. Over recent years there has been much in the press, particularly about puppy smuggling and its abuses; my noble friend Lord Black spoke eloquently about the smuggling of cats as well. I gather that in 2023 around 320,000 dogs were imported under travel pet schemes. It can be a very lucrative operation; therefore, it definitely needs strict controls to clamp down on it. However, we must emphasise to the general public that it is perfectly possibly to import a puppy legally, as many people do.
A number of the pets that arrive here, having been smuggled into the UK, are in poor health or traumatised. I welcome the sensible new clause on pre-testing to avoid diseases entering the UK. At the moment, the UK is rabies-free; it is extremely important that it remains so.
The Bill also addresses loopholes around horrid mutilations that are now illegal in the UK, such as ear cropping, tail docking and cats having their claws removed. Like my noble friend Lady Sugg and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I have received many emails from people who are worried about older animals that have already had their ears cropped and have had a most terrible start in life and who want to give them a new home. Perhaps that could be addressed in the implementation of the Bill, with strong guidelines put out.
Nothing can be more heartbreaking for a family than acquiring a pet only to find that it is very unwell or that it dies young. Pets that are unsocialised from a young age, especially dogs, can also develop difficult behavioural problems or, in some cases, become dangerous. I put on the record, however, the importance of having thorough, thought-through and consulted-on secondary legislation in due course. Can the Minister tell us whether the department already has teams working in parallel on secondary legislation drafts so that they can be brought forward quickly? Like others, I emphasise that we want this Bill to pass and to be implemented so that we can stop this terrible, illegal trade.
To conclude, this Bill builds on the work of the previous Government in strengthening UK animal welfare. I wholeheartedly support it.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Trees for his introduction to the Bill. I wish the House to note my registered interests. First, I have been a dog owner for many years, enjoying the benefits, both physically and mentally, of owning one for so long. I also work for, and am a shareholder in, a large independent veterinary practice, and I represent an organisation on the British Veterinary Association’s council.
I fully support this important Bill as a supporter of animal welfare. I know how critical it is that this House does its job and scrutinises the Bill, but I hope that we do not table any amendments that may change the Bill and instead make these changes via secondary legislation, as other Peers have stated. I congratulate Danny Chambers MP on bringing the Bill back to the Commons and through its stages in the other place. I also thank the Government—especially the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—for supporting the Bill.
I turn to some of the reasons why the Bill is so important. First, my noble friend Lord Trees mentioned biosecurity. We are rabies-free, and we must continue to be so. Also, the veterinary industry has seen a rise in the number of cases of the infectious disease brucellosis, which has increased due to the import of dogs. This disease is highly infectious, and pet owners and veterinary staff handling pets are at risk. At our practice, if dogs are tested and found to be infected, in most cases we would recommend euthanasia, which is an awful outcome and is distressing for both the pet—obviously—and its owners.
Hundreds of thousands of dogs, cats and ferrets are imported illegally into this country in poor conditions. They suffer long journeys when very young or when heavily pregnant, which is not good and awfully cruel. We also need to close the loophole that allows the cruel, illegal mutilation of dogs’ ears, tail docking and the declawing of cats by uncaring, fashion-obsessed pet owners who claim that these pets are imported. We need to improve the protections for the pet-owning, pet-purchasing public so that they can buy pets that have had reasonable upbringings.
I have questions and concerns, many of which were addressed in Wednesday’s briefing; I thank my noble friend Lord Trees and the Minister for attending. Enforcement is an area on which we will need to continue to focus once this Bill has been passed into law—quickly, I hope—with regard not only to the import of pets but to animal welfare in general and to biosecurity at ports and the control of animal diseases. Can the Minister find time in her busy schedule to keep enforcement on the agenda and to support Border Force staff and local authorities in enforcing the protective laws that we have in place?
I turn to access to the country via Northern Ireland and its relationship with the Republic of Ireland under the Windsor Framework. There is a possibility that criminal gangs can use this route to import pets in larger numbers. I heard what was said at the briefing, but I ask the Government to continue to keep a close eye on the number of pets crossing the Irish Sea, to continue working closely with the EU on illegal pet movement and to make sure that Northern Ireland does not become a route and a loophole.
I am sure that other noble Lords have, like me, been contacted by dedicated, caring and loving people who rescue abandoned or mutilated dogs in Europe and bring them back to this country for care and loving homes. The majority of these cases are genuine, but criminal gangs do use this to bring dogs into this country; we need to close this loophole. I ask the Minister, in summing up, to reassure those good-hearted individuals that we will look at how we can possibly accommodate the rehoming of these unwanted and mutilated pets through secondary legislation or via commercial importing routes. We have to pass this Bill to protect both the large number of pets that are cruelly transported to this country and the pet-owning community in this country.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for sponsoring the Bill. I welcome this latest iteration and the Government’s support for it. It is only right that we on these Benches acknowledge that we initially introduced it but failed to bring it to fruition. Because it has taken us so long to get to this point, there is definitely a feeling of, “Let’s just get this done”. In that spirit, I will make only a couple of points; they were made way back when but are, I think, worth mentioning again now.
As others have mentioned, it is good news that the change in the non-commercial pet travel rules will reduce the number of animals that can be brought into the country from five per person to five per vehicle. Like the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I would be interested to know how that figure was reached. Perhaps the Minister could explain the thinking in her response.
The Dogs Trust national dogs survey in 2021, based on responses from over 240,000 owners, estimated that 97.7% of them had three dogs or fewer. Despite the drastic reduction, five still seems a generous, and potentially even unnecessary, figure, given that those two animals could provide a decent profit incentive for the many smugglers who exploit this route. Like any black market industry, people will choose the method with the greatest margin at the lowest risk. Therefore, frustrating as enabling powers can be, I am pleased to see one in the Bill allowing for penalties to be looked at through regulations. We all know that you get a tougher sentence for smuggling cigarettes than for smuggling puppies.
The second point relates to the importing of pregnant dogs. In recent years there has been a change in approach as people have realised that smuggling a pregnant dog is a better way to reduce risk and maximise profits, given that the average litter is five to six puppies and with larger breeds having litters of up to 12. Since 2019, the Dogs Trust has taken in 177 pregnant dogs, which demonstrates the escalating nature of the trade. I should declare an interest, as one of those dogs gave birth to my own dog, a charcoal labrador called Tess.
I am pleased to say that Tess now lives an utterly indulged and very happy life, but it has not been so easy for her mother. The professionals at the Dogs Trust believe that, despite her young age, when she came to them from Hungary she was on her second or third litter. She was in a bad way physically and mentally. She was too frightened to go outside for many months and was completely unsocialised. We cannot ever know the exact conditions in which she was kept, but the assumption is that she was locked up or chained up inside for most of her life. It is also possible that she was transported to the UK to give birth, transported back to Hungary to become pregnant again, transported back to the UK and so on. It is a vile merry-go-round, which charities say is on the increase.
It is good that the Bill will prohibit the import of dogs more than 42 days pregnant, but would a complete ban on the commercial movement of pregnant dogs into the UK be more effective? Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the Dogs Trust, a fantastic organisation, I am pleased to say that it succeeded in rehoming Tess’s mother, but it was touch and go and she paid a terrible price in terms of her health and welfare. I am not sure of the circumstances in which it could be deemed necessary to move a pregnant dog for commercial reasons but perhaps the Minister can explain further. I know that she is genuinely committed to animal welfare, personally and in her position in government.
On both my points, the Bill still provides a significant improvement on the current situation. I am with the majority who say, “Let’s just get this done, and get it done unamended”.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I support the Bill wholeheartedly and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on introducing this excellent legislation to this House. On many occasions, this subject has been raised in Private Members’ Bills. I hope that this time we will get it through.
This is about raising concerns on the legal and illegal puppy trade, the age at and distressing conditions in which animals are transported, and the very real threat of dog-to-dog and dog-to-human disease. The current rules remain worryingly vulnerable to abuse. Puppies and kittens are still being imported far too young, legally and illegally, often in appalling conditions and too often with falsified or unsatisfactory health documentation. These animals and their parents continue to suffer greatly, and the unsuspecting families who purchase them are left heartbroken when the animals fall ill or die prematurely. The Bill seeks to tackle those harms by restricting the import of puppies and kittens under six months of age, by prohibiting the importation of heavily pregnant animals and by clamping down on the cruel practice of cropping dogs’ ears or docking their tails abroad only to sell them here, as mentioned by many noble Lords.
The Bill also closes loopholes in the pet travel scheme which have been exploited by unscrupulous traders masquerading as private owners. I also wish to raise awareness of the new documentary, “Dogspiracy”, which highlights commercial dog breeding in the USA and follows Dr Marc Abraham OBE, an English vet, as he seeks to stop the cruel puppy mill industry, end puppy smuggling and ban US pet stores from selling puppies. Marc is the founder of the successful “Lucy’s law” campaign to ban third-party commercial puppy dealing, thus making all breeders accountable, and he provides the secretariat for the All-Party Dog Advisory Welfare Group, of which I am proud to be an officer.
The Bill is not just about protecting animals but protecting the public. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, rabies, brucellosis, tapeworm and several other serious diseases remain ever-present risks. By strengthening import rules and improving enforcement, the Bill reduces the chance of devastating outbreaks, thereby safeguarding human health and the health of our domestic pet population.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, mentioned the movement of young puppies from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Under the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland continues to follow elements of EU law on pet travel. That creates a serious loophole. The 2019 amendment to the 2018 regulations permits breeders to sell puppies under a pet sales licence, rather than a breeder’s licence, if the dog was bred overseas. This enables breeding to take place in facilities that can evade scrutiny and provide no guarantee of meeting English licensing standards. Therefore, young puppies bred in large numbers in Northern Ireland can be legally moved into Great Britain and sold legally in pet shops without having been seen with their mother.
The 2019 regulations mean that there are now two distinct sets of standards for puppies sold in England, depending on whether they are bred here or abroad. Under the former, strict scrutiny of the breeding premises is required and the puppy can be sold only from the place of birth and in the presence of the mother—Lucy’s law. Under the latter, these important protections are absent, with all the potential for negative consequences on puppy welfare and socialisation and on human and puppy health. This loophole needs closing as soon as possible.
In closing, can the Minister tell the House how the Bill will interact with the Windsor Framework? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the route from Northern Ireland to Great Britain does not remain a weak link in our efforts to curb the inappropriate legal and cruel illegal puppy trade?
I should finally give mention to Jeanie, a rescue Scottish terrier who died recently, sadly. As other noble Lords have said, when people get pets they must look at taking a rescue dog as an option—a very good option.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my Liberal Democrat colleague and vet, the honourable Dr Danny Chambers, MP for Winchester, on tabling this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, his veterinary teacher, for sponsoring it in the Lords, and the Minister for working with them both to make this a Bill backed by the Government. The Bill represents a vital step forward in tackling the deplorable practices of puppy smuggling and the cruel importation of mutilated and severely stressed animals.
The veterinary profession, including Dr Danny Chambers, has been campaigning on this issue for over 10 years, so it is great that he has been able to deliver this much needed change in the law just one year after becoming an Member of Parliament. Danny Chambers continues the Liberal Democrats’ track record of animal rights advocacy, including improving standards of animal welfare in agriculture and ensuring the protection of funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit. It was Liberal Democrats who ended the practice of housing chickens in battery cages during the coalition Government. We continue to strongly believe that we should be ending live exports of all animals. The Bill is an important step towards those wider goals.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches, like the other parties, are united in asking that no changes be made to the Bill within the House of Lords so that this legislation can be passed as quickly as possible That is because dogs and cats—and ferrets—cannot wait any longer. The scale of the problem is alarming. The current system has proven vulnerable, with commercial imports frequently disguised as non-commercial movements to deliberately bypass more stringent requirements. The Animal and Plant Health Agency reported that, in 2022, the import of pet dogs into the UK had gone up by 43% since 2020.
I thank Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for its detailed briefing in support of this Bill—and for our own, much-loved rescue cat. The story from Battersea of Milo the Dobermann puppy is enough to break any heart. He was born in the UK but, using the current loophole that this Bill sets out to fix, his ears were cropped using cotton thread, not surgical thread, and his tail was docked—all illegal in this country but done here because the protections are not strong enough. He came to Battersea at six months and, following surgery and support, I am delighted to report that he now lives with a loving family and his older Dobermann mentor. People can get away with this and claim that Milo came from abroad; therefore, this barbarism can been meted out to dogs like Milo here in England—likewise for the horrific declawing of cats that we have heard about.
The Bill also addresses several critical issues that have long concerned animal welfare advocates. It seeks to raise the minimum age for imported dogs and cats from 15 weeks to six months. This ensures that young animals are not separated from their mothers too early, allowing them to develop adequately before undergoing potentially long and stressful journeys that can have a lasting impact on their temperament and health.
These measures, and others already described by many Peers, are essential not only for animal welfare but for human public health, as they reduce the risk of importing diseases such as rabies.
The Bill has widespread cross-party support, evidenced by today’s debate, and has been warmly welcomed by leading animal welfare organisations. The RSPCA has explicitly supported the proposals. The British Veterinary Association sees the Bill as a vital tool to end puppy smuggling. Dogs Trust, which was also mentioned, a charity that has campaigned against puppy smuggling for over a decade, is “delighted” that the Bill will finally address this “cruel trade”.
Some have raised the issue of the numbers—five pets per vehicle—feeling that it is arbitrary in some way. However, I thank Danny Chambers, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the Minister for the extremely useful meeting earlier this week and the clear explanation of support for this number from animal welfare organisations and the EFRA Select Committee, and the need identified by those in the disability sector. I also thank the Minister for her explanation that further regulations will be able to reduce that number in the future if it is deemed necessary.
I urge all noble Lords to support this vital legislation. It is a testament to what can be achieved when Parliament works as a united team. I thank Dr Danny Chambers MP again for his initiative and unwavering commitment to animal welfare. He is a recent and superb addition to this Parliament. The Bill is a beacon of progress on animal welfare, and I wish it a speedy legislative journey.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in view of the importance placed on controlling rabies in the Bill, I need to tell the House about a campaign run by me and my noble friend Lord Deben when we were Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1990. I was tempted to wear our campaign T-shirt for the whole of this debate—it says, “Rabies: bringing it in is madness”—but I thought it may not be for the decorum of the House if I were to do so. I do not have any spare ones for sale. It proves the point that, if you hang on to something for 30 years, it may have relevance again one day.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on taking through this very important Bill. He has my full support and that of the Official Opposition. It is long overdue, and we all look forward to it being on the statute book. Animal smugglers are despicable people, since they are making money from animal cruelty and doing it over and again. Personally, I would add cropping of their ears to the penalties in the Bill, but I suspect that the Sentencing Council would not approve of that.
The figures showing that, in 2023, 500 cases of illegal cat and dog imports were intercepted at Dover are appalling. That is just one port out of many where port health spotted the activities. It is just the tip of a very large iceberg of animal cruelty as racketeers make money from this inhumane trade.
What does non-commercial mean? It is people like you and I, ordinary animal lovers, bringing in a cat or dog we have seen abroad and adopted. They want it as part of their household, not to sell on. That is usually a one-off—not a weekly occurrence, as we now see, with cars and vans stuffed full of animals, possibly with five people bringing in 25 cats and dogs at any one time.
Reducing the number to five per vehicle is right, and, as other noble Lords have said, I would personally have gone further and reduced it to three for vehicles and one for aircraft. Why would any individual or non-commercial owner want to bring in five cats or dogs at any one time?
That is bad enough for fit and healthy animals, but this vile trade is now bringing in heavily pregnant cats and dogs and very young puppies and kittens. Not content with that cruelty, they are also bringing in dogs with their ears cropped and cats with their claws ripped out. Therefore, I warmly support the restrictions on bringing in pregnant cats and dogs which are more than 42 days pregnant, and puppies and kittens which are younger than six months. That is wise and right.
People who care about pet cats and dogs want to accompany them in transit if at all possible and not to bung them in a hold. I therefore like the idea of animals being accompanied by the owner. If I had a free hand—it is probably fortunate that I do not—I would not have permitted the exemptions in the rest of proposed new Article 5A.
On mutilations, I am in complete support of the provisions. I can see some veterinary merit in shortening the tails of working dogs by qualified vets when the puppies are very young, since long bushy tails in Spaniels can get tangled in gorse and brambles when they are working. However, there is no veterinary nor medical justification for cropping of dogs’ ears. It is a disgusting fashion fad which needs to be outlawed everywhere. Therefore, bans on bringing in dogs with cropped ears are essential.
I sympathise with those caring animal welfare groups who rescue damaged and mutilated animals from Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, but the disease risks are great, and each animal needs to be thoroughly checked out. Also, bringing in rescue dogs with cropped ears gives the impression to the rest of the people in the UK that it is a perfectly okay practice, and it is not.
I press the Government to go further on ear cropping. We dare not amend the Bill, since it might not get through, but we need a ban on selling ear-cropping equipment in this country. I could not believe it when my honourable friend Dr Neil Hudson MP said in the other place that one could still buy that kit in this country even though cropping is illegal. So, two days ago, I did a Google search to buy dog ear-cropping kit. There are dozens of sets for sale in this country—legally. You can get “Ear Cropping Guide Clamp with Teeth Pitbull Dog Ear Cropping Tools” from AliExpress for just £29.99 and “Terrier Ear Cropping Trimming Clamps Set” on eBay for £130.25. They all have coloured photographs showing these things: there are two blades, six inches long, with serrated teeth and thumbscrews at the end; you stick the dog’s ears in between, you tighten the thumbscrews, and the serrated teeth cut the ears off. I make no apology for that sickening description, because people should be aware of what these things are and the suffering they cause for no good reason.
Then we come to ripping out the claws of cats. Why in the name of God would anyone do that? Removing the ability of a cat to use a scratching post is like trying to remove their purring ability. It is an important part of the cat’s personality. If people do not want a cat to scratch their sofa, then they should buy those excellent scratching posts with the sisal cords on them—or do not buy a cat in the first place if you do not like its natural behaviour.
Again, we do not have the time to propose an amendment to the definition of mutilation in Clause 1(9), but it does not go far enough in my personal opinion—indeed, it would probably be for another Bill—but, at some point, we have to tackle the other cruelty of breeders deliberately breeding dogs with genetic defects knowing full well that the progeny will suffer those defects as well. I raise this issue here; it is not relevant to the Bill, but I cannot see any other opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future.
The prime example is the Shar Pei dog, where some breeders let them have litters in the full knowledge that the puppies, when older, will have ingrowing eyelashes, which is called entropion. A study by the Royal Veterinary College in London showed that 18% of Shar Pei have ingrowing eyelashes. Can noble Lords imagine how painful that must be? The Shar Pei breed has very wrinkled skin, and 16% of them suffer ear infections because their skin covers their ears.
Unscrupulous breeders are also deliberately breeding dogs with hip dysplasia, especially retrievers, causing arthritis in the hip joints, pain and suffering. Cavalier King Charles spaniels and dachshunds are at risk of heart valve disease. Boxers and bulldogs suffer irregular heartbeats and sudden death. One of the new growing problems is brachycephalic syndrome—the fad for dogs with flattened faces, meaning the poor things cannot breathe. That mainly affects bulldogs, Boston terriers, pugs, Pekingese, Shih Tzus, and Cavalier King Charles spaniels.
Animal welfare must not suffer because fatuous and inconsequential actresses want a cute little designer dog to fit into their Gucci handbag. That goes for equally bubble-headed male actors as well. The point here is not that I am seeking to stop animals ever contracting assorted diseases that happen in nature but to stop breeders deliberately breeding animals that they know from the bloodstock will inevitably have those cruel and debilitating diseases.
As I said, those issues are not for this Bill, but I appeal to the Government to take action on them. Will the Minister ask her Chief Veterinary Officer for a report on genetic defects in dogs, and then perhaps call a meeting with her officials, the BVA and the Royal Veterinary College to see what can be done to stamp out the deliberate breeding of dogs that will suffer cruel defects in later life? It is apparently illegal at the moment to do it, but it is happening time and again. It is happening deliberately, and it ought to be stopped. If some breeders are breeding animals that they know will suffer horrendous and painful health problems, that is about as evil as declawing and ear cropping.
Finally, I turn back to the Bill and enforcement. Inevitably, because of the inadequacies of the Northern Ireland protocol—now the Windsor Framework—our friends in Northern Ireland will not get the benefit of the Bill. So, not only will the animal welfare of cats and dogs in Northern Ireland continue to suffer but there could be a big loophole, as other Peers have commented. What is to stop the smuggler crooks bringing the animals into Northern Ireland and then funnelling them into Great Britain? I understand that Northern Ireland may have the power to change the 2025 importing of cats and dogs rules as well. If they do, I hope it will be used in due course.
Can I have an assurance from the Minister that there will be increased surveillance at all ports of entry into the UK to enforce the five pets per vehicle requirement, and extra vigilance to ensure that excessive numbers of cats, dogs and ferrets imported into Northern Ireland are not then exported to Scotland, England and Wales if the EU rules do not change, as they might do?
This is an excellent little Bill. Despite its small size, it will make a huge difference in reducing the cruelty that cats, dogs and ferrets currently suffer through the despicable animal pet smuggling trade. I am grateful to have the opportunity to rant about tackling the cruelty of breeding animals with known genetic defects. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trees, can take through a Bill to tighten up on that in the next Session of Parliament.
If we had ample parliamentary time, I would have tabled a few amendments, but I repeat what others have said: if we seek to amend the Bill, it may not get through Parliament in time. Yes, we might be able to conclude it here, but they will not have the time in the other place to deal with Commons consideration of Lords amendments. With those words, the Bill is too important to fall or fail, and I commend it to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Winchester, Dr Danny Chambers, as others have, for introducing this important Bill in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for sponsoring it in this House. I know as well as everyone here that the noble Lord is a great advocate for animal welfare, and he has followed discussions on the Bill very closely.
The UK is a world leader in animal welfare and has a long history of promoting high animal welfare standards. Many across the House will agree that pets are important members of the family. The noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned my lovely cat, Sid. I also have a now rather elderly chocolate Labrador called Max. They are very important members of our household.
The Government take the issue of puppy smuggling and low-welfare imports of pets seriously. That is why we committed in our manifesto to bringing an end to this cruel trade, which causes unnecessary suffering to animals, in the pursuit of profit. This is a popular and important policy right across the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the organisations that support and have been pressing for this legislation over a number of years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined, the importance of this legislation is that it looks to stop, for example, the exploitation of loopholes in our pet travel rules by unscrupulous traders. Crucially, the Bill reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that are permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement under the pet travel rules. That limit, as we have heard, will change from five pets per person to five per vehicle, and three per foot or air passenger. This means that non-compliant traders will not be able to evade the more stringent measures that apply to commercial imports by claiming that that the vehicles full of puppies are carrying their pets.
To clarify, and to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, where the purpose of a movement of a pet relates to the sale or transfer of ownership of the animal, the commercial importation rules should be used. But I am aware that some people, and many in the House today, have called for the measures to go a step further to reduce the limit to three per vehicle. We looked at this very carefully and had long discussions with Danny Chambers MP about it. One of the reasons for that decision was to not create unintended consequences for assistance dog users. There were concerns that that could negatively impact on their travel. But I can confirm for the noble Baroness that the Bill does give us the power to reduce the limit further, should there be evidence that the pet travel rules continue to be abused, and we will be keeping a very close eye on that.
The Bill will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet into Great Britain is explicitly linked to the movement of its owner. The amendments made by the Bill require that, in order to move under the pet travel rules, the pet and the owner will have to travel within five days of each other.
I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Black, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, about the disease brucella canis. I can clarify that we take biosecurity very seriously. Disease risk is monitored carefully and kept under constant review. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce, where necessary, preventive health measures to control diseases that are likely to be spread due to the movement of pet animals into Great Britain.
I now turn to some of the exemptions that were discussed. Crucially, the measures will make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to abuse the non-commercial pet travel rules. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned in his introduction, to ensure that the new measures do not disproportionately affect protected groups such as assistance dog users, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill will give the appropriate authority discretion to effectively exempt owners from these measures if needed. I want to reassure the House that these measures—this discretion—will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, and the process for exercising the discretion will be tightly controlled to prevent misuse.
We do not want this to become a back door for illicit activity or to undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve. By incorporating this discretion, the Bill offers the flexibility needed to support responsible pet owners who could be affected by unforeseen events— something they did not know about in advance, such as a medical emergency or natural disaster that would affect travel plans—and provides reassurance to individuals relying on assistance dogs. As I said, we have the option to review the Bill going forward to make sure that no one is negatively impacted, particularly if we see that it is being abused. But every case will have to be judged on its individual merits. We will work in partnership with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop a clear and robust framework for the handling of exemption requests, ensuring that the discretion is exercised only when truly justified.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Sanderson, asked about exemptions to the prohibitions and restrictions that will be introduced within the Bill’s enabling powers. The main enabling powers allow exemptions to come through secondary legislation. We are going to continue to engage with stakeholders as the regulations are developed to make sure that we know that the introduction of exemptions is appropriate.
I am aware of the emails about the rescue and rehoming concerns about mutilated animals still being able to be brought in from abroad. We need to ensure that any pets that come into Great Britain for rescue or rehoming are moved in compliance with the stringent commercial import regime. We have to protect the biosecurity of our country and animal welfare during transport, and we know that bringing a dog from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks. We recommend that any prospective owners ensure testing for diseases, including Brucella canis, and that that is carried out before movement takes place. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce extra measures, as I said. The main thing is that any changes that we might make in future to the Bill do not open up loopholes. We do not want loopholes that undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve.
On the regulation-making powers in the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, rightly highlighted that the Government will first use these powers to raise the minimum age at which puppies and kittens can be brought into Great Britain to six months. We will also restrict the movement of heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs and cats into Great Britain.
I confirm to my noble friend Lord Grantchester that ear-cropping legislation applies to both commercial and non-commercial movements. In the other place, there was clear and vocal support at Third Reading to close the loophole that allows individuals to claim that mutilated dogs have been imported when in fact the animals have been illegally subjected to cruel procedures here. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly raised the fact that he can buy dog ear-cropping kits in this country on online, which is really shocking. To reassure him, it is an offence in England and Wales under the Animal Welfare Act to carry out a non-exempted mutilation, including the use of DIY cropping kits. Anyone convicted of illegally cropping a dog’s ear may be imprisoned for a term of up to five years, receive an unlimited fine or both. Those convicted of an offence may also be disqualified from owning or keeping animals. At the moment, the Government are focusing our efforts on delivering the crucial measures in this Bill, but doing so will also help us to do more to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears and make it easier for us to police the existing offence in England and Wales, as future offenders will be unable to claim that the mutilation was undertaken abroad.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, asked about limiting the movement of pregnant dogs after 42 days’ gestation. The reason for this is that physical signs of pregnancy can be seen from 42 days’ gestation. These signs can be used during identity and visual checks at the border accurately to identify pregnant dogs and cats in the limit. That is why we cannot enforce a total ban on importing pregnant dogs. I spoke to enforcement officers about this, and they felt that this is the right approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about people who deliberately breed dogs with genetic defects, which is just appalling. We are considering a range of evidence, including the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on canine breeding and the findings from our post-implementation review of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations. Under the LAIA regulations, anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs or who breeds three or more litters in a 12-month period must have a valid licence from their local authority. Licensed dog breeders are prohibited from breeding dogs if it can reasonably be expected on the basis of their genotype, phenotype or health that this would lead to welfare problems for the mother or the puppies. Elsewhere, we support the work of the UK Brachycephalic Working Group, which works towards a world where no dog experiences health-related welfare problems as a result of being selectively bred. We also support the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, whose work helps online sales platforms to identify and remove illegal and unethical adverts, and we will continue to do further work on this.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, regarding the exemptions to these prohibitions. Delivering these measures via secondary legislation allows us to gather further evidence and discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. It is important that any new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively without any unintended consequences. Any exemptions have to be appropriate. The department has already started discussions with the Kennel Club and Assistance Dogs International because, if there are going to be exemptions, we need to have proper information and evidence that they are the right way to go forward. As I said before, if anything is brought in as an exemption, we have to be confident that it is not going to create an unacceptable loophole.
The eagle-eyed will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial measures. This is because very low volumes of ferrets are brought into Great Britain. Unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in or low-welfare movement of ferrets at this time. However, if that changes, we will be able to continue to protect ferrets’ welfare in the future.
A number of noble Lords asked about enforcement. Any new legislation is only as good as the ability to enforce it. Therefore, we are working closely with enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the guidance and tools to enforce these measures effectively. The Bill also introduces new powers to make regulations to provide authorities with additional enforcement powers when they are presented with a non-compliant pet.
I shall answer a few specific questions. Local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency are going to be responsible for enforcing any new pet travel and commercial import requirements, and the Bill will make regulations to give them a clear process to do so. We anticipate limited additional impact on enforcement authorities, but we will continue to work with them to assess funding and resource impacts. In fact, much of what is in this Bill will make their job more straightforward with better outcomes.
We are looking at how to develop guidance so that enforcement bodies have the correct tools they need to deliver these measures. There are powers in the Bill to introduce measures to support and strengthen the current enforcement mechanisms. For example, this could be in relation to the detention and seizure of non-compliant dogs and cats and the costs associated with that seizure and detention, the rehoming of abandoned animals and any financial penalties. In response to my noble friend Lord Grantchester, I should say that the Bill creates the power to make regulations about detention and seizure because they are necessary to ensure that we get effective enforcement. As I said, what is the point if we if we do not have effective enforcement? Delivering those measures through secondary legislation means that we can develop those proposals with the enforcement bodies to make sure they are effective, efficient and proportionate.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about Northern Ireland. EU regulations relevant to pet travel apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Windsor Framework, as the noble Lord said. Therefore, the changes that the Bill makes to the maximum number of permitted single non-commercial consignments do not apply to Northern Ireland. The enabling powers in the Bill allow DAERA to introduce regulations restricting the bringing into Northern Ireland of dogs, cats and ferrets on welfare grounds, as appropriate. Officials and enforcement agencies across all four nations will continue to work together closely to share intelligence, disrupt illegal imports and safeguard the welfare of animals. That should make a difference, particularly as DAERA is currently consulting on some proposals. If those proposals are implemented, it would mean that anyone who sells puppies would need to be registered with their local council and registered individuals would not be able to sell, give away or otherwise transfer the ownership of the puppies that are unweaned, weaned at an age when they should not have been weaned or aged under eight weeks old. This, paired with the fact that third-party sales and sales below eight weeks of age are already banned across the rest of GB means that the issue can be tackled by separate legislation.
Having talked about Northern Ireland, I will say a few words on territorial consent. We have had legislative consent from Northern Ireland and Scotland. We are continuing to engage with the Welsh Government as their legislative consent process continues to progress. They do support the Bill; it is just a matter of it going through their parliament.
Changes to the non-commercial pet travel scheme, including the revised cap on the maximum number that may enter GB in a single non-commercial movement, and the requirement that the journey should take place within five days of the owners’ travels will apply in England, Wales and Scotland—I confirm that. The regulatory powers will extend across all four nations of the United Kingdom, although the duty to enact the three prohibitions the first time the power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Bill does not apply to domestic travel; this is really important. The Bill does not apply to the domestic travel of dogs, cats and ferrets, including movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those journeys will not be affected by this legislation.
As I said at the beginning, we made a manifesto commitment to put an end to the cruel puppy-smuggling trade. I am delighted that the Government are supporting this Bill so that we can get to work on this. I have backed previously failed versions of this legislation, so I am delighted to be here representing the Government supporting a Bill that we expect to get onto the statute book. Regarding timings, we are serious about this as it was a manifesto commitment, so we will bring in the measures needed as soon as is practically possible. Having said that, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for taking this important Bill through the House today and I look forward to us all working together as the Bill progresses.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this fairly short but extremely entertaining and good debate about this Bill. There have been some excellent contributions. The passion and enthusiasm for improving animal welfare is a wonderful thing and a great credit to the House.
In my introduction, I acknowledged the contribution of Danny Chambers, which has been amplified, quite rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I also thank another Member in the other place: Dr Neil Hudson, a veterinary surgeon as well as MP for Epping Forest. He has his hands rather full at the minute, but he has been a constant and great supporter of this Bill and animal welfare in general. I also thank the Bill team, led by Hayley Atkin, who is sitting in the Box, and my own veterinary researcher Fiona Shuttleworth, for all their hard work in preparing the work to help the passage of the Bill through this House. I of course also acknowledge the terrific support of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
I emphasise three take-home messages, although there were a lot more, which will no doubt come up in subsequent discussions. We must try to get this Bill through. We do not want to delay it; if it has to go back to the Commons, it will surely die. There will be ample opportunity to discuss many of the issues in the development and tabling of secondary legislation. That is the second big message: please, can we get to the secondary legislation as soon as possible? Thirdly, when—I hope—the Bill is passed, enforcement will be critical. In fact, the Minister has emphasised that, and I know that she is very well aware of the urgency of moving to secondary legislation as soon as we can to get that in place.
This not the end but I hope that, as someone once said, it is the beginning of the end of this particular Bill. If anybody wants to discuss issues informally in the future, I hope they will please contact me. My door is always open; I am very happy to discuss the issues as we move towards secondary legislation. I beg to move.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, that was a helpful debate about animal welfare, and one with which I am familiar. It is good to have seen so many people here in the House to hear it, especially with the news that not just one but two Government Ministers are resigning today.
Livestock worrying is an issue of significant concern for farmers and rural communities. It causes much distress and cost to animals and farmers. It is already an offence through the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, but the police have sought greater powers to more effectively detect and enable the prosecution of such offences. That is why I bring forward to your Lordships’ House this Bill to modernise the said Act.
I start by congratulating Aphra Brandreth for seeing this through the House of Commons in her first year as an MP. I am already familiar with the Bill, as I navigated it through the Commons last year with the assistance of my noble friend Lord Hart, who was then Chief Whip. He will be making his maiden speech during this debate; I look forward to listening to it. Unfortunately, the Bill ran out of time just ahead of the general election in 2024. That is why I thank the Defra Ministers, who have recognised how important the passage of this Bill is. Candidly, they will be much thanked by farmers for doing so. I thank the Defra officials for their help too. I know that they have been working on this for some time—frankly, for several years. We are nearly there.
In essence, this Bill is an attempt at something of a simplification of the 1953 Act with some important updates, which are delivered through the Schedule in addition to the clauses. The Bill extends the area covered beyond the land to a road or path, to address attacks where livestock are moved to different parts of the farm. It provides powers of entry and search through warrant and allows dogs to be detained to avoid further attacks while an owner is awaiting trial for such an offence. It allows for more modern ways to gather evidence from a dog, including taking dental impressions and other relevant samples, and it also updates the fines that can be imposed. The Bill will include camelids—alpacas and llamas—in the definition of “livestock” for the purposes of the 1953 Act.
Clause 1(a) gives effect to the Schedule, which brings incidents on roads and paths within the scope of the offence. As anybody who has ever been to a farm with livestock knows, livestock do not sit in one field all their lives; they are moved around. We need to ensure that dogs do not worry the livestock as they are moved. That simplifies the situation. It not only makes it clear that dogs should be under the control of their owner or the person walking them, but gives assurances to farmers about what the limits are. Other provisions in Clause 1 ensure that offenders will pay the expenses arising from seizing and detaining the dog rather than those costs falling on the police.
The effect of Clause 1(b) brings camelids within the definition of “livestock”, as animals such as llamas are starting to be farmed considerably more and to be managed in livestock settings. This modest extension is an important element of Clause 1. Other jurisdictions have tried to cover every animal under the sun. Rather than doing that, these modest extensions are ultimately about keeping the Bill and the Act in line with what was intended, while ensuring that farmers can still be concerned with the safety of their animals.
Clause 2 updates the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to ensure that seizing a dog is more straightforward. This is split into two areas: dogs found without their owner or person in charge, and dogs considered to be posing a continuing threat. For the latter, new Section 2(8) is explicit:
“A constable may seize a dog if they have reasonable grounds to believe that … the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and … unless it is detained, there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again”.
The overall effect of the new section is to make it more straightforward for police to be able to grab a suspected dog in order to stop such behaviour happening and avoid the potential impact on livestock, without having to go to court or wait until an owner is convicted of an offence.
Clause 3 ensures that we can be more up to date about getting evidence—for example, in taking dental impressions. A dog bite can often be distinguished by what is happening with their mouth and what has happened to the animal, which is particularly important when an animal has been killed. From discussions with the police, I anticipate that most sampling should be quite straightforward, but a more detailed examination of a dog may be required at times in order to establish the connection to a specific incident. If it is deemed that it would be quite intrusive, the law requires a veterinary surgeon to be involved to ensure that the dog in question is handled appropriately.
Clause 4 extends powers of entry and search for an application to a justice of the peace. Frankly, there have been too many examples of people saying that they will bring in their dog but then they do not; the dog simply disappears, never to be seen again. The clause basically enables a quick element of justice to be applied in order to ensure that evidence can be seized quickly.
Clause 5 covers the extent, commencement, transitional provision and Short Title. The Act will automatically come into force after three months after the day it is passed. That avoids the need for any further regulations, which I believe is a good deregulatory approach in primary legislation.
I turn to the parts of the Schedule that I have not already addressed. Paragraph 1(6) amends Section 1(4) of the 1953 Act and talks about attacking or worrying, which ensures that the Bill covers what it is supposed to. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Attacking is legally part of what is more widely described as “worrying” in the 1953 Act. However, the term “worrying” can dismiss the severity of some offences. Reframing the Act so that attacking is distinct from worrying better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. To give a simplified view, this covers a dog attacking a sheep, a cow, a camelid or a pig directly, and many other animals that come under the terminology of livestock, as well as the sort of behaviour like running around these animals, which can cause distress and severe consequences, such as aborting. There is even a story about how a dog ended up chasing livestock over the edge of a cliff.
We need to ensure that not just what people would perceive to be an attack—direct contact with the animal by the dog—but worrying behaviour more generally is addressed. To be clear, though, this provision is not creating a new offence; it is clarifying the language throughout the Act. In effect, both attacking and worrying are already covered in the 1953 Act, but that is not clear throughout.
We need to send a strong message to dog owners right across the country. Your Lordships will be aware of some awful attacks that have happened around the country. Farmers are really frustrated that people are not in control of their animals, which can have a major impact and, frankly, too many people are often in denial about that. It is suggested anecdotally that quite a lot of the problems are caused by dogs escaping from their homes. Their owners may have no clue about it and would be mortified to know that their dog was on the loose causing such disruption.
People already have the power to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock, but not all farmers or shepherds want to do that. They want the owners to be responsible. That is why I am keen to ensure that the deterrent is sufficiently strong. In the current Act, the fine is capped at a maximum of £1,000. That will go up to an unlimited amount, which reflects the need for an effective deterrent. The reason why it is unlimited—it has become the trend in legislation to use the phrase “unlimited amount”—is that it is far more straightforward in practical terms to have an unlimited amount so that the Sentencing Council and the local courts can make the fine relevant to the impact and severity of the offence.
I hope noble Lords realise that the Bill is intended to be straightforward. I know there is a lot of detail in the clauses, and that is often the case when we are trying to amend other legislation, but I believe that these modest and, I hope, sensible changes will be important for our farmers and for the animals for which they care. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank my constituency MP, the newly elected Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, Aphra Brandreth, and the newly ennobled noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for drawing up this simple amendment to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It modernises the law on worrying livestock, which causes such distress to pasture animals, costing farmers and land managers often sizeable amounts to their livelihoods. I declare my interest as a dairy farmer in the rural constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury.
I want to draw attention to two important measures in the Bill. First, it includes a new offence of not keeping a dog on a fixed lead in an enclosed area—for example, a field that contains livestock. The presence of a dog in a field is immediately noticed by livestock. This can range from curiosity to anxiety, which the dog will also be aware of. While it may seem overly prescriptive, even a meandering dog with no ill intent can cause livestock to bolt, with serious consequences. In addition, the dog can introduce serious diseases such as neospora to cattle, causing abortion. This is becoming an ever more costly consequence to food producers.
The other important feature that I draw attention to is the measure increasing the maximum fine to an unlimited amount, hence allowing penalties to keep up with inflation and provide an effective deterrent into the future without the need for constant pressure to revise what soon becomes insignificant as years pass. I have confidence that appropriate fines will be levied by magistrates. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that guidance will be issued along with any necessary regulations, so that constant revisions can be avoided?
There are an estimated 34,000 incidents of livestock worrying in England and Wales. There are many other updated features to the Bill, such as requiring police to keep a register of dogs seized and extensions to animals being newly farmed.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing the Bill. Securing parliamentary time for measures is always difficult to achieve, leading often to more wide-ranging, generic pieces of legislation that can become bogged down in more controversial and contentious amendments, so I welcome a Bill that can make necessary incisive improvements to specific circumstances, making more assured progress.
The Minister in the other place, Daniel Zeichner, clarified many aspects of the 1953 Act, including how this Bill will apply to guide dogs. I am grateful to him and to my noble friend the Minister in your Lordships’ House for the Government’s support for the measure. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hart, and wish the Bill to pass unamended in your Lordships’ House and become law without delay.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for bringing the Bill to the House.
I am sure all of us have enjoyed the TV programme “One Man and His Dog” or marvelled at the skill of sheepdogs and shepherds working with very mobile and awkward animals such as sheep, but, historically and in evolutionary terms, the main predators for hooved animals, whether they be ovine, bovine or cervine, have been and are canids, notably wolves, from which of course our domestic dog is derived, so dogs and livestock are uneasy bedfellows—or should I say “field fellows”? In fact, most human fatalities from cattle are a result of dogs alarming the cattle, which all too sadly highlights the potential dangers.
Livestock worrying and attacking is a terrible problem, particularly in sheep. Dogs not under proper control cause panic, miscarriages of pregnant animals, often horrific injuries and death. Sometimes, sadly, farmers have to shoot their own sheep, in humane acts to relieve their suffering, or shoot the responsible dogs, which is equally distressing.
The majority of these incidents involve unaccompanied dogs—I will come back to that in a minute. The National Police Chiefs’ Council recorded 1,700 incidents between 2013 and 2017, with over 900 livestock killed and over 600 injured, as well as 92 incidents when dogs were shot. Those incidents have been rising: a 2025 survey by the National Sheep Association showed that 87% of its respondent farmers reported at least one sheep worrying incident in the last 12 months. The worst such incident resulted in the death of 44 sheep. From an earlier NSA survey in 2021, we know that the financial losses from a single incident of sheep worrying and attacks can be as high as £50,000. The average cost to each survey respondent was estimated at more than £1,500 per farm per year. Finally, NFU Mutual calculates that the total cost of dog attacks on farm animals in 2024 was more than £1.8 million. In summary, these events can cause great suffering to animals and great distress to farmers, dog owners and landowners, as well as substantial financial loss.
I strongly support the measures in this Bill. Perhaps the most significant that I want to pick out are the measures in Clauses 2 and 3, which give police the power to seize and detain suspect dogs and take samples, including DNA for analysis. Given that the majority of incidents involve unaccompanied dogs, these measures, and the powers of identification inherent in DNA analysis, should substantially increase the ability of the police to identify the responsible dogs and their owners, link them to a particular incident and bring appropriate charges. It is often the case that repeat offenders cause these incidents, so these sorts of powers should help enormously to prevent such repeat offences.
I am very supportive of the measures in the Bill, without reservation—but while I welcome the Bill, legislation is but one way in which to approach this problem. Essentially this is a problem of irresponsible dog ownership or a lack of awareness and knowledge on the part of some dog owners. A great deal can be and is being done by way of information and education to the public and dog owners to reduce the incidence of the problem. The NFU, in collaboration with the Kennel Club, provides free signage for farmers and other landowners to warn the public of specific risks or dangers to livestock, their dog or themselves—and the risks of abortion pathogens such as Neospora.
Let us hope that more information and public education, together with the strengthened legislation provided in this Bill, will significantly reduce this shocking problem.
Lord Hart of Tenby (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on getting this legislation to the House. Not a lot of people know this, but she and I first met back in 2007, when we were doing our candidate selection course at a hotel in Milton Keynes. Ever since then, she has been a most wonderful parliamentary friend—and, as everybody here already knows, her career has advanced further, faster and more successfully than I could ever have dreamed that mine would. I thank her for the friendship that she has shown.
In the same breath, I extend my thanks to Black Rod, the clerks and the doorkeepers for their patience and good will since I came here just a few weeks ago. Having been away from the Palace of Westminster for a year, when I returned I wondered whether everything would be just the same and what changes I could expect. As with all good institutions, when I got here I realised that all the things that were important have not changed at all—and I thank everyone for making sure that that is the case and continues to be so.
To the noble Lords, Lord Brady and Lord Hunt, I give huge thanks for their support when I came here. Both have given me advice over many years, both in the Commons and here, and I hope very much to continue to tap into that advice as time goes by.
I did not realise that this was going to happen today, but I am particularly honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in this debate. For some time, in all the different aspects of animal welfare legislation that has come before this House and the other place over the years, I always felt that we lacked a sufficient veterinary input and were short of vets. I am glad to see that we now have many more vets than we once did; we have gone from nought to two in the House of Commons, which probably counts as progress. One of the reasons I always thought we needed more vets in these debates is to make the important distinction that the noble Lord made just now between suffering and cruelty: suffering can be measured and cruelty is generally subjective. In my previous existence, there was an adage that we preferred our evidence to be vetted rather than doctored. At least we know now that when the legislation comes before this House and the other place, it is going to be vetted to the highest possible standard.
Students of Wikipedia might have noticed that I have only one claim to fame in an otherwise uninteresting political career: I am the only Secretary of State for Wales to have been born in Wolverhampton. This is not something I made much of when I was in the Wales Office, as noble Lords might understand, but I am very proud of my West Midlands roots. My mother put it down to a medical emergency rather than a geographical preference, but I am quite happy with that entry.
That is where that bit ended. All my working life has been spent in west Wales, in Pembrokeshire, which is known to many people here. My wife’s family farm there, my children were born there and I was the MP for a bit of the county of Pembrokeshire for 14 and a half years. The county is steeped in agriculture, tourism, energy production and, luckily for me, cricket and the countryside, two things that have occupied much of my life.
Those interests have led me to some interesting places; they led me to being able to become both the chief executive and chair of the Countryside Alliance for seven to 10 years. In that role I met so many Members of this House and the House of Commons, including the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Not a lot of people know this, but he and I were crammed in the back of a Land Rover for six months in 1999 on the instructions of Jack Straw in his pursuit of evidence to support the Burns inquiry into hunting. That inquiry was a fascinating tour of all the most wonderful, interesting and beautiful places, and started with the Blencathra Foxhounds. It was the most interesting journey in terms of its geography and the knowledge we both obtained. It is why I entered politics, how I entered government and why I went to the Wales Office and ultimately became Chief Whip for Rishi Sunak.
To finish, I will return to the animal welfare theme. We should probably all admit that the statute book is littered with examples of very well-meaning but not necessarily effective pieces of animal welfare legislation. There is a reason for that and a reason why Governments seem to be hesitant sometimes: either the proposals go far too far or they do not go far enough, so we end up with either a fudge or an ambush. I really hope that the current Government, whatever their ambitions for animal welfare and the countryside might include, will realise that you simply cannot separate different aspects of rural Britain—whether fishing, farming, field sports or forestry—because they are as one. Previous Governments have learned painful lessons from trying to segregate different elements of rural activity.
The good news is that the legislation before the House today is not one of those moments; it is something around which all residents of the countryside—whether farmers, livestock managers, politicians or anybody from any side of the political spectrum—can unite. I very much hope to be able to support this and other legislation of a similar nature going forward.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Countryside Alliance, a retired member of the National Farmers’ Union, a former member of the National Sheep Association and a retired sheep farmer, and I own a working dog. I think that clears that little problem up.
It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hart of Tenby. I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech, delivered with great authority and knowledge about the subject. He is a former CEO of the Countryside Alliance, and his knowledge about and experience of the countryside—its activities and wider rural issues—is frankly vast. In addition, he brings to your Lordships’ House his considerable political experience, having served as Chief Whip in the House of Commons, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Secretary of State for Wales. I am delighted to say that he is a fellow Staffordian man. I know that the whole House will benefit from listening to his words of wisdom for many years to come. However, with the sword of Damocles hanging over me and my fellow hereditaries, we have sadly been robbed of the ability to share in that experience. That will be our considerable loss. I wish my noble friend well and offer him my congratulations.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey on supporting the Bill in this House and my honourable friend Aphra Brandreth, whose Bill it is, on sponsoring it in the other place. From a livestock farmer’s point of view, it is high time that the 1953 Act be brought up to date to suit the much-changed conditions that livestock farmers experience in these modern days. I am elated that this Bill received cross-party support in the other place and has the support of His Majesty’s Government. For that I thank the Minister, who I know is very supportive of all rural issues.
The cost of sheep worrying for farmers is very considerable, but the impact of stress on animals is simply unacceptable, as is the emotional strain placed on farmers and their families and employees from such incidents. The majority of dog owners who exercise their pets in the countryside behave in a very responsible manner, treating livestock and property with due respect. It is so sad that we must legislate to deter and prevent the small minority who do not behave, but it is essential.
This Bill is a golden opportunity to widen the scope of the 1953 Act. I agree especially with the new powers in Clause 4 and the suggestions of the BVA and the RSPCA. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers that the definition of worrying should be
“extended to all farmed livestock and to not just include the actions by dogs but also worrying by humans”.
I say that because I live in the Staffordshire moorlands, close to the Peak District, and have witnessed on numerous occasions at first hand such sheep worrying by humans. I strongly support this Bill and wish it well on its passage through your Lordships’ House.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, on his maiden speech and support a lot of what he said, especially his passion for the countryside. Like other noble Lords, I am a dog owner and have enjoyed the benefit of many years of walking in the countryside across livestock fields. I work in and am a shareholder of a veterinary practice.
I too welcome this Bill and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on continuing to get it through Parliament over the last few years. I welcome the updating and extending of the 1953 Bill. It reflects the changes in the number of dogs now kept in the UK and the different types of pet-owning homes, the large increase in pet owners, who may not have a great knowledge of livestock and how it reacts to dogs, and the increase in the number of types of livestock being farmed in the UK.
This Bill covers an area that has become of concern to the veterinary sector in recent years—dog behaviour. This very much reflects our practice’s experience since Covid of the aggression that dogs have due to lack of socialisation. The BVA is taking an interest in this area and we hope to educate and share knowledge with the public. I welcome the update to the types of livestock covered to include camelids, as they are becoming a lot more common and being farmed, as we are very aware in our practice.
I have very few concerns with the Bill and I support it. I welcome the substitution of Section 2 of the 1953 Act on seizure and detention of dogs. I especially support the change to allow police to seize dogs that continue to pose a threat in attacking and worrying livestock. My concern, as with our other debate, is with the enforcement of the Bill and the cost to police and local authorities of holding dogs. I note the change to help address this in the Bill, but my experience of veterinary clients is that, sometimes, the dogs most likely to worry animals come from individuals who find it difficult to pay their bills. Therefore, the ability of local authorities and police to recover debt will be an issue. I know the Minister is fully aware of the pressure on authorities dealing with animal welfare, as the APPG on animal welfare had a discussion on this recently, which she kindly attended.
Hopefully the Bill will help educate the public on livestock worrying and support farmers to reduce the attacks on farms in rural areas. If it passes, it will be a good opportunity to really promote this to all dog owners in this country, to encourage education on how dogs should be on leads when crossing fields when livestock in them, and to clearly define what a pet is when it is under close control. I therefore support the Bill.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hart of Tenby on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure the whole House looks forward to his future meaningful contributions. I declare my interests as both a dog owner and a livestock farmer. I must admit that dogs running through livestock, whether it is cows and calves or sheep, is one of the things that keeps me awake at night.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing this Bill to your Lordships’ House. It is a Bill with which I have some particular familiarity, since I was looking forward to supporting it myself here before it fell at Dissolution last year in July. I find myself in support of all of its clauses, in particular Clauses 3 and 4. This is as a result of a harrowing personal experience, the like of which I would not wish on anyone.
I received a call a few years ago from a neighbour, who was reporting that dogs were attacking sheep on a nearby field. When I arrived there, I found two dogs with their muzzles covered in blood, standing some distance from a flock of sheep which were huddled together in terror. In their number were some that had survived an attack, bloodied and in some cases with parts of their faces hanging off, and some with limbs so damaged that they could barely stand. On the grass across the field were the corpses of those that had not survived.
The two dogs which had perpetrated this attack had exhausted themselves and were standing stationary, hanging their heads. One policeman had arrived and was in the process of gathering up one of the dogs and putting it in his van. Meanwhile, the owner of the dogs, who lived close by, caught the second dog and took it home, where it was presumably washed off and made to look innocent. Although there was no doubt as to the guilt of both that specific second dog and its owner, the single policeman present did not have the authority to enter the house and take away the second offending dog. This has resulted in the very real fear that such an incident may reoccur since, sadly, history shows this to be a very real probability once a dog has acted in this way.
Clause 4 would address such an injustice, by creating new powers of entry and search. Clause 3 would also have enabled further action to take place after the event. It provides the opportunity to take samples from a dog or an impression from livestock, which might provide conclusive evidence to identify and thus detain a dog where there is suspicion of its culpability, as opposed to the certainty that was the case in my personal example. This is a positive improvement in the terms of the Bill, which means I have no hesitation at all in supporting these two clauses in particular and the Bill in its entirety, and I am delighted it has cross-party support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Coffey and others who have participated in the proceedings. I give a very warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Hart and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I declare briefly my interest as associate of the British Veterinary Association.
We have heard why this Bill is needed and about the gap in the current legislation. The changes we have seen since 1953, when the original Act was passed, are dramatic: the number of livestock has doubled, dog ownership now stands at 12 million and one in three households owns a dog. There have been 34,000 incidents a year of dogs worrying sheep, with 15,000 sheep being killed by dogs annually. This causes great concern and distress to the farming community. The Countryside Code has a role to play here but this demonstrates its weakness, as does the number and nature of wildfires we have seen, not least the one that is still burning on Langdale Moor, causing great concern in North Yorkshire.
Farming is not a charitable undertaking. Farmers care greatly for their livestock; they cherish and nourish them. It is a huge personal loss, not just an economic loss, and causes extreme grief when a sheep dies as a result of sheep worrying or a dog attack. It shows a gross lack of respect for the countryside and the farming community, as well as for sheep and other livestock. We should take note of the contribution that the farming community and livestock industry make to the food and drink sector; at the moment, this stands at £153 billion, and farming is a great part of that.
I have two small questions to put to the Minister. The first concerns the description of the animals that are covered. I welcome the introduction of camelids in the Bill, which will cover alpacas, llamas and others. In my former constituency in North Yorkshire, there are petting farms, and other areas have petting zoos. Will these be covered if a dog attack or worrying incident takes place? Secondly, is my understanding correct that the provisions of the Bill will lapse in 2034? If that is the case, for what reason? The problem will not just disappear at that time.
I give a warm welcome to the Bill. My noble friend Lady Coffey outlined each and every one of the provisions, which I support, including giving the police the authority in the circumstances described by my noble friend Lord Colgrain, in which many of the perpetrators—the dogs—may go free. I wish the Bill a smooth passage, but would like answers to those two brief questions.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, this Bill, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, offers us an excellent opportunity to modernise legislation which has been left standing for far too long, namely the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. This Act belongs to a bygone age of farming and dog ownership. Similar laws have already been updated in Scotland, where penalties are now significantly higher and more species are protected.
Dog ownership has surged, and with it has come an increase in preventable tragedies. Farmers have spoken of sheep mauled, cattle panicked and livelihoods threatened. Beyond the immense emotional toll, the financial impact is substantial. A 2025 survey by the National Sheep Association found that a very high proportion of farmers—more than four in five—had experienced a dog attack on their flock in the past year.
Balance is crucial. We want the countryside to feel welcoming and safe for everyone, but it cannot be safe if laws from 70 years ago are expected to cope with life as it is today. The current 1953 Act, for example, defines livestock narrowly and limits the offence to agricultural land. This new Bill, sponsored in the Commons by Aphra Brandreth MP, modernises the law by extending the offence to include roads and paths, and expanding the definition of livestock to include animals such as llamas and alpacas.
What I particularly welcome in this legislation is its measured approach. It strengthens police powers for evidence gathering, which is critical, as a lack of evidence is often why prosecutions fail. These new powers will be supported by advances such as the canine DNA recovery project, which is developing best practices for collecting DNA from attack scenes to identify the dogs responsible, as was ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The Bill increases the maximum penalty for an offence, which is extremely welcome, thus creating a stronger deterrent. As other noble Peers have mentioned, the devil, as ever, will be in the detail of enforcement, and I look forward to hearing more on that from the Minister.
Many people simply do not understand just how quickly their loveable dog, while gentle at home, can cause panic and injury. Research suggests that most incidents arise when dogs are simply not kept on a lead. As others have mentioned, education remains as important as enforcement. Stakeholders agree that, while legal reforms are essential, education and responsible ownership are key to reducing these kinds of incidents.
For our part, the Liberal Democrats see this as more than a narrow rural crime Bill. This effort has widespread cross-party support, and is welcomed by the NFU, the RSPCA and others. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her determination in bringing this forward—again. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, on his excellent maiden speech and expert insight on the subject of today’s debate; I look forward to hearing more from him in the future.
This Bill has all-party support and is, in effect, the same as the one that the noble Baroness introduced in 2023, which fell when the general election was called. This Bill is long overdue but carefully crafted, and it deserves an easy passage. From these Benches, we will support it wholeheartedly.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, as a former Chief Whip, I am pleased to follow the convention of congratulating my noble friend Lord Hart on his maiden speech. He has demonstrated his long experience of the countryside and rural affairs, and the House will look forward to his future contributions.
The House may be relieved to know that I do not have an old MAFF t-shirt on dogs worrying sheep. However, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey on her persistence as a leading advocate of this Bill in the Commons and on now piloting it through this House. There is not much I need to say, since she has clearly set out its excellent provisions, and the Official Opposition are pleased to support it. I hope that we can get it on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I looked at the National Sheep Association’s 2023 survey, the eighth that it has conducted since 2013. There were 305 respondents, or 79% of NSA members. Some 70% of respondents had a sheep worrying incident, with 95% of them involving between one and 10 sheep. In almost 70% of cases, a single dog has injured or killed multiple sheep. Respondents still have severe concerns around education and irresponsible dog ownership, and only 14% were alerted by the offending dog owner, with the majority left to discover the evidence later.
It is right to make a separate offence of attacking animals, as opposed to worrying animals. I often think that the term “worrying” plays down the terrible damage that dogs can do to sheep, especially pregnant ewes, by chasing them round a field and causing their lambs, as well as the ewe herself, to die. A dog does not have to land a bite or make a physical attack on a sheep to kill it. There will be those letting their dogs run wild in a field who do not care what damage they do, but I suspect that many simply do not realise that their dog or dogs chasing sheep can result in the sheep’s deaths.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I will mention “One Man and his Dog”. I wonder sometimes whether ignorant townies have seen the sheepdogs herding sheep and thought that it was okay for their dogs to chase sheep around too. I say “ignorant townies” because of an occasion many years ago when I attended a young farmers’ open day held in the city of Carlisle, which my rural constituency surrounded. The idea was that the young farmers would take a bit of the countryside into the city and let townies see what they did. One demonstration was sheep shearing. I was standing beside a couple, when a child, aged about 12 or 13, said, “Mummy, mummy, look at that awful man cutting all the hair of that poor beast”. “Yes,” she replied, “It’s disgusting. Don’t look. Let’s go”. For a garrulous politician, I was absolutely speechless; I could not believe the complete disconnect between town and country and that level of ignorance. It may be similar ignorance among non-country people that means they do not see the dangers of letting their dogs run wild in a field of animals—or of lighting disgusting disposable BBQs that they then leave behind, if they have not already set the place on fire.
I note that the Bill now includes all camelids. I have seen herds of llamas and alpacas in east Cumbria and around Penrith, but perhaps over in west Cumbria the Minister has dromedary and Bactrian camels too. I think they would make short shrift of any dogs trying to attack them.
Although the Bill is excellent, I worry about enforcement; other noble Lords have commented on this. The police—even rural police forces—may not give it the effort it deserves, then the CPS may not bother prosecuting and the fines may end up being derisory.
Taking the police first, I worry that the culprits will be long gone before a constable turns up to seize the dog. The National Sheep Association survey showed that 84% of farmers found out about an attack and a dead sheep much later. Even if the police turn up when the attack or worrying is in progress, the decision may be that, without a full risk assessment and protective clothing, as well as other health and safety concerns, they cannot intervene. If there are recorded cases of the police not jumping into a pond to save a drowning child, they might never intervene to seize an attacking dog.
There are countless cases of the police failing to attend a burglary. In 2022-23, the average police response time for a burglary in England and Wales was nine hours and eight minutes. Some rural forces had some of the worst times: in Northamptonshire, it was 28 hours and two minutes; in Durham, it was 26 hours; in South Yorkshire, which is big sheep country, it was 12 hours and 47 minutes; while Cumbria was one of the fastest, at a little over an hour. Without labouring it further, my point is that if the police fail to turn up expeditiously for burglaries, there is little hope of them rushing out to sheep worrying attacks.
Yes, taking samples is an excellent innovation, but I did a Google search this week and found that the cost of a court-admissible DNA test is between £300 and £400. Let me be clear: I am not criticising the Bill—it is an excellent Bill—but I urge the Minister to write to all rural forces after the Bill becomes law to stress to them that they must enforce the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 on investigating, taking samples, seizing dogs and making the owners pay. I want her to stress that the police must take this seriously; possibly of even more importance, so must the courts.
The current law is a level 3 fine, which goes up to £1,000, which may be a fraction of the cost of the killed sheep. The Bill states simply that it shall be a fine, with no level attached. In theory, that could be an unlimited fine, with which most of us here—everyone in this House, I think—would agree, but who will determine the level? I am afraid that it may be the discredited Sentencing Council. Parliament has already had to intervene in the past few months to pass a law to stop the council undermining the laws we have passed with some of its laughable sentencing guidelines. The Justice Secretary announced this week that the Government will take a power to overrule its sentencing guidelines. Why stop there? Tony Blair created this anti-democratic organisation, so it should be abolished—but that is a separate debate.
I have been in Parliament for 42 years. Almost every single year, under every Government, we have voted through tougher sentences for a whole range of crimes but then, behind our backs, the Sentencing Council has made sentencing recommendations that give the maximum sentence only in very rare cases. So I welcome the fact that, in this Bill, we have the possibility of large fines. However, I am afraid that the courts may be advised to make derisory penalties, as urban-based judges and council members may have no real appreciation of the damage caused in the countryside. Again, I urge the Minister to get her officials to look at any guidance produced in future by the Sentencing Council and, if it seems to undermine what we in this Chamber today are expecting from this Bill, to notify the Justice Secretary and get it overruled.
I repeat: this is an excellent Bill. The contents are right, and I hope that it becomes law as soon as possible. As the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—said in her winding-up speech in our debate on the previous Bill, any new legislation is only as good as the enforcement of it. This Bill must be enforced by the police, the CPS and the courts. I want assurances from the Minister that she will—pardon the pun—doggedly hound those bodies to ensure that they do what we in Parliament have mandated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important Bill in the other place and for taking it through so eloquently. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for assuming responsibility for the Bill in this House, and I recognise her long commitment on this issue. I am delighted to speak and to confirm government support for the Bill, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and support. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, for his eloquent maiden speech. I look forward to his further contributions and welcome him warmly to our House.
As we have heard, dog ownership and the number of livestock kept in the UK have drastically increased since the passing of the 1953 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned the survey that had been carried out by the National Sheep Association on the number of dog attacks now experienced by farmers—with 87% of them having experienced attacks in the last 12 months and 96% saying they experience between one and 10 cases of sheep worrying every year. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, spoke about a particularly harrowing attack, which demonstrates why the Bill is so needed.
To speak personally, a few years ago, our neighbour had some sheep on our top field. Unfortunately, there was a dog attack there. Luckily, no sheep died, but it is still horrendous when it happens. Unless you have seen it, it is difficult to truly imagine the damage and stress. The scale of these attacks is really concerning now, which is why the Government are so strongly supporting the Bill. We need urgent measures to protect our farmers and their animals.
We have heard about the devastating consequences—injury or death of animals, aborted lambs and flocks of birds being smothered—all of which are appalling to the farmers who own the livestock. The National Sheep Association’s survey showed clearly the concerns that farmers have raised. It also agreed that there is a need for additional police powers. We must go further to protect our agricultural sector from this, which is why we so strongly support the Bill.
Livestock worrying does not have just an emotional impact; it also places a large financial strain on farmers. A 2025 survey carried out by the National Farmers’ Union found that the total cost of livestock worrying across the UK reached £1.8 million. In England, the Midlands was the worst hit region in terms of cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £452,000. This clearly shows how detrimental it can be for farmers’ livelihoods.
The Bill will address farmers’ concerns by strengthening police powers. These include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Under current legislation, the police can seize a dog found and suspected to have attacked or worried livestock only for the purposes of identifying the owner. Under the Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe there is a risk that a dog could attack or worry livestock again, they will have the power to seize and detain it. The dog can then be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought forward for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. Additionally, the police can currently enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog. The police powers will be extended to allow the police to enter and search premises with a warrant to seize a dog and take samples if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.
The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and dental impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that the sample or impression might provide evidence of the offence. These powers give the police the tools they need to bring offenders to justice and will help ease the worry that many farmers feel when it comes to dog attacks on their livestock.
To better deter livestock worrying offences, the Bill will also increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. This measure reflects the severe consequences that these incidents have for livestock and their keepers and the significant resources required by the police to investigate.
My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about guidance on these penalties. The courts will determine the appropriate fine amount, and that will take account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The level of the fine will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive. There were further questions around enforcement that I will come to in a moment.
Furthermore, the Bill will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are commonly farmed. The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Reframing the legislation so that the term “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock.
I come to the questions around enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about that, and I absolutely understand concerns around enforcement. As I said, there is no point in legislation if you do not enforce it. As the noble Lord so clearly demonstrated, it has not been working effectively enough—another reason for bringing in the Bill. It improves enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying and attacks much more effectively. It should help the police take each report more seriously. We have engaged with the police on the measures in the Bill, and we know that the police are very keen for it to go through and get on to the statute.
Most livestock worrying incidents are resolved out of court through the community resolution process, and this usually includes compensation paid by the offender to the livestock owner. There is also a separate regime for farmers to obtain compensation. Section 3 of the Animals Act 1971 provides that anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes damage by killing or injuring livestock may be liable for that damage. Farmers can also obtain and claim on their insurance in relation to losses incurred because of livestock worrying incidents. When cases are taken through the courts, as I said, the courts will determine the appropriate fine, taking into account the seriousness of the offence.
On the number of people prosecuted, the average number of livestock worrying prosecutions every year is 23. This is based on figures provided by the Ministry of Justice on the number of prosecutions from 2022 to 2024. The average number of people convicted and subsequently sentenced per annum is 20. That is based on the same figures from the MoJ. Because of the measures in the Bill, we would expect the number of prosecutions each year to increase.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also asked about enforcement. Just looking at the police recovering costs from seizing and detaining dogs, one issue is whether it will be expensive to enforce, and how that will affect the ability of the police. The Bill will make it easier for the police to reclaim any costs. Any dogs found without an owner or person in charge can be seized by the police and can be detained until the owner has claimed it back and paid all expenses incurred as a result of the seizure and detention. The police also have the power to dispose of or destroy a dog where the owner fails to pay these expenses within seven days of seizure. If the dog is seized and detained due to posing a continuing threat to livestock, the costs incurred can be recoverable if the owner is subsequently convicted. The Bill will enable the courts to make an order requiring the owner to pay whatever sum the court determines reasonable for the costs associated with the seizure and detention of the dog. The magistrates’ courts will also have powers to enforce these orders. The Government take this very seriously; we do not want extra costs on the police.
There was also a question about microchipping—it might have been from the noble Lord, Lord Trees. At the moment, 23 databases, operating independently of Defra, provide microchip data. If you include the dog’s microchip number in any evidence, that constitutes the processing of personal data and would give rise to a number of data protection issues, particularly given that the Bill’s provisions require the register to be made publicly available.
The Bill requires the police to keep a register of all dogs seized in the area, which must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure, and whether the dog was disposed of and how. That register must be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the public, free of charge.
It has also been mentioned that this is an issue of responsible dog ownership, and I confirm to noble Lords that we have brought back the responsible dog ownership task force. We have asked it to do work in a number of areas, because it is important that people understand their responsibilities when they are owners of pets. For example, it is very frustrating when people say, “Look, Fido only wants to play”. There is a complete misunderstanding of the importance of keeping your dog under control in areas where there are livestock. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned the importance of socialisation, which, again, is incredibly important. Many dogs were left without this following Covid, so, again, it is an important part of educating owners on how best to look after their dogs.
Just to finish, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked a couple of questions. On petting zoos, it will be for the courts to decide whether a petting farm is agricultural land, based on the facts of each case as it goes to them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Would it make sense, when the regulations come forward, to embrace all commercially produced animals in the definition, for the avoidance of doubt?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am happy to take these issues away. At the moment, it covers grazing land. The definition of grazing land is something, again, that the courts can look at. Perhaps we can consider those definitions further. On the noble Baroness’s final point, that the legislation will lapse in 2034, I would just like to confirm that it is not going to lapse in 2034.
I am confident that it has been recognised here today that the Bill is really necessary to protect our farmers and our livestock. I thank all noble Lords for their time and valuable contributions. The robust measures that this introduces are long overdue. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on continuing to pursue this issue. We must pass the Bill without delay to support our dedicated farmers who have long been calling for these measures.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed today. It is good to have yet another Bill that has strong support from all parties, and those of no party, for this legislation to get through. I think the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned “One Man and His Dog”. I did watch that, even though I grew up in Liverpool—perhaps it was a substitute for not having a pet animal at the time. Nowadays, I prefer the TikTok of Sean the Sheepman, with the endeavours of Kate, Storm and Echo.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, asked about worrying by humans. This legislation does not apply to that; however, the under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, humans can certainly be prosecuted for any such concerns that he has.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, asked—I cannot quite recall whether in the debate, but certainly outside—whether this applied to donkeys. I am now delighted to tell him it does. The definition of horses includes asses and mules. Apparently, ass is the correct technical name for a donkey, which is a bit more informal. That, I hope, is there.
On the points raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the original 1953 Act mentions
“arable, meadow or grazing land”.
I say to her that this is really designed to be about farmers and farmed livestock, rather than perhaps a petting zoo. As the Minister outlined, some of this will depend on exactly where the particular facility is.
I note that the reason we are here is really that put forward by my noble friend Lord Colgrain in his striking speech and the very distressing, although measured, way he explained why this is so needed, from his own personal experience.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hart of Tenby. Perhaps this is a bit risqué for the Lords but, dare I say it, a Welshman talking about sheep-worrying could have gone down another avenue. Nevertheless, I know that he has a sense of humour, and we will continue to see that in the House.
I have not mentioned everybody who has spoken but I thank all those who have contributed. I look forward to the Bill making good progress, hopefully, through the House. This will automatically commence if this House passes it as it stands today, which would be good. I hope to get it in before the lambing season of 2026.
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to present this Bill to the House today. It was guided through the House of Commons by John Grady MP, whom I congratulate for his work, and it received cross-party support.
The Bill seeks to amend the 2018 Space Industry Act in a way that should strengthen investment in the UK’s space sector. This is important for both the economic growth and defence of the United Kingdom. The nub of the matter is that under the 2018 Act, anyone carrying out spaceflight activities must indemnify the Government or a list of bodies included in that Act. The uncertainty faced by potential investors is that the Act states that an operator licence “may” specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability. That leaves potential investors not knowing whether there will be a cap to that. I understand that investors remain unwilling to invest in companies that hold unlimited liability. Changing that “may” to “must” is at the heart of today’s Bill.
The Bill would amend Sections 12 and 36 of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability—under Section 36—thereby ensuring that operators are not exposed to unlimited liability. As a result of much hard work by my colleagues in Conservative Governments over recent years, and now Labour’s Government, and that of organisations such as the UK Space Agency, there is now agreement that we have a firm foundation for the development of the space industry.
There are currently two operational spaceports in the UK: Spaceport SaxaVord, in the Shetland Islands, which is licensed for vertical launches, and Spaceport Cornwall, which is licensed for horizontal satellite launch services. It is based on a site adjoining RAF St Mawgan near Newquay. The Spaceport Cornwall team is working closely with schools, colleges and higher education institutions across the region to build the skills base to meet the needs of the space industry. The Bill before us today should help to create economic growth, jobs and prosperity for decades to come across the UK, from Cornwall to Shetland.
The 2018 Act was introduced to enable space activities from UK spaceports, such as satellite launches and suborbital spaceflight. These activities require a spaceflight operator licence. International law places the responsibility for activities in outer space on states, not individuals. Launch states are liable for any damage caused on earth or to aircraft in flight. Damage caused by spaceflight activities could therefore result in claims against the UK Government. To alleviate that eventuality, Section 36 of the 2018 Act provides for spaceflight operators to indemnify the Government in certain circumstances, but the risk currently facing spaceflight operators is that the 2018 legislation does not require the Government to cap the operator’s liability. The policy of Conservative Governments and the current Labour Government was and is that licensees’ liability to indemnify government will be capped, but that commitment is in a policy document. It does not give the certainty of a provision included in statute law.
This is a long-standing unresolved issue. I understand that during consultation exercises and discussions with those involved in the space industry, a key request from the industry has been that there should be legislative certainty that spaceflight operators will not face unlimited liability when operating from the UK. It is not possible for that uncertainty to be removed via the regulation-making power, as there simply is not such a power in 2018 Act. In Section 12(2) of that Act there is no power to have a regulation on this matter. Therefore, the way forward is in the Bill before us today. It would introduce certainty by amending the Space Industry Act 2018 as follows: Clause 1(a) would change “may” to “must” in Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act, and Clause 1(b) would change “any” to “the” in Section 36 of the 2018 Act. Clause 2 simply deals with the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill, consistent with the terms of the 2018 Act. I should note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House reported on 18 July that there is nothing in this Private Member’s Bill that it would wish to draw to the attention of the House.
The Bill has a bit of a black back story. It was passed by the House of Commons early last year, when the sponsor was my then MP and friend, Jonathan Lord, who secured cross-party support for the Bill. He is still very much a friend, though sadly not a Member of Parliament. The Bill made its way here, and I was the sponsor. However, very shortly after the Bill received its First Reading in May, my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak decided to call the general election a little earlier, perhaps, than some of us were expecting, so the Bill was lost for lack of time.
Today, we have the opportunity to breathe life into the Bill. I hope the House will seize that opportunity, and I look forward to hearing the contributions from noble Lords today. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and to congratulate her on having outlined so clearly the purpose of the Bill, and for the skill with which she did so. She did it so well that I hope it has given the House every reason to know that we should give the Bill our unanimous consent. I speak on behalf of the massed ranks of the Government Back Benches.
I pay tribute to those Members in another place who played their part in getting the Bill to this stage, including former Member for Woking, Jonathan Lord, and the current Member for Glasgow East, John Grady. I look forward to the contribution of my noble friend the Minister. I have had the pleasure of being driven by him in a double-decker bus, and I want to know whether, in his transport capacity, he might in future be able to steer satellites.
I am sorry that we do not have time to debate—the advisory time limit is four minutes—but we do have until 3 pm. The thing about this Bill is the change it will make to Section 12(2) from “may” to “must”, and there is nothing else to discuss. We can therefore leave the Bill to one side, which frees us up in this debate to talk about what I hope many of us will want to: extolling the huge potential of the UK’s future in space.
Here, I declare an interest—and what a wonderful interest to declare. I am a member of the special committee set up by the House earlier this year, UK Engagement with Space. I am, at the moment, gazing across the Chamber at the other members, my noble friends—I can call them that, because we all are on the committee—who will be participating in today’s debate. Our inquiry is nearing its end. Often, you have to wait ages for parliamentary time to debate a committee report but we are in the position now of debating a subject before the report has even been published.
This Bill is all about unlocking the potential of future investment in space by providing a more certain climate. I want to highlight some of the areas in brief. One is economic opportunity. The Explanatory Notes for the Bill helpfully set out the fact that space is not just big but a very big business. The figures in the House of Lords Library briefing indicate the sheer scale of the market for space satellites, estimated to be $50 billion by 2033, and the value of the sector to the UK.
Sovereign launch capacity is a point that may be raised by others in this debate. Everyone knows that there are civil and military uses to space, and we may not always be able to rely on the United States for launch capacity in future. There is an argument to be made about our launch capacity. The noble Baroness mentioned SaxaVord. I do not want to pre-empt what our committee may say; I know that there are other potential sites available, and we may hear Sutherland mentioned in this debate. It is a point worth making.
We have unique geographic advantages. Forgive me if the House already knows this, but, unlike some countries, such as Germany, which is what is called “space-locked”, we have the capacity to launch from places in the Shetlands, which is ideal for polar orbit. The more important the Arctic gets, for all kinds of reasons, the more important it is to have a position where you can launch satellites in that orbit.
Then there is space debris. The one thing you need to know about the space above our earth is that it is anything but empty. Most Members might be staggered at the amount of space debris we think there now is. Our committee was told there might be 30,000 tracked objects but that there could be up to 1 million others, untracked. Some of them could be really tiny but, if they punch a hole in your satellite or spacecraft, they could ruin it. Even now, the International Space Station has had to manoeuvre itself to avoid known risks of collisions.
In our committee, we had a wonderful example of a space satellite brought into the committee room. It has a little arm that will reach out and grab a satellite, at 24,000 miles an hour, then slow down considerably and release it so that it will fall to earth. One of the things that most impressed itself on my mind is that we are moving to a stage where, between pollution on the earth and in the sea, and pollution in space, the earth is experiencing a pollution sandwich.
Heavens, my time has already run out—the Whip is looking at me. I do not have time even to mention farming, insurance services and some of the other major areas of our engagement with space. I hope very much that the House will give the Bill unanimous support. We look forward to it progressing with no amendments, so that it can safely reach the statute book in the course of this Session.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, the topic of space makes us think about rockets, astronauts and faraway places, but one of the great things about being a Member of your Lordships’ space committee has been learning that there is a UK space economy. It is vital to so many industries on earth and, so good are we at developing the relevant science and technology, our UK space industry has the potential to grow.
As with any sector, especially a high-tech one such as space, growth requires investment. This Bill, sponsored and ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Anelay, addresses a small but important gap around insurance indemnities, which are a disincentive to investment, as my noble friend has explained. Indeed, this Bill serves to remind us that small things matter, and I hope, like the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that it is passed without amendment and put on the statute books without delay, because it is important.
On its own, the Bill will not address the bigger challenge facing the UK space industry: getting the investment needed to scale UK businesses so they are globally competitive and stay here in the UK. Noble Lords will recall we had a debate in June on the scale-up challenge for the UK AI and creative tech sectors, to which most of us speaking today contributed, so I am certainly not going to repeat what I said then. However, I want to highlight that the scale-up challenge also applies to the UK space industry, where it is arguably harder, because so much of it relies on patient capital.
To paint a picture, there are 1,700 space firms in the UK. That sounds great, but only 25 of them have an annual income of over £50 million. That is what needs to change. During our inquiry, to which the noble Viscount referred, we heard from Mark Boggett of Seraphim Space, a VC firm specialising in this sector. He told us that, while the UK ranks highly in total private investment—third in the world—it is 17th in the world and 10th in Europe when you look at the average deal size. He said this shows that the UK is identifying the right entrepreneurs and backing them in the earlier stages, but consistently underfunding those businesses, which does not enable them to grow on the global stage.
Just like our AI start-ups and spin-outs, which have the potential to grow and be hugely successful and deliver massively for our wider economy, the worry is that UK-based space firms will be bought out, or will move operations to other countries where raising capital is easier. We heard from Joshua Western of Space Forge, an aerospace company based in Wales, who told us that he was continually inundated with offers from Europe, the Middle East and America to shift its HQ to another country.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is a Minister for Transport, but what can he tell us to give us some confidence that the Government will make the necessary changes to incentivise growth capital investment in our space sector? There is much by way of recommendations the Government could adopt. We have had many reports from previous committees, and I have chaired one of them. In the debate in June, there were further recommendations that the Government could adopt.
Sadly, I feel that we are not getting the right signals from Government to incentivise the investment that is needed. I know that all attention today will be on the resignation of Angela Rayner as Deputy Prime Minister, but I was very sorry to hear earlier this morning that the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, has also decided to leave the Government. As the Investment Minister and someone who has come into government having scaled up a tech business, losing her from the Government is something we should be concerned to see.
I was a bit confused by the Government’s decision to abolish the UK Space Agency. I hope the Minister can give some explanation of the Government’s thinking on that, and maybe my noble friend Lord Willetts might have something to say when he follows me. I am pleased to support my noble friend’s Bill and I hope that its passage through this House is swift.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill, which has already received support from across the House. Looking around at noble Lords here this afternoon, I welcome the House of Lords UK Engagement with Space Committee investigation. We should listen to the wise advice we are already getting from members of the committee, and I look forward to its report. I declare an interest as chair of the UK Space Agency and chair of the Regulatory Innovation Office. In light of that, I will make some quick comments.
First, space launch is undoubtedly a fantastic UK opportunity. We have already heard about our spaceports in Newquay in Cornwall and up in Scotland in the Shetlands, SaxaVord—two fantastic opportunities for us. We were right to get legislation on the statute book early on to provide a regulatory regime for space launch; I remember the debates in your Lordships’ House in 2016-17 as that Bill went through, and it has been an advantage for us to have the legislation in place.
However, there is this defect. It was understood at the time when we were debating this, but it is possible that some bean-counters in the Treasury thought they might be able to avoid an extremely speculative long-term liability without putting a clear obligation on government in the Bill. That defect is now widely recognised and is tackled in this Bill. I strongly support it. Moving from “may” to “must” is very important; it is a big difference, as every parent knows.
I will briefly comment on some other aspects of space, in particular the reports of the abolition of the UK Space Agency. I assure the House that reports of our abolition are rather exaggerated. Although the ultimate decision is for the Ministers to whom we are accountable, I will explain what is going on as I understand it. The UK Space Agency was an arm’s-length body. What grew up, over quite a few years, was one group of people sitting in the UK Space Agency doing our stuff, and another group sitting in the relevant department for the last couple of years, DSIT, monitoring what we were doing. It was clear that an awful lot of effort was going into one group of people in the UK Space Agency reporting to another group of people in DSIT, with emails going back and forth, when our activities should be outward looking and focused on business and the science community. Bringing these two activities together has great potential to deliver a more efficient and higher-quality space agency.
Ministers have already decided and announced that the new entity bringing together the existing space agency and DSIT officials will be called the UK Space Agency. There is still a lot of work to be done on exactly how it functions, and Ministers will be deciding on that in the coming months. I very much hope that at the end of this we will see less time spent on internal reporting processes and more time devoted to strengthening the UK space industry and serving the interests of space science. I therefore hope that the recommendations from the Lords UK Engagement with Space Committee reflect that ambition behind the changes that have just been announced.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the honourable John Grady in the other place for introducing this Private Member’s Bill. I welcome the Bill, which is short in text but highly significant in impact. It addresses a crucial point of clarity; by changing one word from “may” to “must”, it makes certain that every spaceflight operator licence, including those for launch activities, will include a liability cap. This seemingly small adjustment is fundamental because, without legal certainty over liability, insurers are reluctant and investors hold back. By guaranteeing a clear liability framework, we send a strong signal that the UK is open for business in the space sector.
Under international space law, particularly the outer space treaty and the liability convention, the United Kingdom is ultimately responsible for damage caused by space objects launched under its jurisdiction. The Space Industry Act 2018 gave us the framework to license launches but left indemnity caps to the discretion of the regulator. This Bill removes that uncertainty and brings us in line with other leading spacefaring nations that already provide operators with capped liability.
For the UK to complete globally, our framework must be both robust and commercially attractive. The UK space sector is already thriving, contributing nearly £19 billion to our economy and supporting tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs.
I wish to make a few remarks about Scotland, which plays a leading role, with Glasgow building more small satellites than any other city in Europe and Scotland accounting for almost 18% of UK space jobs. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, pre-empted that the word “Sutherland” may be mentioned—he was right. For the highlands, Space Hub Sutherland, on the A’ Mhòine peninsula, illustrates the opportunity for regional regeneration. The project has planning consent, with a limited number of launches per year for vertical launch to polar and sun synchronous orbits, ideal for earth observation and climate services. Although development is currently on hold, the site remains a strategic option with strong community involvement. When investors assess whether to restart or scale projects such as Sutherland, they look first for regulator certainty, and this Bill provides it.
Alongside Sutherland, the UK is building out a broader launch ecosystem in Scotland. SaxaVord in the Shetlands now holds the UK’s licence for a vertical spaceport and range operation, with launch operator licences granted and first missions preparing. However, we should think in terms not of a single site but of a plurality of sides, of national capability, launch, in-orbit operations and downstream data, so that the whole of Scotland, from Glasgow to the north—and indeed beyond, to Cornwall and across the UK—can share in the opportunity.
Legislation is not the only factor, but it is foundational. The Bill will put a mandatory cap into every operator licence, ending uncertainty. It will support our space insurance regime so that cover is available and affordable, and signal to global investors that the UK intends to be a stable, bankable place to build rockets, spaceports, satellites and the businesses that follow.
This is a practical, pro-investment measure. It strengthens our competitiveness, supports high-value jobs from Glasgow to the highlands and across the UK, and underpins a sector vital to our economy and security. I am pleased to support the Bill.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I support the Bill and the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and others in bringing it forward. This legislation is not simply about the space sector and risk management; it is also about our national ability to participate fully in the next wave of technological progress. As such, I note my registered interests and my various roles in the technology sector.
Not a day goes by when we do not find ourselves discussing the possibilities of frontier technologies: artificial intelligence, advanced connectivity networks such as 5G and even 6G, and the extraordinary opportunities presented by big data. But we must be clear: these are not stand-alone innovations. They are increasingly interdependent, and at the heart of this interdependence lies the space industry.
Every AI-driven service that requires vast streams of real-time data relies on satellites to collect and transmit it. Our connectivity networks, which underpin modern-day commerce, defence and education, are strengthened by satellite constellations ensuring global coverage. The ability to process and analyse big data on climate, agriculture, transport and health is fundamentally reliant on earth observation from space.
Let me give some practical examples. In agriculture, AI models use satellite imagery to guide farmers on how to reduce fertiliser and water using increasing yields and reducing costs and emissions. In disaster response, rapid satellite data allows emergency services to direct help where it is needed most, with AI helping to interpret the images in near real time. Even our ambitions for autonomous vehicles will be inseparable from satellite-driven positioning systems and resilient connectivity networks.
The Bill addresses a critical barrier to unlocking the future because, without it, the risks created by indemnity and insurance requirements threaten to become a handbrake on growth. Consider a UK satellite launch operator required to take on unlimited indemnity for third-party liability. The result is predictable: either it cannot secure affordable insurance or investors will simply take their capital to countries where the rules are clearer and the risks more proportionate. That means lost investment, lost innovation and lost jobs for the UK. Take the example of a start-up developing a new earth observation service. If it faces uncertain liability rules for even a minor satellite collision or debris incident, the chilling effect on venture funding is immediate. We are all well aware that, in an ever-competitive global economy, capital and talent are mobile. Unless we create a framework that provides confidence, those opportunities will pass us by very quickly.
The Bill’s “may” to “must” amendment brings balance. It ensures that liability is proportionate, that operators can secure insurance on a rational basis and that the UK can send a clear message, as the noble Baroness mentioned, that we want to be the best place in the world to build, launch and operate in space. Without this, the UK’s ability to leverage AI, connectivity and big data—those frontier technologies that will define the coming decade and beyond—will be constrained by something as mundane, but as fundamental, as an unbalanced indemnity regime.
Supporting the Bill is about more than space; it is about ensuring that Britain has the confidence, the regulatory framework and the vision to lead in the industries of tomorrow. I support the Bill.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Ranger. We have become used to playing tag team on Friday debates; he followed me last time round, so it is my turn to go second today. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for bringing the Bill before the House and for the time she spent with me when she heard that I was going to contribute to the debate, explaining how the Bill works and what it is intended to achieve.
Unlike many other noble Lords who have spoken today, I am not a member of the space committee, but I know a good thing when I see one—and so I believe that this is an excellent Bill. It encourages investment in a growing new industry; it looks to the future; it lifts a burden from business; and it does it all without increasing the volume of statute by as much as a single word. I am delighted to lend it my support.
We have rightly heard much about Scotland and the contribution that it makes to the space industry; my noble friend Lady Mobarik eloquently put the case for Scotland, and I understand that Glasgow now rivals California as a base for satellite technology—and no doubt in many other ways, too. However, as a recovering deputy mayor of London, I always like to put in a word for our City and for the consequences of our legislation on it. We may not provide a platform for space launching in London—our skies are already pretty full, as the Minister will be aware from his time at Transport for London; the expansion of Heathrow Airport attracts vocal opposition, so I am sure the Minister would not wish to venture down the road of launching rockets from London—but we are well placed to provide innovation to the UK space race. Our universities in London are gearing up to play a leading part, with Imperial and City University both hosting centres of excellence in this field. There will be a boost for our financial sector from the Bill, because, even though there is competition from around the world, I believe that London is second to none still for raising capital for innovative projects.
The UK regulatory framework, which my noble friend Lord Willetts referred to, is, by the admission of the Minister in the other place, the most advanced and trusted in the world, which is a great base to start from. It is good news for London’s legal sector—people who are never far from our thoughts in this House. The insurance market will benefit from the certainty that this Bill brings. It is impossible for the sector to insure against unlimited risk, so the proposal to cap risks for each of these projects is welcome and will enable the industry to play its part.
In my short time in the House, I have become used to Friday mornings being an excellent time to see debate on all sorts of subjects, and this morning has been no exception. We started early with voting arrangements in Scotland and moved on to discussions of countryside issues, which were very interesting and well informed, and we have climaxed with a scene in space—rather like one of those Bond films from the 1970s starring Roger Moore. Some noble Lords will remember those films; there was always an amusing closing quip from Bond, maybe a double entendre, so I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, given the strong connection between AI and space technology, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on bringing this Bill forward and the original sponsor, John Grady MP, on taking it through the House of Commons. As we have heard, many of us are enthusiastic about being members of the UK Engagement with Space Committee and it has been a great pleasure to hear some preliminary thoughts from members of the committee. No doubt, we will deliver a report, hopefully later this year, that we will debate in this House.
This Bill addresses a fundamental barrier that has been repeatedly raised with the Government over many years, with cross-departmental consultations and reports dating back to 2020 and 2021 consistently highlighting it as a critical unresolved issue. As we have also heard, under the current Space Industry Act 2018, operators face uncapped or unlimited liability when indemnifying the Government against claims arising from spaceflight activities.
As we have heard, this situation has meant that investors have been reluctant to back British space ventures when faced with potentially catastrophic financial exposure. We also know that UK-based venture capitalists tend to have a lower risk tolerance compared to their US counterparts, making this barrier even more significant in the UK context. This has directly put the UK at a serious competitive disadvantage as our competitor nations limit liabilities or provide a state guarantee for launch activities, driving companies to choose other locations with more favourable regulatory regimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned the scale-up challenges that this has presented.
Many noble Lords—it has been a pleasure to hear them—have talked about the potential for our space sector. We have seen the historical orbit launch attempts from UK soil, such as through Virgin Orbit at Spaceport Cornwall, which, though ultimately unsuccessful, demonstrated our national intent and capability. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is clearly a spaceport fan. More recently, with vertical launch licences for SaxaVord, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, mentioned, the UK is positioned to become Europe’s leading destination for commercial space launches. It was a pleasure to hear about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and his enthusiasm for the space sector.
The UK’s expertise in legal services and the City of London, with its insurance underwriting capacity, offer a significant opportunity for the UK to become a global centre for space law and arbitration and to influence international regulation and standards. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, made the case extremely well, particularly for our London universities. Having recently chaired the council of Queen Mary, I know that our London universities have considerable expertise in that respect. When the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, talked about the relationship between data and satellite technology, including the potential for artificial intelligence, he made a very good case.
I believe that this Bill will unleash opportunities in the insurance market. It will facilitate activities such as listings on the London Stock Exchange, bond issues and corporate finance, further strengthening the City’s role as a financier of innovation and trade. It is a concerning fact that around 85% of satellites are not insured once they have been launched, making a stable and clear insurance framework even more vital.
However, beyond the immediate impact, this Bill underpins the growth of an extraordinarily important economic sector. Public investment in space yields high economic returns, supporting advanced manufacturing and delivering a strong multiplier effect. This Bill is a strategic piece of legislation that will help cement the UK’s position in space technology and the space economy.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, had to say about the relocation, if you like, of the UK Space Agency—putting it no higher than that—but I would very much like to hear from the Minister how he believes the repositioning of the UKSA will help our space effort and our capacity in the space sector. Seen from the outside, many of us are rather dubious about whether this is purely a cost-cutting exercise.
Although welcomed by the industry, this Bill highlights concerning delays in our legislative response to sectoral needs. We have heard that this is all about going from “may” to “must”, but it has taken seven years from identifying the original problem to effecting a solution, with six years passing since the space sector first identified the problem. We cannot afford such delays when competing internationally. Our regulatory frameworks must evolve at the pace of technological advancement and not that of Westminster’s traditional timeline.
Moreover, while this Bill addresses one crucial issue, broader regulatory challenges persist. The space economy is evolving rapidly, with new business models such as in-orbit servicing and manufacturing—the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned space debris—which will push the boundaries of the existing regulatory framework. So, while the Bill is welcome, it should be seen not as concluding regulatory evolution but, rather, as one essential step in ensuring that Britain remains competitive.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this Bill, which, although a Private Member’s Bill, received the support of the previous Conservative Government; I understand that it has the support of the current Government as well.
I do not want to sound the slightest bit grinchy in the midst of such enthusiasm for space travel as has been expressed in this debate, but it falls to me, I think, to ask a few practical questions about how this measure is going to operate and what the justification is for transferring this liability to the taxpayer, who has not been mentioned so far by any of the speakers in the debate. We on these Benches obviously welcome the prospect of space travel originating in the United Kingdom. As Conservatives, we particularly welcome the fact that private investors are expected to be the driving force behind this programme. That is right and proper, for the large rewards that may flow to private investors are earned because of the risk they assume, but, if too much of that risk is transferred to the taxpayer, the balance is lost.
This leaves me with some questions for my noble friend and the Minister. First, it is implicit in the current arrangements that insurers are providing, and available to provide, only capped cover for damage caused by operators. Is that correct? Is that insurance available even on a capped basis and is it the norm for current operators?
Secondly, the Government will in future, as a result of this Bill, be obliged to bear the liability above an agreed cap, but we have no indication of how that cap will be determined. How will the Government ensure that they are not accepting an excessive or indeed unnecessary amount of risk on behalf of the taxpayer? Will the Government charge a fee or a premium for the unlimited risk that they are taking on? After all, the arrangement proposed is not unusual. I have it in respect of my own motor car: I have an excess that I have to pay myself, then an unlimited liability passes to the insurer in the event that I cause any damage. But I have to pay quite a chunky premium for that. Will the beneficiaries of this arrangement have to make a payment akin to an insurance premium?
Thirdly, if an operator can obtain free or nearly free top-up cover from the Government, what incentive will he have to maximise cover from the insurance sector? Surely the incentive would be to minimise expensive private insurance and maximise the Government’s indemnity.
Fourthly, risk affects not only balance sheets but behaviour. Someone whose potential loss is fully covered may act more recklessly than someone who has more skin in the game, to use that rather horrible phrase. Are the Government confident that transferring a higher level of risk to the taxpayer will not encourage a more insouciant attitude to safety on the part of operators? I say this with no disrespect to the CAA as the regulator, but it cannot inspect what is going on inside boardroom heads.
On a point of some detail which I am genuinely curious about, I draw attention to Section 4(1) of the Space Industry Act 2018, which provides:
“A person does not require an operator licence to carry out spaceflight activities in respect of which it is certified by Order in Council that arrangements have been made between the United Kingdom and another country to secure compliance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom”.
It follows from this that at least theoretically and in certain circumstances there will be operators operating from the United Kingdom who will not have a licence, because they do not require an operator licence under Section 4(1).
The Bill before us today seeks to moderate the current arrangements through the means of the wording of the operator licence. But in circumstances where there is no licence, it is clear that this Bill is going to have no effect. My question is whether such arrangements already exist and whether there are examples of such arrangements that have been certified by Order in Council. What liability arrangements does the Minister envisage in those circumstances and will he confirm that those liability arrangements are going to remain unchanged?
Would the matter be different if those arrangements were made with a private company? Imagine a circumstance where our obligations under NATO, which are international obligations and so would fall under Section 4(1), result in the United States launching satellites from the United Kingdom. I can understand that happening. What if the United States were to contract that to, say, Mr Musk’s operation—a very likely possibility? How does the liability work in those cases, and will that change as a result of the Bill? If so, how do the Government envisage that working?
I have other questions that I would like to ask, but I think that is enough for the Minister to be going on with. The enthusiasm that we have for space is tremendous and I encourage it. I myself do not expect to see the earth down there below me, not in my time, but no doubt there are younger Members of your Lordships’ House, some of them behind me, who have that prospect, and I wish them well in it. In the meantime, I would simply like to know that we have buttoned down exactly what it is that the Bill is leading to, and that the taxpayer is not going to be given a large liability that should more properly be borne by those who reap the financial and commercial benefits of space travel.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that this short but crucial Bill has come before your Lordships’ House, and I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for bringing it forward. I am pleased to confirm that she has the full support of the Government. I thank all noble Lords for their comments in the debate and for their support. It was particularly pleasing to hear from so many noble Lords who are members of the space committee.
Before I outline why the Government are fully supportive of the Bill, I shall say a few words about the recent passing of Frank Strang MBE, the driving force behind SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands—the UK’s first fully licensed vertical spaceport—who died at the age of 67. He was a passionate supporter of the UK launch programme and a real force of nature. His loss is particularly poignant as we move ever closer to the UK’s first vertical launch from SaxaVord spaceport. On behalf of the Government, I acknowledge his significant contribution and pass on my deepest sympathies to his family and colleagues. He will be dearly missed.
As noble Lords will be aware, Glasgow builds more small satellites than anywhere else outside California, and the UK is now the second most attractive destination for commercial space investment after the United States. This Government have made it clear that growth is vital to rebuilding the UK and supporting high-tech jobs, which unlocks investment and improves living standards across the country. The space sector, as noble Lords have heard, is hugely valuable to the UK’s economy. It is worth over £18.9 billion and directly employs more than 52,000 people. It supports over 126,000 jobs across the supply chain, and at least £346 billion of UK GDP is supported by satellite services such as navigation, meteorology, communications and earth observation.
It is now possible to launch satellites from UK spaceports rather than relying solely on overseas spaceports to launch UK-built satellites into orbit. In January 2023, Virgin Orbit conducted a historic first launch from the UK from Spaceport Cornwall, and, as noble Lords have heard, in December 2024, SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands became the UK’s first licensed vertical launch spaceport.
This year we hope to witness the UK’s first vertical launch by German company Rocket Factory Augsburg, with more to follow. The Government are investing in new launch companies such as Orbex, which has built factories in Scotland, creating hundreds of new jobs, ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that the Government have created. Other launch operators such as Skyrora, a UK company based again in Glasgow, are also thriving. Skyrora has indicated that it will conduct its first suborbital launch from the UK in the near future.
The UK space industry already supports an industrial base of over 1,500 space companies. It provides high-skill, high-quality jobs across the UK, with over 77% of employees holding at least a primary degree. Building on the success of the UK space sector, the Government will continue to support business through a stable policy environment, strengthening our economic institutions and giving investors the certainty that they need to fuel growth. The Government recognise the important contribution that the space sector makes to ordinary people’s daily lives. It is important that the UK builds on the current successes of a thriving and dynamic space sector.
We will ensure, through the measures that this Government is taking to deliver growth, that the UK becomes a leading provider of commercial small satellite launch in Europe by 2030. To achieve our ambition, the Government continue to support spaceports and launch operators to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and suborbital spaceflight.
The Government are committed to making improvements to the Space Industry Act 2018 and the Space Industry Regulations to ensure that our legal framework and regulations remain effective and internationally competitive, and the Government recognise that the question of liability and insurance is of utmost concern to the space sector.
I will turn to a number of points made by noble Lords in the debate, if I may. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, asked about encouraging global investment in the space sector. We are exploring financial tools, incentives and market access schemes that promote sustainable activities and encourage self-investment and inward investment, and that support a level playing field for UK companies. She referred to the resignation of my noble friend Lady Gustafsson for family reasons; I or her successor will write further to the noble Baroness about the points she raised.
A number of noble Lords raised the regional benefits to the UK in respect of Scotland, Cornwall and London, in both academic and business terms. The Government strongly support development of the space industry for precisely those reasons. It has regional and national consequences.
Noble Lords also raised the question of the merger of the UK Space Agency with DSIT’s space directorate from 1 April 2026. I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for his very optimistic explanation of what seems to us to be an efficiency move to cut duplication without curtailing activities. As he says, bringing the activities together will be more efficient and get more done quicker and more easily. I thank him for his contribution in that respect, which was more elegant than the note I was given on the subject in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised a number of questions, not all of which I have the dexterity and speed to answer through technological means currently. One of the points he raised was on the transfer of risk and the possibility that, risk having been transferred, operators would behave in a negligent or non-compliant manner. The answer is that the cap will not apply if that is the case. The Government are comfortable that these arrangements are the right thing to do. In fact, the space industries have been asking for them for some time.
The noble Lord asked about operators certified by Order in Council, the public liability of such operators and so forth. Currently, there are no Orders in Council in place with third countries such as the US. Before such a future order were to be considered, we would want to assure ourselves that the country in question had a regulatory framework and licensing structure comparable to our own. Hypothetically, if the UK were to enter into such an arrangement, the other country in question would still be jointly and severally liable with the UK, under the UN liability convention, for any damage caused. We would therefore anticipate any arrangement between the UK and another country to make provision for financial liability. The UK legislation would still require the operator to indemnify the UK Government against any claim for damage or loss against the Government arising from the operator’s activities.
The industry has made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry. It has advised that it is impossible to obtain insurance for an unlimited amount, and therefore impossible to obtain insurance that would provide full coverage of their liability to indemnify Government and their liability to uninvolved third parties.
Furthermore, potential liabilities of safe spaceflight are not easily quantifiable. If government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors would look instead to more favourable regulatory regimes in other countries, where Governments share the risks involved by limiting an operator’s liability or by offering a state guarantee, such as in the US or France. As the noble Baroness has explained, there are powers in the Space Industry Act to limit a spaceflight operator’s liability when carrying out spaceflight activities from the UK.
The 2018 Act enables commercial spaceflight activities, which include launching a spaceflight—operating a satellite in orbit, for example—and other activities, such as the operation of a spaceport and management of a range to be carried out under a licence in the United Kingdom. The Act sets out the broad licensing and regulatory framework for carrying out such activities and is underpinned by more detailed provisions in the Space Industry Regulations 2021.
The 2018 Act currently provides powers to the regulator to specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability in their licence, but the Act does not make it mandatory. Currently, Section 12(2) of the Act provides that:
“An operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability under section 36”.
Current government policy is that regulators should use these powers and specify a limit on operator liability and the licence so that no operator will face unlimited liability.
The Government fully support the Bill for two key reasons. It is consistent with our policy that all spaceflight operator licences should have a limit on liability. Therefore, it will not impose any additional liability or risk on UK taxpayers compared with the current policy. The Government also recognise the value that industry places on having legislative certainty on this matter.
The space sector continually expresses its concerns about the use of the word “may” in Section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness for the Bill, which, by amending Section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act, will meet a key request from the sector. We fully support the Bill.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have participated today and for the way in which noble Lords have expressed cross-party support for the Bill. It is right not only to congratulate noble Lords on showing the way forward that the Bill could produce, which would mean a strengthening of investment within the space industry, but on giving us the opportunity to show that the UK is indeed intending to be a leader in the development of all the technological changes that are about to come.
My noble friend Lord Moylan was rather coy about his age, whereas he is but young in this House. I am not saying I am going to send him into space—I promise noble Lords that I will never do that to him—but I would say to him that we have the opportunity here to ensure that we support the development of technology. He was right to ask the questions that he did. I was intrigued by the question about Section 4 of the 2018 Act. I will check again, but I read the Hansard of this House for that Bill—I did not fully read the Commons Hansard—and I was not aware that there had been questioning regarding that. I thank my noble friend for asking that, because it is now on the record, and the Minister gave such a good answer. Me saying a Minister has given a good answer probably has not happened since last summer—I can change occasionally, but not often.
This is an opportunity for the Bill to go through this House, with, I hope, further support so that we are able to get the Bill through in a timely manner, so that those who are willing to invest in a very important industry feel that they have been given the ability to do so, still facing risk, but knowing where the risk lies.