Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is an absolute privilege to speak in support of the Bill and better health and welfare standards in our dog, cat and ferret import industry. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on introducing the Bill. I admire the work that she done to tighten our importation regulations and advance animal welfare standards for some of our most loved pets. Her work is even more important given the absence of any Government legislation to introduce such measures.

Many of my constituents, and many people in the country more broadly, will be heartened by the hon. Member’s dedication to improving the welfare of our imported pets. With National Pet Day on 11 April fast approaching, the debate is timely. National Pet Day celebrates the contribution of pets to our lives, and highlights the care and welfare requirements of our animals. Just a week earlier, National Ferret Day will be marked on 2 April, celebrating the estimated 100,000 pet ferrets in the UK. The contributions that cats and dogs make to our lives will be celebrated on their namesake days, on 8 and 26 August respectively.

That shows and proves that we are a nation of animal lovers—and one that holds particular affection for cats and dogs. Like many other Members, I am sure, I grew up with dogs—mainly Lancashire heelers. That is, sadly, a dying breed, but they are wonderful dogs that are particularly special to my West Lancashire constituency, where we have two kinds of heeler: the Lancashire heeler and the Ormskirk heeler. We had Scamp, who was a vicious little beast but was loved nevertheless, as well as Pal, Beauty, Becky 1 and, sadly, Becky 2, Tilly, Tiny and Pippin. Everybody in the family was involved in naming those dogs, and they were very much a part of our family life growing up. As an adult, I have always had cats. Unfortunately, we most recently lost Colin to a congenital heart disease.

Research from the World Population Review this year revealed that the United Kingdom is home to about 12 million dogs—the sixth largest population of dogs in the world. Research from various organisations including the PDSA puts the percentage of UK households home to a dog at between 29% and 31%, which is huge. As of 2023, the number of cats owned is almost as high as dogs, with 11 million cats across the United Kingdom.

To the many people across this country with a dog, cat or ferret, these animals are not just pets, but valued members of our families. For others, a dog or cat can offer the much-needed companionship they may not otherwise have. We saw the social and personal benefit of animal ownership throughout the pandemic, when 3.2 million pets were purchased during the periods of lockdown. Lacking social interaction and instead facing social isolation, individuals and families alike sought the great companionship that pets can provide. With this nation’s love and affection for our feline and canine friends in mind, I believe the Bill’s provisions will be welcomed by many of our constituents.

To understand the importance of the Bill, it is essential to understand the current issues around puppy, kitten and ferret smuggling. Currently, these animals can enter this country in two primary ways: under the non-commercial rules of the pet travel scheme, or via the commercial importation regime. Pet travel rules have made travelling with pets both cheaper and easier for owners. However, these non-commercial rules have been abused by puppy and kitten smugglers, particularly those who care not for the health and welfare of these animals, but for the financial reward from this exploitative practice. Traders have fraudulently claimed pet ownership of numerous puppies and kittens to import these animals under the non-commercial rules of the pet travel scheme, yet these puppies and kittens are commercially sold upon importation.

Requirements for owners travelling with a pet are less stringent than those for commercial import, and rightly so—that is perfectly understandable. Smugglers have therefore sought to abuse the pet travel importation route to circumvent more stringent health regulations for their animals. It is the health and welfare of puppies, kittens and ferrets that is frequently compromised when these pets are illegally smuggled into the United Kingdom.

As I suggested when I outlined the sheer number of these pets in this country, the demand for cats and dogs is extremely high. The demand for young puppies and kittens from high-value breeds is similarly high, as is, sadly, the demand for animals with certain mutilations. Cropped-ear dogs and declawed cats are both in demand, despite the illegality of both mutilations in this country. The sheer demand for dogs and cats of all types, coupled with the demand for dogs and cats with illegal mutilations under UK law, has encouraged the abuse of our animal importation rules. With less stringent regulation, pet importation has been feigned, and the health and welfare of imported animals has suffered. In 2021, almost 1,000 dogs and cats were detained for being non-compliant with existing animal health and welfare legislation, and that is just the number of identified imported animals. As with any illicit industry, the true figure could well be far higher.

It is with those issues in mind that I welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will offer far greater protection for the health and welfare of dog, cats and ferrets imported into this country. The measures outlined are eminently sensible. To address the abuse of non-commercial importation rules, it is my understanding that the Bill will reduce the number of animals that can travel under the non-commercial rules from five per person to five per vehicle, or three per foot passenger or air passenger. Right now, smugglers are benefiting from non-commercial pet importation rules, so reducing the number that any one person can claim as a pet when travelling will impinge further on the fraudulent use of this importation route and the associated health and welfare costs of puppy smuggling under this system.

More broadly, the Bill’s provisions will put in place higher health and welfare standards for imported puppies and kittens. Banning the import of puppies and kittens under six months of age seems very reasonable because separating puppies or kittens from their mothers too early carries a risk of illness or even death for those young animals. We know that the separation of puppies from their mothers is not advisable at all before eight weeks for exactly those reasons.

In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for a licence holder to sell a puppy as a pet or to permanently separate it from its biological mother before eight weeks; and for those who may choose to sell a litter from a family pet, there is a consensus among many welfare and veterinary organisations, such as the Animal Welfare Foundation, the Blue Cross, the PDSA and Dogs Trust, that puppies should not be separated until this age. The emotional and physical distress experienced by both the mother and the puppy can be immense, and if not fatal, it can have behavioural consequences for these animals throughout their lives. Each week a puppy spends with its mother is crucial for its social and behavioural development. Bite inhibition and gentle play are taught in this environment and are essential before a puppy is rehomed.

The recognition of harm to kittens separated from their mothers at a young age is also already recognised in legislation. In this country it is illegal for a licensed breeder to sell a kitten under the age of eight weeks of age. In recent months this place has shown great concern about the possession of dangerous dogs that pose a risk to public health. Ensuring a suitable age for imported dogs and the welfare of these animals should therefore be an equally high priority in this House.

To prevent the proliferation of a dangerous dog population in the UK, we need to prevent the importation of animals at higher risk of displaying dangerous behavioural traits. This should include prohibiting young puppies without the behavioural maturity and bite inhibition that they learn from their mothers. That is why this Bill’s provision to ban the importation of puppies, kittens and ferrets under the age of six months can only be a positive step towards greater animal welfare standards and towards reducing our population of dangerous dogs that may pose a threat to public health.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent, thoughtful and well-researched speech. Does she agree that there is a need for greater public information and education, as previously mentioned in the debate, to reduce the risk of young age puppies being sold?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his considered intervention and agree wholeheartedly that we need to make sure that public information and education is improved. Many people do not understand the impact and possible implications of taking a young puppy or kitten so early. They often do this out of the goodness of their heart, and with the best intentions of wanting to look after a young puppy or kitten or get one for their children, but we need to ensure that people are aware of the long-term and often permanent damage that can be done to young puppies and kittens in this way. By removing the ability to import puppies and kittens under the age of six months, we can likely remove the incentive for these animals to be stripped from their mothers at a critically young age and thus reduce the numbers of puppies and kittens suffering from the health and welfare consequences of premature separation.

We should also prohibit the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated, which several Members have talked about. Those animals have often suffered the trauma of unnecessary procedures such as ear cropping and tail docking. Such mutilations have no health benefits; they are abusive practices recognised in UK law as illegal. They offer only emotional and physical trauma to the animals on which they are inflicted. Preventing the importation of animals with these traumatic mutilations will also prevent the importation of animals which, as a result of the physical and emotional trauma caused by the mutilations, can develop behavioural changes.

Dogs with cropped ears or docked tails may be recognised by certain members of the public as being more aggressive or dangerous. We hear that regularly—or at any rate I do, in my surgeries. If people keep their own pets away from these animals, which they often do for fear of aggression towards them or their dogs, the animals will suffer further from a lack of socialisation and their behaviour will worsen further. Similarly, the banning of imports of dogs and cats with mutilations will protect puppies and kittens from harmful practices, and will hopefully instigate a decline in demand for pets with certain physical characteristics. If it is illegal to import a puppy with cropped ears, it is common sense that the incentive to crop that puppy’s ears at its location of origin will be diminished. If it cannot be imported and sold legally in the UK, it is logical to conclude that that characteristic will lose the value that it once had to the importer.

We may also hope that the criminalisation of certain mutilations will reduce the demand for these practices from the consumer, along with the education referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). In this place, I frequently hear the argument that the criminalisation of any activity may increase the attractiveness of engaging in whatever is being criminalised, but in the case of animal welfare I do not find that argument particularly convincing. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I believe that following the criminalisation of certain mutilations, those wanting to buy a puppy or kitten may understand better the harm associated with these practices and choose to shun the imported animals. We ban them because of the mutilations and because they are damaging, not just because this is a fashion that we do not like.

As for those whose conscience does not prohibit them from requiring a mutilated puppy or kitten, the recognition of their pet’s becoming illegal in the future might. We can hope that both the importer and the consumer will be discouraged from mutilating and acquiring mutilated animals respectively. The legal importation will all but disappear, and we may hope—optimistically—that the illegal smuggling trade will face several disruptions, with the broader recognition of the harm that mutilated animals have endured.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that although many of us have learnt a great deal about these practices, courtesy of the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), the wider public are not aware of some of the consequences? Could the Government not do much more to inform the public of these practices and support the wider provisions of the Bill?

[Ashley Dalton]

I entirely agree. The wider public are not necessarily aware of that or the wide range of existing legislation, let alone the provisions that will be introduced by the Bill if it proceeds successfully. By engaging in this debate we are helping to raise awareness, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on enabling that by presenting the Bill.

The proposed banning of the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats is another provision that will help to protect animal health and welfare. The plans of those seeking to circumvent new rules limiting the number of animals imported under non-commercial rules would be scuppered. Those seeking to abuse our laws will always try to find new ways in which to sustain their exploitative operations in any which way they can, but the Bill, well thought out as it is, offers great two-layer protection for puppies and kittens. Let us imagine a scenario in which a puppy smuggler wanted to import several puppies or kittens, under the guise of the animals being their pets. The limit to the legal importation of these animals under non-commercial rules on an aeroplane would now be three. Cognisant of that limit, a smuggler could have sought to import a heavily pregnant dog or cat which would then give birth in the UK to numerous puppies or kittens which could then be sold. This practice would be limited, with the further provision banning the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats. A puppy smuggler could not simply travel with a heavily pregnant dog or cat under the guise of pet ownership for the animal then to give birth as a commercial opportunity in the UK.

Crucially, the Bill will also support the health and welfare of pregnant cats and dogs, who are our pets and can suffer greatly from international travel when heavily pregnant. The physical and emotional upheaval of long-haul travel can prompt early labour without the necessary veterinary care, and therefore carries risks of harm or death for both the mother and the puppies or kittens involved.

In reviewing the specifics of the Bill in preparation for the debate, I was astonished to find that some of its provisions were not already enshrined in legislation. These are sensible and considered measures for which I can see little downside, and they are well supported by others outside this place. The support that the Bill has garnered from animal welfare stakeholders and charities demonstrates the benefit its provisions could have for the health and welfare of puppies and kittens in the UK.

The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home all support measures in the Bill, and they supported them when they were introduced in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Those stakeholders are the experts in the field, and their endorsement has reassured me that the measures are well considered and likely to positively impact the health and welfare of cats and dogs.

In fact, the importance of supporting the Bill has grown greater since the Government abandoned the kept animals Bill in May 2023. The Prime Minister rode back on the commitment he made during his ill-fated leadership election in which he pledged to retain that Bill in the Government’s legislative agenda. It was left to Opposition Members to try to revive that Bill in an Opposition day debate on 21 June last year. I spoke then in defence of greater regulation to ensure the welfare of animals imported into this country. Despite voting in favour of Labour’s motion, Government Members rejected our best attempts to revive the Bill.

I have since pressed the Government in this place on their failure to support better animal welfare standards. In January, on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, I pressed the Minister about the Government’s plans on puppy smuggling and ear-cropping legislation. However, as the title of that Bill suggested, the Government were concerned there not with the importation of domestic pets but with the exports of livestock. The absence of legislation in this area is exactly why I was keen to speak today in support of this Bill.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

The banning of live exports is one of the real benefits of our leaving the European Union. Were we to have stayed in, we would not have been able to give that benefit to our livestock. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is a real benefit to animals in this country?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It was unfortunate that, even at that point, we still had not managed to bring anything forward around the importation of pets, and it was disappointing that the kept animals Bill was abandoned. We were told in the House that the Government expected such measures to come forward through private Members’ Bills, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on her Bill. I am delighted that what I considered to be something for the birds at the time has come about, and I am delighted on this occasion to have been wrong.

If the moral arguments for the Bill—greater protections for the health and welfare of domestic animals—are not compelling enough for Members across the House, the biosecurity threat posed by a poorly regulated and exploited importation industry should be. That is of particular relevance to my constituents in West Lancashire, which is also a farming community and so relies significantly on biosecurity.

Puppies, kittens and ferrets imported into the UK illegally pose a significant risk of parasitic disease. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took oral evidence on its puppy smuggling inquiry in October 2019, but the written evidence submitted to that inquiry and published for all Members of the House to read was particularly interesting. Dogs and puppies illegally landed in the UK were recognised as presenting a significant biosecurity risk. The pet travel scheme requires microchipping, rabies vaccination, a mandatory pre-travel waiting period and, depending on the country from which the pet is travelling, tapeworm treatment and a rabies antibody test result to create a pet passport.

The commercial importation scheme has greater requirements, as I referenced earlier, and has all the conditions of the pet travel scheme alongside a pre-importation veterinary examination, an animal health certificate and pre-notification to the authorities to ensure welfare during transportation. The illegal smuggling of pets, where there is not compliance with PTS or commercial importation standards, leaves our residents’ pets, animals and us at risk of infectious diseases that may spread to other animals or, in some cases, people in the UK.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is making points that others have not made, so this is a very valuable contribution. Will she say something about how animals coming in that perhaps have not had those vaccinations, or that are not properly certificated as such, can cause devastation to farming communities like hers, because the diseases they carry do not necessarily stick to one individual species? This can be a real issue for an entire community. It is all very well having a law, but enforcement is the key to stopping these problems arising.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising how important this is in farming communities such as mine. This is crucial, and we have legislation in place, some of which many farmers find quite onerous, to protect the biosecurity of their livestock and land. It is particularly relevant in my constituency, which has wetlands and bird sanctuaries.

Some protections are difficult to put in place, and I have had long discussions with chicken and wildfowl breeders in West Lancashire about the things they have to do to protect our nation’s biosecurity. We need to ensure there is continuing awareness of the legislation because, obviously, parasitic infections take no notice of borders.

[Selaine Saxby]

As I said in my speech, this is not covered by the Bill, and the British Veterinary Association is quite comfortable that it is not fully included and that the EFRA Committee is continuing its work in this area.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Lady for that welcome clarification.

The provision in the Bill to reduce the number of animals that can be claimed as personal pets, and that can therefore be imported under the pet travel scheme regulations, will help to address this biosecurity risk. Reducing the number of puppies, kittens and ferrets that can be admitted to just three will help to reduce the numbers that a smuggler can import under these less stringent biosecurity rules.

Proposed new article 5A of the regulations should further help to limit abuse of the pet travel scheme. Under this article, the movement of a cat, dog or ferret would not be classed as non-commercial unless the animal is accompanied by its owner, or unless the movement occurs within five days of its owner arriving in the country. This change would help to prevent abuse of the non-commercial importation regulations and limit the awful feigning of commercial animals as pets to circumvent the requirements for commercial imports.

Alongside that reduction, the Bill would place an emphasis on greater enforcement mechanisms, which we have talked about at length. I would welcome any further detail that the hon. Member for North Devon can provide to ensure that this sensible and worthwhile legislation is able to be enforced.



Having looked at the Bill with great interest, and having considered the specifics of each measure carefully, I am proud to support the hon. Member for North Devon in the passage of the Bill. Along with many millions in this country, I hold our pets in the highest regard. They make the lives of families and individuals up and down the country fuller and brighter. It is with the societal benefit of cats, dogs and ferrets and their welfare and health in mind that I am proud to support the Bill. Its measures will protect the welfare of our domestic animal imports and protect our animals and public health at home.

I also support the Bill because, as I said, we sadly lost our cat, Colin, to congenital heart disease just after we had moved house. We are looking forward to getting a new cat—yet to be named—and hopefully a new dog, which I am insisting will be called Kenneth. It is really important to me that legislation is in place to ensure that anybody buying a new cat, dog or ferret as a member of their family can be reassured that it has been treated properly. After the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), I am seriously considering also getting a ferret. My father has always wanted one.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for North Devon and congratulate her on picking up what the Government have hitherto refused to advance. This is a necessary, important and common-sense piece of legislation that I urge all Members who are present today to support.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been a privilege to shepherd the Bill through the House, delivering on our manifesto commitment to end live animal exports.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. We are happy to see the legislation, although I am disappointed that no amendments were made. The Government have already got rid of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. They stated that they expected legislation to cover further areas of animal welfare through private Members’ Bills, and so on, but we have seen only one private Member’s Bill relating to animal welfare. Does the Minister expect further legislation on animal welfare—for instance on puppy smuggling—and if so, when?

[Mark Spencer]

A number of Opposition Members have commented that the Government have done very little for animal welfare. It is worth my pointing out that we have recognised animal sentience in law, and launched the committee that will advise the Government on how policy decisions should be made. We have ramped up enforcement. We have increased the maximum sentences for animal cruelty from six months to five years of imprisonment. We have launched the consultation on financial penalty notices, with the power to charge up to £5,000 in fines, in addition to existing penalties under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We have introduced new protections for service animals under Finn’s law. We have improved farm animal welfare. We have launched the animal health and welfare pathways, with new annual vet visits and grants for farmers.

We have implemented a revised welfare-at-slaughter regime, and introduced CCTV in all slaughterhouses. We have banned traditional battery cages for laying hens, and permitted beak-trimming only via infrared technology. We have raised standards for meat chickens. We have significantly enhanced companion animal welfare. We have revamped the local authority licensing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays. We have banned third party puppy and kitten sales with Lucy’s law. We have made microchipping compulsory for cats and dogs. We have introduced offences of horse fly-grazing and abandonment. We have introduced new community order powers to address dog issues. We have provided valuable new protections for wild animals, and have banned wild animals in travelling circuses. We have passed the Ivory Act 2018, including one of the toughest bans on elephant ivory sales—[Interruption.] I have a long way to go yet. We have given the police additional powers to tackle hare coursing. We have banned glue traps. We have supported private Members’ Bills which were passed in the last Session, including the Bill to ban the trade in detached shark fins, and launched the consultation to ban the keeping of primates as pets.

Apart from those few items, we have done very little.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

rose—

[Ashley Dalton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Spencer]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I will come back to the hon. Lady.

[Tim Loughton]

I am grateful to the Minister—

[Ashley Dalton]

With respect—

[Tim Loughton]

Hold on!

[Hon. Members]

Sit down!

[Ashley Dalton]

I am sorry; I apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Tim Loughton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Ashley Dalton]

rose—

[Mark Spencer]

I have held the hon. Lady back for too long, so I will give way, but I am conscious that we need to move on.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I shall be very quick.

With respect to the Minister, I did not ask him what the Government had done; I asked him what measures that were in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which was thrown out by the Government, we might expect to see in the future. I know what the Government have done, because I pay attention. I am asking what they intend to do.

[Mark Spencer]

I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that tonight is a big step forward. We have a huge chunk of the kept animals Bill, and I believe that early in March there will be a private Member’s Bill, on which we will of course deliver. Let me contrast that with what happened under Labour by taking the hon. Lady back to July 2009. This was the answer to a question from a Labour Member about what Labour intended to do about the export of live animals:

“The export of live animals is a lawful trade and to restrict it would be contrary to free trade rules. Such trade must, though, adhere to the standards set out in health and welfare rules.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 716W.]

The Labour Government had the opportunity to do this in 2009, and chose not to.

Let me now turn to Third Reading. I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I am hugely grateful to Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill and have been present during its passage to ensure that this trade is consigned to history. I know that the topic of live exports is close to the hearts of a great many Members, and it is been cheering and wonderful to hear so many parliamentarians speak in support of the Bill.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Despite what Conservative Members would have us believe, this Government inherited some of the cleanest rivers and waterways in Britain’s history when they came to power almost 14 years ago. [Interruption.] It is true. When Labour left office in 2010, the Environment Agency stated that our rivers were healthier than they had been at any point since the industrial revolution. Two years earlier, 80% of water quality tests in the Thames were found to be very good or good, compared with only 58% in 1990.

So what has changed? Thirteen and a half years of Tory government have polluted our coasts and our waterways, and we arrive at the appalling situation where over 800 sewage dumps are taking place across our country every single day. This is a green and pleasant land, but in the last seven years alone over 1,200 years’ worth of raw sewage has been dumped into British waters.

My constituency of West Lancashire has a proud history of growing communities, but how can the farms and nurseries of West Lancashire have any confidence in the water they use to grow the food that ends up on Britain’s plates? The growers in my constituency care about the quality of food they produce. If only they had a Government who cared about the quality of water used to produce it. Not one single river in Britain is classed as being in a healthy condition—not one.

It is not even true that the Government can be accused of inaction. It is worse than that: they have blocked amendments to the Environment Act 2021 brought forward by Labour to bring an end to sewage dumping scandals. My constituents expect bonuses to be paid only when people deliver and perform above and beyond how they are expected to. Other than the air we breathe, which is another sticky wicket for this Government but a topic for another day, is there anything more vital than water? My constituents do not expect bonuses to be awarded for polluting our rivers and seas while bosses’ and shareholders’ pockets are lined with cash.

To add insult to injury, water companies are asking customers to pay an extra £156 a year to pay for problems caused by the chronic under-investment in the network, while £14 million of bonuses were paid in just one year to the very people who have failed to maintain the system adequately. Under no circumstances is that acceptable.

Ofwat must have the power to ban the payment of bonuses to water bosses who allow significant levels of raw sewage to be pumped into our precious rivers, lakes and seas. If that had been in place over the last year, six out of nine water bosses’ bonuses would have been blocked. They were not.

Labour will put the water industry into special measures and ensure change. We will end the farce of companies self-monitoring and require all companies to monitor all—all—water outlets. Water bosses that persistently allow their companies to break the law on sewage dumping will face personal criminal responsibility.

The current system for imposing fines simply is not working. Long drawn-out, expensive court cases are no credible deterrent for water companies and the Government know it, so Labour will introduce severe and automatic fines for illegal discharges. My constituents have a right to expect to be able to enjoy our rivers and coasts without fear of contamination from raw sewage—and they have a right to expect water polluters not only to pay the price where contamination does occur, but not to be rewarded for allowing it to happen. Labour’s plans will shift the burden on to the water companies, rather than expecting the British public to carry the can.

Under the Government’s plans, the Tory sewage scandal will continue for decades to come, but the next Labour Government will build a better Britain, where water bosses are held accountable for their negligence and the British public can have confidence that our waterways are clean and safe to enjoy.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) on securing the debate. It is such an important debate for many of us here because, while we recognise that urban areas have issues specific to their communities, everyone in this room understands the specific challenges that exist for our constituents living in rural areas.

Often these challenges are not adequately considered by the Government when the finer details of policy delivery are decided, and it is to the detriment of our constituents. Special educational needs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) referred, is a perfect example. With smaller and more disparate populations in villages and towns in my constituency, children with special educational needs and disabilities are at risk of slipping through the net. Being students in smaller rural cohorts should not prevent them from accessing the same services as their peers in urban areas. I had hoped that the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan published in March would address some of the unique challenges in rural SEND provision, but it failed to do so. None of the proposals related specifically to SEND in rural communities but spoke simply in generalisations, assuming that all geographies have the same concerns.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. One of the issues mentioned beforehand, to which the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) also referred, is that children with disabilities, whether emotional or physical, are up at half-past 4 in the morning to catch a bus at half-past 7. Their parents are up; their families are up; the whole house is disrupted. Those are special circumstances: a bus arrives at half-past 7 and there is no other choice, even though school does not start until 9 am or half-past 9. Those are real problems.

[Ashley Dalton]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. The big question is how the Government can possibly expect to address those issues when we see no sign of their recognising them.

The challenges in rural educational provision differ from the provision of SEND in urban areas. In spread-out communities, often with non-existent public transport, it is far more difficult for SEND children to access those services. Thirty children in an urban area with a small geographical footprint and a bus every 20 minutes find it much easier than do 30 children spread over a vast geographical footprint with no public transport.

Flooding also brings challenges particular to rural areas. Of course, such challenges can occur in any part of the country—they are not unique to rural areas—but some of the issues are wide-ranging. The farmers of West Lancashire are proud to be the growers and feeders of our nation, but when their fields are flooded and their produce is written off, it does not just impact farmers and their incomes; it reduces the availability of food in our shops and it drives up prices, hitting consumers in the pocket all over the country. How can the Government support the growers and food providers of West Lancashire when they do not even have a recognised definition of flooding, and no one is recording how many floods take place each year?

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that although this is an important issue, a lot of the debate on flood risk in this country centres on the number of chimney pots—houses—that will be affected rather than on the high-quality arable land that our farmers use to feed the nation in the way that she suggests?

[Ashley Dalton]

I agree with that. Talking to farmers in my community is fascinating: they cannot understand why the Environment Agency attaches a value of zero to farmland when it measures the impact of flood defences. We really need to talk about that, because without protecting that agricultural land, we are damaging not only the economics of our food providers but access to food and food sustainability across the whole country.

It is not just farmland that is affected. Flooding on roads is a major inconvenience for people in urban communities, but it brings communities like mine to a standstill. In Skelmersdale, we have been without a train station for 65 years, despite the Government supposedly freeing up £36 billion for transport projects through the cancellation of the northern leg of High Speed 2. The Rail Minister has told me in writing that it is not possible to connect Skem to the rail network, because money has already been committed to other projects, a number of which are either recycled announcements or already operational. Projects such as a station for Skem do not only support our rural communities; they unlock the potential within them. It is difficult for me to go back to my constituency and tell residents on their doorstep that the Government are supporting rural communities, when time and time again, people in West Lancashire tell me that they do not feel they are being heard.

The theme running through all these issues is that the Government simply do not understand the needs of rural communities. It is time that the people of West Lancashire had a Government who are on their side and support them by meeting the ambition out there with a bold and ambitious strategy in this place that recognises the specific needs of rural areas, but for now I fear that such a strategy is sadly lacking.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

As I rise to talk about this issue, I regret that it has come to the House as an Opposition day debate rather than as part of the Government’s legislative programme. That, of course, is after the Prime Minister pledged his commitment to the kept animals Bill during his ill-fated leadership election last summer. It is not just me who will be meeting this news with disappointment. I am sure that many colleagues on both sides of the House will have had inboxes full of constituents asking where the kept animals Bill is and why the Government have abandoned it and their manifesto pledge to protect animals.

We all know that Britain is a country of animal lovers; it is part of our national identity. When covid struck in 2020 and lockdowns were put in place, many people across the UK felt isolated and in need of companionship. It is no surprise that public demand for pets, and dogs in particular, soared. However, of course, the supply of dogs cannot be increased overnight. There is an obvious timescale for breeding and bringing new puppies to the market, so an opportunity opened up for malicious practices to take place and puppy smugglers to take advantage.

Bad as the exploitive practices of puppy smuggling are, they rarely take place in isolation. I was recently contacted by a constituent who wanted to highlight the problems they are having with their neighbours, who they believe are running puppy smuggling from their home. Vans and cars turn up at the property at all hours, there is noise, there are unpleasant smells, and there has been conflict with other residents in the street, including a violent assault. It will not surprise anyone to hear that my constituent also reports that a cannabis operation is being run from the same property.

Many up and down the country will find that story familiar. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, alluded to, there is increasing evidence that organised crime gangs are taking an interest in puppy smuggling. Also concerning is how the distribution networks bringing smuggled puppies to the market increasingly mirror how drugs and other illegal and prohibited substances are entering our communities. I am afraid to say that the problems from the puppy smuggling industry do not stop here. Due to the brutal and cruel nature in which puppies are bred and brought to the UK by smugglers, they are at an increased risk of developing severe behavioural issues and bringing parasitic diseases into the UK, putting all of us at risk.

Since the kept animals Bill was last debated in this place, we have had a few personnel changes on the Government Benches, but constantly changing the ringleader of the Conservative party circus is no excuse for breaking the promise that the Government made with the British people. Last month, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), accused Opposition Members of playing political games with the Bill and said that that was why the Government had to withdraw it. But what we have is a Government, elected with an 80-seat majority, who have no confidence to take decisions, running scared of the Opposition.

It is not as though there is not enough parliamentary time for the House to debate the issue. It is clear to anyone looking in that the Government’s legislative agenda is threadbare. How many private Members’ Bills will it take to recreate the legislation that these Houses have already progressed beyond Second Reading—20, 30, or more? I am still relatively new to this place, but even I can see that this is a ludicrous way to do business. The Government might be more interested in fighting among themselves and waiting for the next election, but on the Opposition Benches we want to get on with supporting and delivering for the British people and protecting animals. There is only one party playing political games. When the Conservative party comes to the table, it is always the British people who lose.

For these reasons I am disappointed that the Government have withdrawn the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill from their already sparse legislative agenda. I call on right hon. and hon. Members across the House to support Labour’s motion and bring the Bill to its proper conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who spoke in the debate. I remember my first weekend as a Member of Parliament; within just a few days, I had received more emails asking me to sign an early-day motion about hens’ beaks than on anything else. That was a clear sign, if we did not know it already, of how passionately people feel about animal welfare. I am sad that today’s debate, in which the Opposition are trying to take control of the Order Paper, has tried to weaponise animal welfare, rather than promote it.

Clearly, there is strong support right across the House for the Government’s ambitions on animal welfare. I assure the House that this Conservative Government, and Conservative MPs, are fully committed to delivering our manifesto commitments. Some hon. Members have suggested that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was in our manifesto. That is not the case; let me get that clear. I appreciate that Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs do not spend their time reading Conservative manifestos. The commitments are there, however, and those are what we intend to deliver.

As for those who have derided the use of private Members’ Bills, I point out that some of the most significant legislation on animal welfare has come in through such Bills—and let us be clear: no private Member’s Bill gets through Parliament without the full support of the Government. Often, that support includes the provision of advice, and officials from the Department writing the legislation. I am delighted that we have really competent officials doing that, who have helped much legislation get through.

[Ashley Dalton]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

No.

I have heard a few things today about how manifestos need to be honoured. That is what we intend to do. It is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries came before the House less than a month ago to set out how that was going to be the case. I think the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), talked about not U-turning. He should perhaps give that advice to the leader of the Labour party, who has U-turned on pretty much every pledge he made to win the Labour leadership.

At some point, I think there was some clarity that the intention of the shadow Secretary of State was to propose the Bill as presented to Parliament and at the stage it had reached. Indeed, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), has just said that it was a good piece of legislation. Last December, a different shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones)—said to the House that Labour wanted to amend the Bill to make it more fit for purpose. When they were invited by one of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), not to push some of their amendments which were not necessary, Labour absolutely refused to do so. That is why, I am sorry to say, there is a lack of trust in what has been tabled by the Opposition.

It is important for all politicians to be honest about what we have done already on animal welfare, and what we intend to do. That is why I am highly concerned by the publicity stunt—another misleading publicity stunt—created by the Opposition today. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton stated that if the Government voted against the motion, which is simply about giving control of the Order Paper to the Opposition, we would be voting to continue puppy smuggling, puppy farming, pet theft and live animal exports. That is simply not true. I would go so far as to say that it is a falsehood, and it is those sorts of statements that bring this place into disrepute. That approach is now a regular feature of shadow Ministers’ speeches.

As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Minister set out our approach in an oral statement less than a month ago, building on our track record, so that we have the highest animal welfare standards in the world. I fully recognise that previous Labour Governments have helped us make that good progress. That is why I welcome the Opposition’s new-found enthusiasm for what we on the Government Benches are trying to do and have spent the past more than a decade delivering, and the manifesto commitments we have made. I have said that we will crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, and we will, but I should point out to the House that that smuggling is already illegal. We pledged that we would end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening, and that is what we will do.

The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton claimed that we are letting live animal exports continue. There has not been a single animal exported from this country for fattening and slaughter since we left the EU, and we will make sure that that does not happen through the necessary legislation, but let us be clear to the House and the people listening to this debate: we can only take forward that measure because we left the European Union, something that Labour and other Opposition parties tried to block. There are other aspects of the law that we are changing; if we were still in the European Union, we would not be able to change them. We are changing retained European law.

We said that we would ban keeping primates as pets. For people who have not seen our written ministerial statements today, we have already published our consultation—which is a necessity—prior to laying secondary legislation. I fully expect that secondary legislation to pass through the House before the end of the year. Making that reality happen will enable us to bring in the necessary legislation more quickly than if we had relied on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Of course, we also promised measures on animal cruelty, ivory, microchipping and animal sentience, which we have delivered.

The House may also recall the comprehensive action plan for animal welfare two years ago, which covered a total of 40 areas relating to farm animals, companion animals, sporting animals and wild animals, included both legislative and non-legislative reforms, and covered both domestic and international action. We have been delivering on our promises. We have increased penalties for animal cruelty: new, higher prison sentences are already being used in our courts. We recognised in law that animals are sentient beings, which my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) pointed out as being absolutely vital when he discussed his experience as a vet. Across Government, all policy decisions need to take that recognition into account.

We have already made cat microchipping compulsory. That was in an amendment tabled to the Bill; we have already done it. The Welsh Labour Government have failed to do so. We have brought the Ivory Act 2018 into force, and we have extended it to five more endangered species.

This is in addition to the wide array of reforms we have introduced since 2010, including slaughterhouse improvements, mandatory CCTV and improving the welfare of laying hens and meat chickens; companion animal reforms relating to breeding, pet selling and pet boarding; banning wild animals and travelling circuses; banning glue traps, and new powers to tackle hare coursing, horse fly-grazing and various dog issues. We continue to make progress on important issues by backing Bills that ban the import of hunting trophies, ban the trade in detached shark fins—I was pleased to see that it had already passed its Third Reading in the other place—and another that is under way to ban advertising here of unacceptable animal attractions abroad. We are also making strides to improve farm animal welfare, with the animal health and welfare pathway, and through vet visits supported by financial grants. We will continue to focus on delivering for animals without being distracted by, frankly, Opposition antics.

I now turn to some of the points raised in the debate. There were various questions about whether puppy farms are to be allowed. No, they are already banned. They were banned by legislation that we passed in 2018, and it was further tackled by the Lucy’s law ban on third-party sellers. On stopping primates being kept as pets, primates in the future must be kept to zoo standards. That is in the consultation and it is how we will regulate it, so that is one of the issues. On the future Government approach to a live exports ban, if the Scottish Government would like us to continue to extend this to Great Britain, we will be very happy to do that when the Bill gets presented again.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked whether we will commit to tackle pet theft. He will know that it is already illegal to steal pets. However, one of his proposals was that there are some other legislative vehicles we could use and that we could check the use of those powers. I will ask my officials to check that legislation to see if we can use such powers, but I am also looking at other possible legal vehicles to achieve that.

The hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) asked what we are doing about zoos. DEFRA maintains a close working relationship with the zoo sector, and we will continue to build on that to identify improvements. We aim to publish updated zoo standards later this year, which we have developed in collaboration with the sector and the Zoo Experts Committee, which raise standards and support enforcement. I enjoyed my visit to Chester zoo a few years ago. Actually, as a little girl, I used to go and see Jubilee the elephant. Of course, I went at the time of her predecessor, but I know there are Labour MPs in neighbouring constituencies who would like to close Chester zoo tomorrow, if they could.

On aspects of what there is to do, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin), who I think spoke eloquently. He has offered to sponsor a private Member’s Bill, which I would be very happy to take him up on.