Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Loder Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
While he is carrying out academic study and writing a book, the Archbishop will delegate some of his duties to the Archbishop of York and other bishops. Study leave is available to all clergy and bishops, and the Archbishop’s two immediate predecessors also both took study leave.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his answer. It is a concern of many members of the frontline clergy, in the light of press reports, that there will be a reduction in the number of clergy in the Church of England. Given that the Archbishop is going on sabbatical and there is considerable concern about that, will my hon. Friend just outline how the Church of England will protect frontline clergy in the event of any review of Church structure?
Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)
Chris Loder ExcerptsWednesday 3rd February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 View all Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 February 2021 - (3 Feb 2021)
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I am grateful to you and to fellow members of the Committee for joining me here today.
I first address the matter of the timeliness of the Bill. I want to give all members of the Committee confidence that my colleagues who feel passionate about the Bill and I are doing all that we can to ensure that the Bill progresses in this parliamentary Session. We continue to actively lobby the Leader of the House and others to ensure that we can do that. I would warmly welcome any further support on that matter.
The Bill, which received its Second Reading in the House on 23 October 2020, will increase the maximum sentence for those convicted of the worst animal cruelty offences in England and Wales tenfold, from six months to five years. This country has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, but in terms of maximum penalties, we are currently among the lowest.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, I was inspired to bring forward this Bill by my own dog, Poppy, a springer spaniel I rescued after she had been abandoned on the roadside on a stormy night several years ago in my home constituency of West Dorset. It was clear that she had been very much mistreated. We have heard many cases of animal cruelty outlined over the course of this Bill, both in this Session and in previous Sessions, whether in Finn’s law, Poppy’s law or others; there are many that I know people feel strongly about. None the less, this Bill is short and non-controversial, in my view, but could have a profound effect on animal welfare.
Clause 1 is the Bill’s main clause. It outlines the mode of trial and maximum penalty for certain animal welfare offences. As the current maximum custodial sentence is proposed to be extended to five years, these offences will become triable either way and may be heard in either the magistrate’s court or the Crown court, depending on the severity of the offence.
Specifically, clause 1(2) changes the maximum custodial sentence for the most serious offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. These are: causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal; carrying out a non-exempted mutilation; docking the tail of a dog, except where permitted; administering a poison to an animal; and involvement in an animal fight.
Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the Bill amends, all protected animals are covered. In its legal definition, a protected animal is a vertebrate animal
“of a kind…commonly domesticated in the British Islands”.
Animals not commonly domesticated, such as wildlife, are protected animals to the extent that they are under the control of man or are not living in their wild state.
Subsection (3) relates to the mode of sentencing. Under section 78 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, magistrates courts do not have the power to impose penalties greater than six months. Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the maximum custodial sentence imposable by a magistrates court to 12 months, but to date that section has not been commenced. The clause reflects that position. In practice, this means that the existing maximum penalty of six months and/or unlimited fine is retained if the offender is summarily convicted. However, with the passing of the Bill, offenders may receive a higher penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine if they are convicted on trial by indictment.
The current maximum penalties for animal cruelty offences of six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine have been in place for more than 20 years. I recall that on Second Reading we debated the fact that the previous restrictions were brought in by a private Member’s Bill some time ago. However, since the Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force, volumes of prosecutions have been a little over 1,000 a year, with a conviction rate of around 80%. Those found guilty of general animal cruelty have a 10% chance of receiving a custodial sentence. The average custodial sentence is around 3.5 months and, as we debated on Second Reading, if there is a guilty plea, it is often much less. However, each year we hear more terrible stories about how animals have suffered at the hands of people who are—unbelievably—sometimes their owners.
The Bill will mean that perpetrators who harm an animal by causing unnecessary suffering, mutilation or poisoning will finally be subject to the full force of the law. That includes cases of systematic cruelty, like the deliberate, calculating and sadistic behaviour of the ruthless gangs who use dog fighting to fuel organised crime. This Bill will mean that the courts will have sentences at their disposal commensurate to the most serious cases, so that the punishment fits the crime. Offences such as fly-tipping can carry penalties of up to five years in prison. It is not right, therefore, that torturing a sentient being—an animal—to death leads today to a maximum penalty of just six months’ imprisonment. The clause will ensure that, in those rare but shocking cases, offenders are properly punished. The new maximum sentence will also send a clear signal to any future offenders that animal cruelty will not be tolerated.
Clause 2 provides the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. Subsection (1) provides that the Bill extends to England and Wales only. Animal welfare is a fully devolved matter, but the Welsh Government have confirmed that the maximum penalty should also apply in Wales, so the Bill is drafted on that basis. The Welsh Government are preparing a legislative consent motion so that the Bill can be extended and applied in Wales. Subsection (2) provides the date of commencement: the Act will come into force two months after Royal Assent is received. Clause 2 also ensures that the application of revised maximum penalties is not retrospective and does not apply to offences committed before the Bill comes into force. It also specifies the short title as the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2020.
For the reasons that I have set out, I hope the Committee will agree that clauses 1 and 2 should stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
I support the comments from the hon. Gentleman, who has done a good job in building cross-party support in his usual way. Clauses 1 and 2 are good and we will not oppose them.
I want to pose a question to the Minister about clause 1 and disqualification. The proposal to increase maximum sentences from six months to five years is welcome. It will of course be up to the court to decide the point on that scale for any offence. The Dogs Trust has raised the point about issuing disqualification orders where the court has imposed the maximum penalty, to ensure that those convicted of the most extreme animal cruelty and receiving the maximum penalty face mandatory disqualification.
The courts are able to issue disqualifications. It is important to note that at the moment disqualifications are regarded not as part of the punishment but as part of measures to prevent future abuse of animals. However, the Dogs Trust makes a strong case for mandatory disqualification in the event of maximum penalties being imposed, as provided for by the Bill.
There certainly have been recent examples, such as that reported yesterday in Plymouth’s local paper, The Herald, of poor Riot, an American pocket bully-type dog in Plymouth, who had her ears cropped. She was seized by the RSPCA and, thankfully, rehomed. The courts chose not to issue a disqualification order on the owner. That would be one of those points that the public does not understand: how someone can be convicted of severe animal cruelty but not be automatically disqualified. I appreciate that that point sits complementary to clause 1, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed it in her response.
Chris Loder
I thank everyone who has contributed to this short but constructive debate and all members of the Committee who are not here today. They have been great supporters of this small but important change in the law, and I ask every Member, and indeed every supporter, to continue until we get this Bill over the line. I also thank all those who have campaigned for it, including the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the League Against Cruel Sports, the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, the Blue Cross and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which have all provided support and momentum, not just in this place, but across the nation to get this over the line.
I also thank the Minister, Lord Goldsmith in the other place, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who has been such a champion of animal rights. Rather than making the usual point of order, may I also thank you, Dame Angela, the officials from the Department, the Hansard writers, the attendants and the Clerk, Adam Mellows-Facer, who has been incredibly supportive throughout this entire process to those of us who are new—or not so new—Members of Parliament, elected in 2019. I propose that we continue and crack on with this Bill.
Environment Bill
Chris Loder ExcerptsTuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I support all the amendments that Labour has tabled today, but will concentrate my remarks on those specifically related to air quality.
My constituency of Vauxhall contains some of the busiest and most polluted roads in London and the country. Clapham Road and Brixton Road are both major routes for journeying in and out of south London, as well as rat runs for the everyday journeys to work, school and shops made by Vauxhall residents. However, in making these journeys, those residents are constantly exposed to the dangerous pollutants emanating from cars and other vehicles. Brixton Road has made national headlines for exceeding the annual legal air pollution limits a few days into the new year; like many of my constituents, I walk along that road on a daily basis.
We know that these toxic pollutants can have a devastating impact on our hearts and lungs. In particular, we know that PM2.5 particles are able to get deep into our lungs and bloodstream, where they can have a significant impact on our overall health, both in the short and long term. PM2.5 can be very bad for the health of our children. Even before this pandemic, children in Vauxhall were regularly exposed to toxic and illegal levels of air pollution, and were having to wear masks to school.
We all have a role to play in reducing this pollution: we have to make fewer journeys by car, drive less polluting vehicles, and walk and cycle when we are able to do so. However, the Government have to play their part, too. Reaching the World Health Organisation limit on PM2.5 pollution is an achievable target. That is why I will be supporting amendments 2 and 25, to ensure that these strict targets for air quality will be reached by 2030 at the latest. This will take us a step closer to making our air completely safe, both for today and for future generations.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am very proud of the Government’s leadership on the environment. I commend the Minister for all the work she has done so far.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you would not think that my constituency of West Dorset has the worst place for air pollution in the entire country, but environmental issues affect us all. The village of Chideock, between Bridport and Lyme Regis, has the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide in the entire country from traffic on the A35. The pollution is more than double the Government limit. This issue is not new—it has been ongoing for years—but urgent cross-departmental action is required, and I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that she will look at this issue in Chideock as a matter of priority with the new powers the Bill will provide.
Plastic was once seen as the saviour of the rainforests, but it has become the scourge of the sea. Half of all plastics ever made have been produced in the past 15 years. Less than a third of plastic in Britain is recycled, and British supermarkets still produce 114 billion items of single-use plastic. Those supermarkets are devoid of real environmental responsibility for plastic packaging once it leaves their stores, which is contributing to an environmental disaster.
Greenpeace has just released its “Checking Out on Plastics III” report, which ranks the UK’s biggest supermarkets on their plastics credentials, and is recommended reading. A reader will find out, for example, that on a per market share basis, Tesco’s total plastic use has increased by 2.2% between 2017 and 2019. It is for this reason that I have tabled new clause 11, which would require the Government to set specific targets and reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold by a designated date. This amendment is intended to work alongside the measures already set out in this Bill, to complement the Government’s ambitions to end this systemic over-production and over-consumption of polluting plastics.
I have greatly appreciated working with the West Dorset Environmental Alliance, a brilliant local group providing much-needed insights and momentum. I am also grateful for the support from the Conservative Environment Network and Friends of the Earth. This Bill is key to achieving a green future. It will unleash our nation’s potential to make our environment better for us all.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
I am pleased to support the amendments in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
The Government said they had a desire to have a “world-leading watchdog”. I wonder whether there was a misprint and it should have said a “world-leading lapdog”. Do they really mean it? I was on the hearing that met Dame Glenys Stacey, and she is a robust regulator, with a proven record of independence, and I trust her. The Secretary of State should set the criteria and the parameters that he expects the Office for Environmental Protection to work to, but he should then leave it to the regulator to regulate. Dame Glenys, I believe, has been appointed as the right person, so let her do the job without further interference. Let her also have the benefit of interim targets, because for someone regulating, targets can be really helpful. I listened to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and he is absolutely right. We need interim targets to be able to hold people to account, but also to be able to incentivise businesses and give them clarity about what they have to achieve.
When we are talking about enforcement, it is perhaps salutary if I remind colleagues of those who were there when, as chair of the then all-party group on biodiversity, I worked with Friends of the Earth to organise a photo opportunity for colleagues who came to support ensuring there was no relaxation of the ban on neonicotinoids. It was incredibly well supported: over 100 Members of Parliament came to support that campaign, and I have the photos to prove it. So for those Members who go into the Lobby tonight saying they will support the Government on lifting the ban, perhaps we, with Friends of the Earth, should dig out those photographs and start publishing them one by one to show just how much Members meant it when they had their photograph taken with that bee.
On deforestation, the Government are saying that there should be an imposition on companies to look at the legality of the sourcing of their materials, such as soy and timber. Legality is not enough. Yesterday I met a number of people representing the Brazilian interests as well as the commercial interests, and it is clear that what has happened already in Brazil is that the laws have been reduced because of the pressure. Companies must be asked to look at the sustainability of their supply chain, not just the legality of it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Loder Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Selous
As part of the new Foreign Office project, the Church and the other consortium members will be equipping parliamentarians and religious leaders with the technical assistance and other expertise they need to propose solutions in their own countries to these terrible human rights abuses.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Church Commissioners are undertaking a natural capital assessment to provide a baseline for our carbon outputs and to understand our ecosystem services. This will provide a plan to lower carbon outputs and inform our natural capital strategy. Where possible, our tenancies have clauses relating to good husbandry and the non-removal of topsoil, and with longer-term tenancies, soil analyses are carried out at the beginning and the end of leases to ensure that soil health is maintained to a good standard.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. The Church Commissioners own an estate of about 105,000 acres. What is the Church doing to help its tenant farmers to achieve sustainable farming, especially in the light of the current pressure that farmers face during coronavirus?
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in this important area. Over 60% of our agricultural land is let on secure agricultural tenancies and the remainder on more modern sorts of farm business tenancies. When new tenancies are granted, we encourage sustainable farming practices through our tenancy precedents. We will be reviewing this further in the light of our natural capital assessment results. We want to help our tenants to achieve both sustainable and profitable outcomes.
Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill
Chris Loder ExcerptsFriday 23rd October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 View all Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to declare that I am a tenant beef farmer’s son and a former member of the National Farmers Union. I also refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am delighted to sponsor the Bill. It is one that means a great deal to so many people. It means an enormous amount to me, to my family, who have been caring for animals for 100 years on our farm, to many hon. Members from across the House and to the many impassioned campaigners from across the nation. If colleagues support me in my quest, we can today progress this much-awaited step forward on animal welfare, delivering another important commitment from the Government Benches and helping to cement this country’s place as a world leader in the care and protection of animals.
I believe that every animal deserves a dignified life and that we should use our heads as well as our hearts when it comes to taking action on this issue. That is why I have decided to sponsor this important Bill, inspired by the story of my own dog, a four-year-old springer spaniel who I named Poppy. Poppy was abandoned on a stormy night in January last year. She had been dumped at the top of a hill miles from the nearest town or village. It was at the roadside on that hill top lane in my constituency that I found her while driving home.
Poppy was in a bad state when I found her. She had clearly been mistreated. Her pads were red raw and there were cuts to her legs. She had nasty growths and needed three teeth removed. Evidence suggested that, shortly before I found her, she had given birth to a litter of puppies. My dad, being someone who has taken care of animals on our farm for his whole life, took her for the emergency veterinary care that she needed before bringing her home to live with him and my mum on our farm. She now enjoys a wonderful new life as a member of the Loder family exploring the green and pleasant land of my home in West Dorset.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the hon. Member’s Bill. Does he agree that although it is very good, we need effective enforcement as well, because if we just have a Bill that is not actually enforced, that does not take us any further forward?
Chris Loder
Yes, I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I shall go on to address that in my speech.
The Bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which currently sets out a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine for the most serious prevention of harm offences. We have in this country a legal and, indeed, moral obligation to provide for the welfare needs of animals that we keep and should be safe in our care, whether they are pets, farm animals or in other captive environments.
Under animal welfare law, the maximum custodial sentence for the most shocking animal cruelty offences is just six months’ imprisonment. If someone pleads guilty to this crime at the first reasonable opportunity, the maximum sentence can be reduced to just four months. The UK is a nation of animal lovers—44% of all households have a pet—and as the Parliament of our great nation of animal lovers, it is right that we lead the way today in challenging this gross injustice. A mere six months discourages no one, so we must establish in the law of England and Wales a much tougher maximum penalty. By increasing the penalty tenfold, we hope to suitably discourage the shocking behaviour that leads to the neglect and cruelty of animals.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this extremely important Bill. Clearly, prosecutions are brought only for the most serious cases of animal cruelty, but does he have any indication of how many successful convictions at the moment result in an immediate custodial sentence, and how many do not attract even the shortest periods behind bars?
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have in excess of 1 million reports to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of difficulties with animals or the mistreatment of animals. It results in fewer than 100 ultimate prosecutions, so that, further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), clearly indicates that the area of animal welfare needs much more attention, and particularly the enforcement point, as I shall come on to in my speech.
I am pleased to say that the Bill introduces one of the toughest punishments in the world and will bring us into line with the maximum penalties available in other Commonwealth countries, including those in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India, which are all at five years’ imprisonment. With this Bill, we will lead the way in Europe on animal sentencing, where the average custodial sentence for animal welfare offences is currently just two years. It is a simple, yet vital measure that will ensure perpetrators who harm an animal by, for example, causing unnecessary suffering, mutilation or poisoning, face the full force of the law. That includes cases of systematic cruelty, such as the deliberate, calculating and callous behaviour of ruthless gangs who use dog fighting to fuel organised crime. The Bill will mean that the courts will have sentences at their disposal commensurate with the most serious cases, so that the punishment fits the crime. This will send a clear signal.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing forward this very important Bill. He touches on something very important: the link between these crimes and other criminality. Should it not be reinforced by Government to police forces and prosecutors that those who break the law break the law and, therefore, there should be many more prosecutions, because in many cases, these people are also involved not only in other crime, but, actually, in cruelty, particularly to children and other human beings?
Chris Loder
I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those who break the law and who carry out crimes, whatever those crimes may be, should feel the full force of the law. I am delighted that the Government support the Bill, and many other measures to tackle those crimes, to address that point.
The Bill will mean that the courts have sentences at their disposal commensurate with the most serious cases so that the punishment fits the crime. That will send a clear signal to any potential offender that there is no place for animal cruelty in this country.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
On behalf of many of my constituents who have written to me about the Bill, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it forward and the Government for supporting it. The idea that sentences need to be commensurate with the crime and, as hon. Members have mentioned, that they are actually enforced, has a big groundswell behind it.
Chris Loder
I wholly agree. Part of the reason that I want to progress the Bill is to deal with that issue. As I articulated earlier, the fact that for more than 1 million cases reported, fewer than 100 cases are prosecuted is a great cause for concern. I hope that the Bill will make progress in that area.
There have been a number of recent cases involving serious and significant levels of animal cruelty, in which the judges have commented that they would have imposed a higher penalty or custodial sentence had one been available. Only last month, a man was convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to his cat. He burned her in a hot oven, tried to flush her down the toilet, attempted to strangle her and threw her against a wall. He received an 18-week suspended sentence, was banned from keeping pets for 10 years and was ordered to pay a mere £440 in costs. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that that is totally unacceptable. The Bill will hopefully deal with that issue.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend, as all hon. Members have, and congratulate him on bringing forward the Bill. I suspect, although I am not 100% certain, that I am the only hon. Member present who sits as a member of the judiciary. When I face such cases as a sentencing magistrate, as I have on numerous occasions, they are among the most harrowing and disturbing cases to deal with.
I also recognise the court of public opinion when such cases are reported in newspapers. I have faced criticism from constituents who feel that we have under-sentenced, even when we have given the maximum sentence available—six months. There is recognition in the community that such sentences need to go beyond that. I say as a magistrate, and having spoken to many other magistrates, that we really support this legislation. It is absolutely needed and I am delighted that my hon. Friend is bringing it forward.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wholly agree, because the example that I just shared with the House is only one of countless examples of heinous animal cruelty that happen every year in this country. I want the Bill to not just discourage that behaviour but stop it.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is implicit in what my hon. Friend said in reference to that case that he believes that, instead of the suspended sentence, a sentence of immediate imprisonment should have been imposed. Yet the explanatory notes in relation to the financial implications of the Bill say:
“The increase in maximum penalties will not result in an increase in the number of offenders being sent to prison”,
which implies that it would not make a ha’p’orth of difference to that case.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind intervention; I do not agree entirely. The evidence from magistrates and others makes it clear that the tools they have in their toolbox to deal with such a matter are limited. The issue is also partly that a maximum sentence of six months is not any sort of discouragement—it may be to some, but I am afraid it is clearly not working. The element of enforcement, as mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, is absolutely required. This Bill is one of a suite of legislative components that the Government, and indeed my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), will look to progress in respect of animal sentience, to deal with these very matters.
Chris Loder
I am not going to give way at the moment, because I need to make a little progress, but I will come back to my hon. Friend.
Every year, animal welfare charities such as Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The Kennel Club and Cats Protection, and many others carry out important work to rescue and rehome animals. It is clear from the amount of work they have to do that we need to discourage these acts of cruelty in the first place.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we will need to publicise and raise awareness of the maximum sentence once, as we hope, the Bill is passed and put into law, so that it acts as a deterrent to stop people even thinking about committing cruelty to animals?
Chris Loder
I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Part of the reason this Bill needs to be put forward is that the support from the organisations that specialise in animal care, such as those I have outlined, will increase the publicity of this much more. I invite all Members, both those here today and those who are not, and everybody watching on television, to support the case and make sure that this is well known.
We now have an opportunity to deliver a strong message to animal abusers that their behaviour will no longer be tolerated. When this Bill is passed, they can expect those tougher sentences. The increase in the maximum penalty for animal cruelty will be the first increase for such offences in more than 30 years, since another private Member’s Bill, from the then hon. Member for Ealing North, increased the maximum from just three months’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of just £1,000. I know that this House contains many hon. Members who have spoken up for animal welfare over the years, and I am sure we will continue to do so again. I hope that with the support of hon. Members from across this House this Bill will reach the statute book and make a real difference by reducing the instances of animal cruelty, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted.
Although this Bill will go some way to correct the deep injustices of cruelty to animals across this country, there are many aspects of animal cruelty that it does not address. I am sure Members on both sides of the House will speak about other areas of priority for animal welfare, such as addressing pet theft and the right to keep family and pets together no matter what the accommodation arrangements. At that point, I should pay tribute to my hon. and dear friends the Members for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is not in his place. I should also thank my hon. and dear friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), whose kind concern, support for the Bill and help I appreciate.
Chris Loder
If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, and as I have given way once to him already, I would like to make a bit more progress.
I particularly look forward to when the Government will introduce legislation on animal sentience as well, a matter that has given the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs much cause for concern. I pay tribute to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, for his work and to its members who are present, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore).
Two areas of animal welfare concern should be firmly on our list of priorities as the nation’s Parliament. The first is live animal exports. It is disgraceful that our well-cared-for farm animals can be loaded on a lorry and sent thousands of miles by land and sea to a destination in southern Europe. As if that is not bad enough, these poor animals go on to be slaughtered not even in continental Europe but in places such as Libya and Lebanon, as reported by the BBC a couple of weeks ago.
For those who believe that the National Farmers Union is on the side of animal welfare and that this Government are not, I say that it is this Conservative Government who want to stop live animal exports. Who is it that wants live exports to continue—for our cows and other animals to be subjected to a disgraceful level of care and slaughter, thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom? It is the National Farmers Union. Today I call on Members to ensure that this Parliament delivers on the Conservative manifesto pledge to stop live animal exports. Let us remind ourselves of how that pledge became possible.
Chris Loder
No, not at the moment.
That pledge became possible because the Conservative party is delivering the democratic will of the nation to leave the European Union, which has demanded that live animal exports be permitted for so long. With the greatest respect, I suggest that the thousands of people across the nation whom the NFU have egged on to abuse my colleagues in this place and say that they have no care for animal welfare standards go back to the NFU and demand that it stops lobbying to continue the disgraceful live export of animals. If anyone does not believe this farmer’s son who stands here today, I refer them to Farmers Weekly, which in December 2019 ran the headline “NFU scheme aims to avert PM’s ban on live exports”.
It is also high time that we address the barbaric act of non-stun slaughter of animals in this country. Let me be clear on what I mean by non-stun slaughter: an animal, fully alive, with all its senses intact, will be hung up by its hind legs, dangling in the air in the greatest of distress, have its throat slit and be left to bleed to death, hung up to die, for minutes. For me, this is a matter of great national shame.
For those who say that non-stun slaughter does not happen very often or is just a small issue, let me put it into perspective. Millions of animals are slaughtered in this way in this country every year. The latest figures from the Food Standards Agency show that an estimated 91 million chickens per year are not stunned at slaughter. Last year, the Food Standards Agency reported that a staggering 25% of all sheep that go for slaughter are not stunned—that is a quarter of all sheep. And I could go on.
The idea of a cow, so like those that my mum and dad and thousands of other small farmers in this country spend their lives taking care of, strung up and ending its life in this way is a little too much for a farmer’s son like me to contemplate. As a nation we must face up to this issue. I, for one, will be joining the RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association in calling for an end to non-stun slaughter in this country, and I warmly encourage others, my hon. Friends and Members from all parties in this House to join me in doing the same.
The Bill before us today is, however, a simple measure, amounting to just two clauses. Clause 1 is the Bill’s main clause and outlines the mode of trial and maximum penalty for certain animal welfare offences. As I previously outlined, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the maximum penalty in practice is currently six months and/or an unlimited fine. This clause changes the maximum custodial sentence available for five key offences. Section 4 of the 2006 Act outlines the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal. This offence has remained largely unchanged for more than 100 years. It is the main animal cruelty offence, for which around 800 people are successfully prosecuted each year, mainly by the RSPCA. Section 5 deals with the offence of carrying out a non-exempted mutilation. This prohibits certain procedures, such as castration and spaying, without suitable qualifications, experience or supervision. Section 6 outlines the offence of docking the tail of a dog except where permitted. In section 7 the offence is administering a poison to an animal, and in section 8 it is involvement in an animal fight, which includes dog fighting. It also includes not only organising and taking part in such events, but promoting them and possessing the instruments that may be used in those animal fights.
Under clause 1, the existing maximum penalty of six months will be retained if the offender is summarily convicted. However, offenders may now receive a higher penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine if they are convicted by trial on indictment—essentially, where the case is heard by the Crown court.
Clause 2 outlines that the Bill will come into force two months after Royal Assent. The application of revised maximum penalties is not retrospective and does not apply to offences committed before the Bill comes into force. The clause also specifies the short title of the Bill, and also provides for the Bill to extend not just to England, but to Wales as well.
Animal welfare is a fully devolved matter, but, in the case of this Bill, the Welsh Government have confirmed that the new maximum penalty should also apply in Wales, and the Bill is drafted on that basis. The Welsh Government have kindly prepared a legislative consent motion, so that the Bill can indeed be extended and applied in Wales.
I know that many have campaigned hard for increased animal welfare sentencing for a very long time. Today I take the opportunity to pay particular tribute to those hon. Members who have consistently supported me, both past and present, have pressed for this Bill to be brought forward, and, in particular, have taken the time to be here today. This Bill and the proposals therein have received strong support across the House. I am grateful to them, particularly to Opposition Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for their continued support for the Bill. I am also grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) for steering the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019 so skilfully through this House and to all those who supported him and campaigned for stronger sentencing for those who harm service animals, inspired by police dog Finn. We are completing the increased protection of service animals with this Bill today. When the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill is enacted, those who cause injury to a service animal will receive, finally, a proportionate penalty for their horrific actions.
I should also like to pay tribute and to thank the RSPCA, the oldest and largest animal welfare organisation in the world, which deals with cases of serious neglect, cruelty and violence against animals every single day. The RSPCA has campaigned tirelessly for adequate animal welfare sentencing and has been of great support to me in bringing forward this Bill. I pay tribute, too, to the many charities to which the British public is devoted and which advocate tirelessly for animals: the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Blue Cross, the Finn’s Law campaign, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Dogs Trust. That is to name just a few, and I know there are so many more that I have not listed today. Those organisations have been incredibly effective in their support for an increase in the maximum penalties, and I praise their tireless efforts. Finally, to the many individual members of the public whose love for animals has helped us to get here today, thank you.
To sum up, our constituents care about this matter passionately. The way we treat animals reflects who we are as a nation and is a priority for the people we are so privileged to represent in this place. It is a priority for the Government, too, which is why they have taken strides to elevate our world-leading reputation for animal welfare even further and are wholly committed to supporting the passage of this Bill. I thank very much the Minister and her officials for their support.
The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill is an important landmark step in ensuring that we can have an appropriate response to those who inflict deliberate suffering on innocent animals. For far too long, the maximum sentence available has been too short, and this Bill is of great importance to this House, to the animal welfare community and to the public more widely. We need to get on, and we need to sort it out. We need to get this Bill on the statute book and that hopefully short journey begins today.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was going to say that I thought it was a little churlish of the hon. Member for West Dorset to not mention her, because she did so much work on this issue. I know he was not in Parliament at the time.
Chris Loder
The hon. Lady makes a very valid point. I would just like to say that I did not mention Anna Turley because my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) is here today and wanted to pay tribute to her directly.
Kerry McCarthy
Well, the hon. Gentleman did thank the hon. Member for Redcar, and he did not mention Anna, but let us not quibble over it. She does deserve a lot of credit for her indefatigable campaigning on this issue, and I have to say with no offence to the current hon. Member for Redcar that I miss her in this place.
The Government never really explained why they would not support that Bill back in 2017, and then we got bogged down in the process of bringing in a joint sentencing and sentience Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny—the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is nodding away, because we both went through that process. It was basically all about the sentience side, and I would argue that it was about delaying the sentience side, which I will come on to later. There was no need for pre-legislative scrutiny of one clause that talked about sentencing.
We then debated another version of the Bill on 10 July 2019. I recall the Government saying then that it was really important to legislate as quickly as possible. The Bill went into Committee, and I was on that Committee. The Government wanted to get it done and dusted before summer recess, so they did not want to talk about any amendments or complicate things. There was a suggestion that there should be a more severe penalty for those who film themselves indulging in animal cruelty and post it online, partly as a deterrent, but also because such actions encourage other people to indulge in that behaviour. I must admit that quite a lot of 2019 is a bit of a blur to me. We did not know whether we were proroguing or nor proroguing, getting a Brexit deal or not getting a Brexit deal, having an election or not having an election.
That Bill did not become law either. The Government promised to legislate in autumn 2019, and then they called an election. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for West Dorset, but I do not see why, when this was in the Queen’s Speech, it has been left to a private Member’s Bill—it could have been Government legislation. I see the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) in his place. He was here when we debated this in 2019, and he joined me in saying that there was so much of this legislation—the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill was another example—where the Government kept saying, “We really want to do this, but we just don’t have time to bring it forward.” But there have been loads of days when we have been on a one-line Whip, having general debates. We could have got this legislation through in one day, and then everyone could have taken part, and by now it would have been law.
Although the Government will seek to get a lot of credit for supporting this Bill now, it could have become law in 2017 when Anna Turley first proposed it. That means that we have had three years of light sentences for the very worst animal abusers and three years of not being able to send out a strong message to potential abusers that they would face five years’ imprisonment. That deterrent has not been there, and that is a great shame. Having said that, I welcome the fact that we are here now. I hope that the accelerator will be pressed and the Bill will get through Committee quickly and through the House of Lords, and perhaps by year end it will be law.
While we are talking about the messages that are sent out and the importance of a deterrent, I think that children should be taught about animal welfare in schools. Far too many people, and particularly young men, think that the way to treat a dog is to be very harsh with it, to abuse it and to almost beat it into submission, as if that is the way to train a dog. There are others who abuse animals because they find enjoyment in it. Discussing animal welfare at an early age—particularly for children from families that do not have pets—would be really important in instilling the right behaviour and helping people to understand what owning a pet is all about.
I would not want to do anything to delay the Bill, but I hope that reports of a far more comprehensive animal welfare Bill are true, because they have been kicking around for quite a while—I see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), smiling. Animal welfare is about a lot more than being nice to puppies or pets generally. There seems to be a focus on what I would describe as the low-hanging fruit, which is the “being nice to puppies” end of the spectrum. It is great that we have legislated for things such as Lucy’s law and trying to crack down on puppy farming, although I understand from Marc Abraham, who promoted that campaign through Pup Aid, that there are still some concerns about loopholes, so there is a new petition about the need to tighten that up. Finn’s law was a really good step. A petition on pet theft was discussed earlier this week in Westminster Hall, and there are also debates about ensuring that the law on microchipping is enforced.
Kerry McCarthy
I think that the hon. Lady is talking about a ban on live exports, but I am talking about the standards that govern those exports, the inspections of the trucks and the conditions in which animals are transported. My understanding is that we could have done quite a bit more to at least alleviate the issue. Now, although I am not looking forward to the end of the transition period for many reasons, I hope that one thing that the Government will legislate on very early in the new year will be a ban on live exports for both fattening and slaughter. I have read about some loopholes—for example, breeding chicks might not be covered—but I hope that there will not be exceptions.
Chris Loder
Does the hon. Lady agree that regardless of all the things have happened before, here and now we should just be stopping live animal exports? Will she join me in challenging the NFU in that respect?
Kerry McCarthy
I think that it is wrong to blame the NFU, because I doubt the Government’s will on this. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want me to look back, but we have to judge a Government’s intentions by whether their deeds match their words, and I have doubts.
As we are talking about the NFU and about farming let me say that I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology, and I spoke on Second Reading and served on the Public Bill Committee for two iterations of the Agriculture Bill, so I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Government Ministers say that there would be no lowering of standards in any future trade deals. However, as we saw with the vote the other week—I hope that the Chair of the Select Committee will back me up on this—the willingness to enshrine that in law was not there, so I think I am right to doubt any other promises that the Government may make when it comes to protecting animal welfare. On that, the NFU was certainly on the right page, along with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton.
Chris Loder
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. The point that I am making is that those of us who do farm and are from farming backgrounds take this matter very seriously indeed. It is really important to note that it is in law today that chlorinated chicken is not permitted to come into this country, and it is exactly the same for hormone-injected beef—it is not allowed. I do not understand why the Opposition and others keep saying that it is, because it is a matter of fact that it is not. That is in legislation today. Does she agree that it is utter hypocrisy for the NFU on the one hand to lobby for live animal exports to go thousands of miles across Europe, yet on the other hand to accuse my colleagues and me of not caring at all about animal welfare?
Kerry McCarthy
When we return after the half-term recess, the Agriculture Bill will come back from the Lords, so we will have another opportunity to debate the amendments on protecting standards.
What this is all about is that under future trade deals this could all change, and we know that the Americans want to be allowed to export such products to the UK. We know that was a sticking point. We also know that the former Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), was rather keen to open the doors to such exports—he and I were in Washington at the same time a couple of years ago, and we were both on social media saying very different things about chickens. I just do not agree with the hon. Member for West Dorset that there is not a risk from those products.
There are many other examples of animal abuse that we need to crack down on. We need to enforce the existing law and to strengthen it. We are still seeing undercover footage emerging from so-called high welfare farms, so red tractor farms. I mentioned this the last time I spoke on the subject in 2019, but a different case emerged over the summer, at Flat House farm in Leicestershire. The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said that the footage contained
“some of the most disturbing images I have ever seen… We cannot allow farms like this to operate in the UK.”
It was a pig farm, and we know that pigs are incredibly intelligent animals. I think they ought to be treated on a par with dogs. We saw that they had bleeding hernias, lacerations, bites and deformed trotters. There were dead and dying animals being dragged into the walkway and left there to rot. My concern about not having protection for standards in the Agriculture Bill is that that sort of industrialised farming, with very small profit margins, and therefore with corners cut and welfare standards not adhered to, will become the norm in this country. I do not want to see that happen.
The Government brought forward the dual Bill on sentencing and sentience because they had promised, during the discussions on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in late 2017, to legislate for animal sentience before we left the EU. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) had tabled new clause 30, which I seconded, and the Government voted it down. There was immediately an outcry—I would have preferred to have the support before the vote—because the Government had whipped their Members to vote against the new clause, and they were forced to say that they would legislate for this. They then brought forward the draft dual Bill, which went through pre-legislative scrutiny, and the sentience bit was not very well drafted. We have since had nothing. I brought forward my own animal sentience Bill—I have lost track of when; probably somewhere in 2019 when everything disappeared into the black hole. I was, for a very short while, on the Petitions Committee earlier this year, and I had the pleasure of speaking to a petition that received 104,000 signatures calling on the Government to legislate on animal sentience. My one question for the Minister is: what on earth happened to that legislation? A clear promise was made to this place and to the public that there would be legislation.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and to back the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who is my neighbour and my friend. I am delighted that he has brought this Bill forward. Many things have been discussed, but we must remember that the Bill is about bringing in five-year sentences, so that the courts have the chance to give a good, long sentence to those who abuse animals. That is not available yet, but I would very much welcome it.
Before I start my main speech, I will diversify for a moment and raise halal slaughter. After leaving the European Union, we can introduce New Zealand’s system, which allows animal to not feel pain and be recoverable. It deals with the religious side, and the animal is all but stunned at slaughter. We cannot do it under EU law at the moment, but we will be able to when we leave. That will be a real opportunity, and I look to the Minister. I have many scars from dealing with this issue, not only here but in the European Parliament. I want all animals stunned at slaughter. We have a real opportunity as we leave the EU to get that sorted.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour very much indeed. I wholly agree with everything he says. The Bill was not introduced just for religious reasons. A whole host of other matters have been highlighted, including that 25% of all sheep are slaughtered without being stunned, and that there are quite clearly other loopholes that some are taking advantage of. It is just a point-blank issue and is not specific to religion or anything else.
Neil Parish
One thing I have learned about this issue over many years is that the religious side has to be dealt with as well as the animal side. We have a real opportunity to bring the two together, because if we do not, I assure him that he will bear many scars, as I do, into the future. We have to deal with this, and I really think we can sort it.
It is also good to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). She did a lot of good work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I miss her being on it. I agree entirely with her that we need to get more dogs into schools. We have a charity in the west country that gets dogs into schools, so that children can see the right way to handle a dog and look after it. Most of us were brought up and live in families that look after pets properly, but there are children who are not reared in the same way and who see cruelty to animals. If we are not careful, that will carry on over the generations, so getting dogs into schools is so important.
This is a very great day; we will get the Bill through, and I gently chastise the Government that we have taken rather a long time to get here. We could have tagged it on to one or two other Bills over the years, but it is a delight that we have it here today. The UK is, without question, a nation of animal lovers. Some 50% of adults own a pet: 9.9 million of us own a dog, while 10.9 million own a cat. By the way, Wilberforce, our dog, who was Westminster dog of the year in 2011, is delighted that today’s debate is taking place. He is sitting on the couch in our flat in Battersea watching it as we speak. Seriously, though, this is a great moment.
Too often we hear reports from animal welfare charities of mistreatment and neglect. Last year alone, the RSPCA brought 1,432 convictions for animal welfare offences to the courts. Such offences range from neglect, often where the owners do not have the means to care for the pet, to cases of excessive violence and cruelty. We always have to differentiate those, because there are some people who do not necessarily understand what they are doing or have the resources. I do not justify it for one moment, but there is a great difference between that and the cruelty that is out there. Some do not mean to be cruel but are; others really go out to beat the dog to death. Those are the ones we need to ensure do not get away with a four-month sentence. I am adamant about that.
Animal cruelty can have a lasting impact on an animal’s physical state and temperament, affecting their ability to trust and function. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset made that point about the dog that he has now, which had obviously been very badly treated. Such abhorrent crimes have no place in our society, and we should do our utmost to prevent and punish such behaviour. In the 2019 general election, I, like all Government Members, and I suspect all Members across the House, stood on a manifesto that committed to introduce tougher sentencing for animal cruelty. This is a moment at which the House can come together in the very best way, and we can unite all parties, because we need to sort this out once and for all.
I strongly support the Bill, not only because it strengthens penalties and offences, but because it creates a stronger deterrent against animal abuse. In 2016, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published our “Animal welfare in England: domestic pets” report, which examined the legislation in place to ensure the welfare of pets. The report found several flaws in our current legislation and called for current measures to be strengthened to protect animals. One key recommendation was for tougher regulation of the buying and selling of pets. That could be puppy smuggling or all sorts. People need to be able to see the mother when they buy the dog. They should see the mother of the kitten as well, if they can, because they need to know whether the animal has been properly socialised.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on his success in his first ever private Members’ Bill ballot and on having chosen a subject that is obviously dear to the hearts of so many of our constituents and to those of so many hon. Members.
Sometimes, Madam Deputy Speaker, people say that a Bill that has universal support and nobody opposed to it ought to be allowed to go through on Second Reading on the nod, but as you know, I have always been against that proposition. Today demonstrates why that is a bad proposition, because however good or popular a Bill is, it is always better for it to be properly debated and scrutinised on Second Reading, and that is what is happening today.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) thinks that the fact 32 Back Benchers are wishing to speak on this Bill has something to do with the Government not being too enthusiastic about some of the Bills later on the Order Paper in my name. I am assured by the Government Whips that that is not true at all. Indeed, if one looks at the Bill that is due to follow this one—the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill—it is actually four-square in line with Government policy. It would be very interesting if the Government actually oppose a Bill that they are already committed to introducing when there is parliamentary time. I mention that because if some of my hon. Friends think they are doing the Government’s bidding by speaking for unnecessarily long in this debate, all I can say is that I am not sure that is actually what they are doing, because the Government have assured me that they support the provisions of the second Bill, but leave that as it may.
My daughter is a vet. I obviously take a lot of parental responsibility, and we must have been very good on animal welfare when we were bringing her up. As we have, she, with her husband, also has rescue dogs. They are rescue Staffies, which seem to be among the worst breeds for the suffering they often undergo in their lives.
It is important that we do not mislead the public and raise expectations beyond what is reasonable. That is why I made the intervention I did on my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. In the correspondence we have received from the animal charities and in their campaigning, they are almost implying that there are people who are against this measure, but I have yet to find anybody who is against it. Those animal charities seem to be using this as a means to try to raise money for their own causes, and that is fine—they can raise money if they want to—but to raise expectations that this will somehow be a panacea for improving animal welfare is going slightly over the top.
Indeed, half of my hon. Friend’s speech was about all the things that he could have put into his Bill, but it is implicit that he did not put them into his Bill because he was told by the Government that if he did so, his Bill would not get Government support, and I sympathise with him on that.
Chris Loder
I would just like to say for the record that I did not ask the Government to put those matters into this Bill, because I know full well that they are matters to come forward—with, I hope, the support of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—when we can address some of these difficult matters of animal sentience properly, rather than just in this Bill. If I may, I just want to make the point that I am afraid what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said was not correct: it is not the case that I asked the Government to do that and that they refused.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that fair and square on the record. So he exercised self-discipline, and I must congratulate him on that. We will live in hope, as the hon. Member for Bristol East said, about when, if ever, the Government bring forward some of the other measures that she and, indeed, my hon. Friend talked about.
The Bill leads people to believe that our prisons will be filled up with a lot more people who are guilty of abusing animals. The explanatory notes are not just notes made up by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. They come with the authority of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which provided them. They explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice and provide background information on the development of policy.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
If Patti Boulaye were a Member of Parliament, she would probably try to burst into song with the Etta James version of “At Last”. At last we are doing something on this issue—at last. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) was absolutely right when she said that in that last, useless, ineffective Parliament that ran from 2017 to 2019, when we wasted so much time—I know that a number of colleagues were not Members then—we could have gone on and done something and made a real difference. We wasted so much time.
The Government announced in September 2017 that they intended to increase the maximum sentences to five years. In 2017, the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill was published for consultation. This found that 70% of people supported the proposals for tougher prison sentences. What Member of Parliament is in favour of animal cruelty? It is ridiculous. This is an animal love-in—we are all against cruelty to animals. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill was published on 26 June 2019, and its Second Reading took place in the House of Commons on 9 July 2019. The Committee stage of the Bill took place on 23 July, and it was due on Report on 4 September 2019. However, the Bill fell at the end of the 2017-2019 parliamentary Session. While I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), I pay tribute to his predecessor, who is a thoroughly decent woman. She would have joined us in our report on endometriosis this week, if she had been here, and I think we are right to pay tribute to her.
Moving on to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder)—only my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) will know what I am talking about—he has not been here a year and he has had the enormous privilege of piloting this Bill. I had to wait 18 years until my name was pulled out of the hat—I think I was No. 4—and I was pressurised on what subject to choose. Because the back-up for the Bill was superb, I chose fuel poverty.
What went on that year was just horrendous. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will realise that there were two doughty fighters on our side—one who is no longer with us, but one who is in the House of Lords—who did everything they could to stop my Bill getting on the statute book. However, as I look around the House this morning, even with social distancing we are a little short of Members. These used to be huge occasions, packed to the rafters. Friday was an essential part of the working week. This does not feel like it. I know the modern Member does not have a letter anymore—it is all done through emails—but I am sure we are in the same position, where we have hundreds of emails from constituents telling us how important this piece of legislation is.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset—I know he got 48 people here for the earlier business—that this is an enormous privilege and honour, and I am so glad that he has chosen this subject. Over the years, we have had some people high up in the ballot who have chosen a subject that they feel strongly about on a matter of principle. Principles are wonderful, but our time here can be very short as Members of Parliament—I hope that the newly elected Members of Parliament are here for 10, 20, 30, 40 years—but while they are here, it is very important to make a real difference. It is not vanity to pilot something to get it on the statute book, but we all say we came into politics to make a difference, so I think my hon. Friend, even if there might be imperfections in this short Bill—although I cannot see them—has done a wonderful service to the House, and I share and feel his pleasure.
Chris Loder
I give heartfelt thanks to my hon. Friend. It is a pleasure to be in this place with him and to share this journey. I know how strongly he and his constituents feel about animal welfare. Going back to what he said earlier, I am not sure there are too many spare seats on this side of the House—there are a few more on the other side. I know full well how strongly the House feels about this, and it is an honour for me and my constituents to be piloting this Bill forward on behalf of the nation.
Sir David Amess
I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. This is not an opportunity to have a go at the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), because as he jousts with the Minister he might have some good things to say about badger culls, and I support him on that.
Let us consider what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, as a number of Members have mentioned people going to prison. I do not rejoice in normal people going to prison. When I had a meeting with Cressida Dick’s deputy about the endless protests that were going on outside in Parliament Square, they thought I would be delighted that they have arrested all these people and they would be going to prison. Mummy and daddy would doubtless be paying the fines in any case, but I do not want that sort of person to go to prison. Prison should be for people who are violent and dangerous; it should be there to protect us. As I develop my speech, I wish to give a little detail on how I think being cruel to animals leads to being cruel to human beings.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset touched on live exports, as what is happening is absolutely unacceptable. He was entirely right to say that by the end of the year, when we have concluded our negotiations with the EU, we should be able to do much more on the issue. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), has something in her brief on that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, together with the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), was also right to talk about animals not being stunned and all the cruelty that goes along with that. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said. He is a farmer’s son, so I am disappointed that he does not walk around the parliamentary estate with a bit of straw coming out of his mouth. If he was going to be an authentic farmer’s son—
Chris Loder
It is difficult to respond to such comments. I want to let my hon. Friend know that I have my Wellington boots in my office here. I was a little concerned about even thinking about wearing them into this House, as I thought the Serjeant at Arms may tell me off for that. If my hon. Friend would like any verification as to my authenticity, he is welcome to visit my office a little later to check those Wellington boots.
Sir David Amess
I may well take up the offer.
We are talking about the terrible crimes that are committed, one of which has been spoken about already. The wonderful brief from the House of Commons Library tells us that there have been a number of shocking cases when courts have said that they would have handed down longer sentences had they been available. Such a case occurred in April last year, where a man had bought a number of puppies just to brutally and systematically beat, choke and stab them to death. That would lead on to other things with human beings. I think someone has mentioned this next case, but how absolutely vile it is that on 7 September a man burned a cat in a hot oven, tried to flush her down the toilet, attempted to strangle her and threw her against a wall, but was given only a suspended prison sentence. The cat was taken to the vet and was found to have third-degree burns and loss of skin. The owner admitted putting her in the oven for up to five minutes. That is beyond the pale, yet it has taken this mother of Parliaments until now to get tough on this issue.
Just this month, a dog suffered horrific injuries suspected to have been caused by badger baiting. The RSPCA has described it as one of the worst cases it has seen in 20 years. Fig the dog was rushed to the vets with shocking injuries to his jaw and nose. In April, the RSPCA was left searching for the perpetrators after a cat was found burned and with a skewer through his body on a disposable barbecue in South Yorkshire.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen a rise in the number of cruelty incidents against swans, including a spate of incidents over the past few months in Dorset in which the birds have been shot with arrows. In August in Rochford, which is near Southend West, the area I represent, three spaniel puppies around eight weeks old were found abandoned on a roadside. They were discovered with a highly contagious virus that causes vomiting, diarrhoea and dehydration. It is believed that they were imported from abroad to sell in the UK and left to die when they became sick. I could just go on and on with these shocking examples of cruelty, and I am very glad that the measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will deal with the matter.
In the UK, it is estimated that 44% of households have pets and that people own about 51 million pets. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) spoke about all his pets; I am not going to try to outdo him, but I think that over the years I have probably had just about everything other than a lion and a tiger—you name it, I have had it.
Sir David Amess
Well, I am not sorry. In fact, one of my hon. Friends just suggested that I should have a logo on my face mask. They have been ordered, and they will be available to colleagues when we return.
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to domesticated animals or animals under the control of man. However, the punishment currently really does not fit the crime. Our sentencing system does not adequately protect animals and fails to deter perpetrators from committing animal cruelty offences. The current maximum sentence for animal cruelty is just 10% of the maximum sentence for crimes such as fly-tipping, which is absolutely ludicrous. The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will, I understand, amend the 2006 Act, raising the maximum penalty for animal cruelty in England and Wales from six months in prison and/or an unlimited fine to a penalty of five years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. I commend him on that. No doubt in Committee and on Report, he may be open to the suggestions of others. However, his overall endeavour is to get this legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible.
I referred to this point earlier, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that evidence shows that animal cruelty offenders often go on to commit violent crimes against human beings, so it is absolutely essential that courts have the ability to give these perpetrators sentences that match the severity of their actions. There were one or two interventions earlier on enforcement. In the bowels of this building are piles and piles of statutes. Laws are often already there, but there is no point in spending hours and hours legislating unless that legislation is enforced. I do not mean this unkindly to new Members, but they will learn in time that, although we think we do, none of us really has anything original to say. It has all been said before in different ways. It is like the call list: Members who are earlier on the call list get to say all the things, and people later think it has all been said before, but obviously their constituents very much want to hear their voice.
Chris Loder
May I lightly say to my hon. Friend that the new Members of this place from 2019 are full of energy and fervour? We are here today to help him, and his colleagues who have been here for many years, to ensure that we get stuff done.
Sir David Amess
That is wonderful. Now that we have had a clear decision after the general election on 12 December, and we have a majority, we must deliver on our manifesto commitments.
To get back to the business of enforcement, I heard a colleague say, “David—we have to do something about cruelty to horses, ponies and donkeys.” Years ago, I got a ten-minute rule Bill on the statute book, which became the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988, preventing people from not feeding and watering donkeys and ponies properly. It is already there; the fact that it is not enforced is rather depressing. It is wonderful that my hon. Friend is piloting this legislation, but if it is not enforced we are all wasting our time. We will have to, through our constituents and our constituencies, give more and more publicity to his measures.
Sir David Amess
Is my hon. Friend seeking to intervene, or is he just uncomfortable?
Chris Loder
In the presence of my hon. Friend, I am never uncomfortable. Having formerly worked in his constituency, it is always a delight to intervene on him. I hope that he will agree that leaving the European Union is much more significant in terms of animal welfare than we may all give it credit. We are escaping the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, and some of the awful rules that have demanded that we have free movement of live animals across the channel. I look forward very much, and I hope that he does too, to supporting the Government to ensure that that comes to an end.
Sir David Amess
I do, and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend in his endeavours.
Research shows that tougher prison sentences do act as a deterrent to would-be perpetrators and can help to prevent animal cruelty abuses from taking place. In 2019, over half of immediate custodial sentences imposed for animal cruelty were at the upper end of the scale of over 17 weeks. In cases where sentences are near the six-month ceiling, this new legislation would allow greater flexibility for the courts to decide an appropriate punishment. I very much welcome that.
Although the process for this Bill began in 2017, it has been delayed time and again, most recently by the December election. I am so pleased that this moment has come. There is huge cross-party support for this legislation, and I was very pleased to hear the Government announce that they would back it. The coronavirus pandemic has only made the need for tougher animal sentencing laws more urgent. During lockdown, the RSPCA dealt with more than 21,000 animal cruelty incidents and the number of animals in its care rose. Evidence shows that family pets are often part of the domestic abuse cycle, which sadly we have seen greater reports of during lockdown.
I would very much welcome a clear commitment from my hon. Friend the Minister on the timetable for the passage of the Bill and when it is likely to reach its next stages. Obviously, we have people on the Treasury Bench, and there is lots of timetabling to think about, but given that this measure has taken so long and there is enormous frustration I hope that the Government will do all that they can, working with the Opposition, to speed this legislation on to the statute book.
Scientists have proven that animals are capable of feeling pain and, like humans, experience fear and stress, as well as joy and comfort. Now it is widely agreed that animals are sentient beings—I am very pleased about that progress—we must do more to prevent their suffering. As patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, that is another issue that I would like to see enshrined in law. I say to those on my own Benches that is wonderful to see the ebbs and flows in terms of Conservative Members feeling strongly on animal welfare issues. I want my colleagues to be on the right side of this argument, and much as there is perhaps some dispute, we are not going to return to fox hunting, and we will deal with the management of badgers in a sensible way. I know that for those who represent farming constituencies these are huge issues—indeed, I was intrigued by the earlier attack on the NFU—and I understand those matters. Nevertheless, as a Conservative it is good to see so many colleagues recognising that animals are so important to our constituents.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, I congratulate Battersea Dogs and Cats Home on its campaign on this issue. People used to think that it just looked after dogs, but it has as many cats and does wonderful work on animal welfare. It has campaigned on this issue for the past three years. Its vital work in caring for animals has brought to light many distressing cases, and I know it is pleased about the Bill. I have had a long association with the RSPCA, and the wife of Lord Stockton, Lady Stockton, is one of its trustees. It has also done a marvellous job on this subject.
Like many other Members, I had the honour of meeting Finn the dog—we have already heard about him from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson)—when he visited Parliament earlier this year. We were all delighted when, following the hard work of Finn and PC Dave Wardell, the first part of Finn’s law, the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill, was enacted last year to protect service animals such a police dogs and horses.
In conclusion, we must increase the penalties for cruelty against our much-loved pets, so as properly to reflect the seriousness of the crime, and we must send a clear signal to perpetrators that cruelty against any animal will not be tolerated. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset on promoting this Bill, and I join others in wishing it swiftly to become law.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, having heard many positive contributions from Conservative Members, many of which I agree with.
Can I make the mandatory pet declaration? Trevor the chicken has turned up in a number of my discussions with the Minister on previous occasions, but I can introduce Brian the female cat—[Interruption.] Yes, Brian—Members can see I have no career in sexing animals in the future. Brian the female cat turned up outside our house many years ago. In the same way as many other Members have described, when we see an animal in a desperate situation, our hearts go out to it, and inevitably we did what so many others do. This poor creature’s tail was barely there, its nose was falling off, but with love and care, that cat lived a happy life for many years. I suspect that many people across the House and across the country have similar experiences.
It is a pleasure to speak today for the Opposition and to offer our enthusiastic support for a Bill that we know is supported across the House but also right across the country. Frankly, it is long overdue. The only real question is why it has taken so long. It has been a long road, and many Members on both sides of the House have taken up the baton. It has been three years since the previous Member for Redcar, Anna Turley, tabled the first iteration of the Bill. I am grateful to the current hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who is not in his place at the moment, for the gracious comments he made about her.
The sense of frustration about the delay is captured rather well by an excellent piece in this week’s edition of The House magazine, which some may have seen. The League Against Cruel Sports took out a full page, and I will quote Andy Knott, the chief executive, whose account puts it very well. He says:
“When training as a young officer in the Army, our instructors had a wheeze to grind us down and test our resolve.
It usually involved going on a long march with full kit, and at the end, just as you thought you were about to reach the truck and return to barracks, it would speed off into the distance.
You would be left downhearted to trudge, desperately seeking said truck around the next corner. And so it seems with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing Bill), a simple piece of draft legislation that has long enjoyed cross party support, and has the entirety of the animal welfare sector calling for it.
Already on its fourth delay this year alone, it is a truck that nimbly manoeuvres tantalisingly just out of reach to those of us wanting to get on board.”
Hopefully, that truck has finally been reached, but he is right: we, and the animals that have suffered in the meantime, have endured a number of wasted years and false starts.
As we have heard, back in 2017, the Government tried to fit animal welfare sentencing and provisions for the recognition of animal sentience into one draft Bill, until the EFRA Committee strongly recommended that they should be separated out to ensure that the maximum penalty was available to the courts as soon as possible. The Committee was absolutely right to demand urgency, but how wrong it was in thinking that it would work. Here we are, years later, still talking about it—and, worse still, about to lose the vital protection on animal sentience that was at that time linked to it.
Under European law, article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union requires Governments to have “full regard” when formulating and implementing policy to the fact that “animals are sentient beings”. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for explaining that very well earlier in the debate. Without equivalent UK legislation in place by the end of the year, animals in the UK will lose that protection, and I think probably very few people in the House want to see that happen.
The Government promised three years ago, after much pressure from the public and animal welfare organisations, to include animal sentience legislation in UK law post Brexit, but here we are with the end of the transition period almost upon us, and that legislation still has not been introduced and is nowhere in sight. We know from a wealth of scientific evidence that animals can think, feel, experience pain and suffer, and we know that we must adopt that recognition in UK law to move forward on animal welfare rather than going backwards. I was struck by the contribution from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who is not in her place. She has had a rough week, but her account of the role that that cat played in her child’s life absolutely made the point about sentience.
We have since seen two Government Bills on sentencing fall due to the volatility of the parliamentary timetable in the lead-up to our withdrawal from the EU. I commend the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for bringing the measures forward again as a private Member’s Bill, but frankly, even this Bill is late, because today is the fifth date set so far this year for its Second Reading. It is very good that we have finally got to this point because, as we all keep saying, cruelty to animals is abhorrent and despicable, and it has no place in our society.
I would like to go back a bit, to the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, because that is the starting point for our discussion. As a Labour Member, I am extremely proud that it was a Labour Government who brought that Act into law. It was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) long before I had the privilege of coming to this House, but I was involved in discussions with him and others at that time. I particularly remember pressing him on the issue of tethered horses, because at the time I was a rural district councillor and that was a pressing issue in my area. I was also struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) earlier. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but he pointed out to us that he had introduced legislation on tethered horses as much as 30 years ago, yet still we face a problem with enforcement.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the key issue of the badger cull, and it is disappointing that we have not had an opportunity to discuss what is going on in our countryside at the moment. Earlier in the year, after a long wait following the Godfray review, many welcomed the Government’s move towards a vaccination policy and away from a culling policy. Sadly, we have discovered that in the interim they have embarked on the biggest culling exercise ever known. It led me to reflect that on national badger day they were actually killing more badgers than ever before. Now, bovine TB is an extremely serious disease, and we all want to see it tackled, but we want it tackled in the right way. We want it to work. I do think—where have we heard this before?—that the Government should be following the science and the advice.
The Animal Welfare Act has been providing penalties for 14 years for those who commit cruelty against animals under human control, tackling cases related to dog fighting, the abuse of pet animals and cruelty to farm animals. But with the passage of time it is clear that updates are now needed and it is right that we should increase the maximum penalty for cruelty offences.
I was about to embark on recounting some of the awful cases that we all know about, but a number of them have already been referenced in the debate and actually just seeing them on paper and reading them is pretty upsetting, so I see no need to repeat some of them. However, it is important to point out that, while around 80% of the 1,000 people prosecuted for animal cruelty each year are convicted, only 10% get custodial sentences—a point that has already been made—and, although the maximum sentence is six months, as we have heard, many get much less than that, with the average sentence being about three and a half months. We had a discussion earlier on the Sentencing Council, and it has been pointed out that defendants who plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity can have their sentences cut by a third, which means that the punishment gets smaller and smaller. The key to this, for us certainly, is that it is not a deterrent if the punishment looks so short.
Magistrates often clearly find themselves in a difficult position when faced with these kinds of cases. One told one of the offenders that he was extremely dangerous and that she would have liked to put him in prison for as long as she could. Another said:
“Due to your guilty plea you are entitled to a reduction of one third, to 18 weeks. … However, due to the circumstances we would, if we were permitted to do so, have imposed a far greater custodial sentence.”
So it is clear that there is a call coming from the people who are trying these cases.
There is clear support for longer sentences and I suspect Members’ inboxes will have been overflowing in the run-up to today’s event. I have had over 100 emails from constituents in Cambridge, and I am told that more than 68,000 people in total from every constituency in Parliament have emailed their MP asking for their support for this measure. The previous public consultation saw more than 70% of people supporting proposals for tougher penalties, so it is clear that people want it to happen.
The reality is that, while we do have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, our maximum penalties in England and Wales are currently among the lowest. A substantial number of EU countries have maximum sentences between two and three years, including France, Germany and Italy, while Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and Latvia, all have maximum sentences of five years. It has also been pointed out that the six-month sentences are out of kilter with the rest of the UK. In Northern Ireland it is five years and Scotland is following suit in the same way this year.
So Labour strongly supports the Bill, as we have done all its previous iterations, but we are disappointed that it has been relegated to the status of a private Member’s Bill and has not been allocated proper Government time or reintroduced as a Government Bill. The shadow Environment Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has written to the Secretary of State numerous times this year calling for the Bill to be expedited by the Government, as have a coalition of 11 animal welfare organisations that support the Bill. I am afraid that instead we have seen further postponements and delays; it is quite extraordinary that it is taking so long. That is despite the growing importance of this legislation over the past few months, given that we know that animal welfare support services are already very concerned that the covid-19 pandemic and lockdown are leading to a rise in the number of incidents of animal cruelty and neglect.
We have heard some of these points already, but let me say that the RSPCA reported in May that since the lockdown began, rescuers have dealt with a worrying 27,507 incidents of animal cruelty and neglect. A sector-wide survey led by the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes and the National Equine Welfare Council has further found that 14% of equine rescue organisations are already reporting more calls about cruelty to animals. Sadly—this point was well made by other Members—there is a correlation between animal cruelty and domestic violence. I am told that women in domestic violence shelters are 11 times more likely to report that a partner has hurt or killed a pet. This legislation is urgent.
Why have we struggled with these delays? The Government may well cite the current pandemic and the run-up to Brexit, but, frankly, those issues are just as real and live north of the border, and the Scottish Parliament has managed to pass the equivalent legislation this year, raising maximum sentences to five years. Put all together, I am afraid that—despite the protestations there will be from the Conservative Benches—it really seems to many of us that animal welfare is not high enough up the priority list for this Government. We are just weeks away from the end of the Brexit transition period and, as I have said, we still have no measures to ensure that animal sentience is recognised in UK law. Perhaps the Minister will explain how that is going to be addressed.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her speech. As she so powerfully pointed out, the Government have consistently failed to put into law their manifesto promise not to undermine standards relating to animal welfare in future trade deals. Of course, they will once again have the opportunity to do so in the coming weeks.
Chris Loder
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is wholly misleading for the Opposition to continue to put forward these mistruths? The standards in law today prohibit—they do not allow—chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef to come into this country. It is most regrettable that the Labour party continues to mislead the nation on that point.
Daniel Zeichner
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to explain why it is actually Government Members who have been misled. At the moment, the protections are absolutely cast-iron, of course, but the day following the end of the transition period, all those cast-iron guarantees slip away. They can be changed and undermined by secondary legislation—
Chris Loder
I just want to say to the House that this is an incredibly moving moment and a moving day for me. It has been very clear from the contributions from Members on both sides of the House how important animals are to our lives, our families and, of course, to our constituents. Today is a really important milestone that means we can move forward, finally, with sorting out this legislation. I particularly thank the Minister for her kind support, and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has been very supportive in making arrangements for today. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who is a staunch supporter of his constituents and has championed many aspects of this issue. Particularly this week, the fact that he is making sure that the voice of his constituents is heard in this place on this important matter is much appreciated.
We now go forward, I hope, to Committee stage and Report. I hope to be back in the House again for Third Reading in the not too distant future. All that remains for me to say at this point is to once again thank everybody here for their contributions. I am delighted that there are so many Government Members here that some of our colleagues are having to sit on the Opposition Benches.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Agriculture Bill
Chris Loder ExcerptsMonday 12th October 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 12 October 2020 - (12 Oct 2020)
Bill Wiggin
I agree not only with my hon. Friend but with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who said he made an excellent speech—he did. Our two largest trading partners would be gone, threatening £22 billion-worth of exports of food, drink and feed—everything we are selling. The EU has already threatened to ban animal products, a trade worth £3 billion, only last year. That should be no surprise. Trade deals with non-EU countries would be gone too: the hard-fought trade deal with Canada and 43 trade agreements with 70 other nations. We think that our food standards are very high, yet we allow religious slaughter, we are gassing pigs in our abattoirs, we do not insist on catering or welfare standards labelling, and we fudge our grass-fed labelling—
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
In 2018, 25% of the sheep slaughtering in this country was done without stunning. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is totally unacceptable and that, before we start preaching about other nations, we should look at our own animal standards after animals have left the farm?
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Loder Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
We have put in place a number of interventions to help people struggling with food affordability, particularly in lockdown and its aftermath. We continue to keep all these policies under review. We have the free school meals voucher system that ran, as the hon. Gentleman says, over the summer, and there are other measures that we have been working on with local authorities.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We want farmers to get a fair price for their produce, and the Government are committed to tackling the contractual unfairness that exists in the agrifood supply chain. Through the Agriculture Bill, we are seeking to strengthen the position of farmers by improving transparency in the supply chain, and there are new powers in the Bill to introduce statutory codes of contractual practice.
Chris Loder
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but the supermarket Sainsbury’s is threatening to tear up the contracts of small dairy farmers in West Dorset that supply it with milk if they refuse to sell it a percentage of their calves. Does he agree that Sainsbury’s is abusing its dominant position, and will he support me in defending small farmers across the country from these predatory supermarkets?
George Eustice
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue in more detail. We now have in place the groceries code adjudicator, which regulates the types of contracts that supermarkets can put in place and precludes certain practices, but through the Agriculture Bill, we can go further and stipulate further requirements in contracts in future.
Fisheries Bill [Lords]
Chris Loder ExcerptsTuesday 1st September 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-R-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (22 Jun 2020)
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), in this debate. I rise to speak in support of this Bill, because we can now look forward to becoming an independent coastal state. This Fisheries Bill gets us out of the EU common fisheries policy. A policy that has constrained and betrayed the fishermen of the United Kingdom for 40 years will finally be no more. The same, I am afraid, is true of the Fishery Limits Act 1976, which was passed by a Labour Government and which put the anchors down on our fleet of British boats in favour of EU-registered fishing vessels.
Our fishermen have looked on in despair for decades at this gross injustice, resulting in the number of working fishermen in the UK falling by 40% since the mid-1990s. It is the same despair that I and my hon. Friends from along the south coast experienced in October when the second largest trawler in the world, the Margiris, was trawling our coastline. This 465-foot floating fish factory dwarfs our own fishing vessels. It is capable of catching 250 tonnes of fish a day, in stark contrast to West Bay, in my constituency, which lands 250 tonnes a year.
This Bill removes the automatic fishing rights of foreign vessels and supertrawlers to our waters and it is this Conservative Government who will be able to return to our fishermen their fair quotas, which they rightly deserve, and should never allow these supertrawlers into UK waters again let alone into marine protected areas.
I should like to say in response to the SNP’s contribution a little earlier—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it all smelled a little bit fishy to me—that its reasoned amendment is a damp squid! Why? It is quite simple and straightforward. Not only do more than 92% of the fishermen in Scotland believe that we should leave the EU and want to be out of the common fisheries policy, but where is that second largest trawler in the world right now? It is off the coast of Scotland, due east of Aberdeen, trawling thousands of tonnes of fish from Scottish seas and from its fishermen. I regret to say that the SNP is out of touch with the fishing community and I am afraid that, on this point, it is like a fish out of water when it comes to this Bill.
In recent months, the coronavirus has demonstrated the strength of local producers to step up and feed local communities when it was needed the most, and no more so than in West Dorset, but people are demanding more. They want to know where their food and their fish are coming from. Leaving the common fisheries policy will enable our island nation to put more fish on British tables. It is good for our health, good for our economy and good for coastal fishing towns.
In coastal constituencies such as mine in West Dorset and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the small fishing communities of Lyme Regis and West Bay, home to just 24 fishing vessels, will greatly benefit from this Bill. It will restore to them and to our fishing communities around the country not only the prosperity of times past but even more in the future: hook, line and sinker.
Sentience and Welfare of Animals
Chris Loder Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who made a very valuable speech.
I believe that animals are sentient beings and fully accept that they feel pain and suffering as well as pleasure. The amount of pleasure that we showed to our dog and that our dog showed to us served as a genuine indication that animals are genuinely sentient beings. However, we also need to consider the issue in the context of UK animal welfare standards, of which I am rightly proud, and of what we have achieved by setting them up. I would certainly pay great attention to that and ask the House to do so as well.
On the hon. Lady’s point about the law, I do not believe that the inclusion of a new clause in the withdrawal Bill was the right way to go about this. It is always convenient to add more and more to Bills until they become nothing more than Christmas trees. That would have been the case in this instance; we could have added endless numbers of things to the Bill. Under existing UK law, animals are already recognised as sentient—I will try to find the reference during my speech. We already recognise in law that animals are sentient creatures, and we should hang on to that firm belief.
I am quite exasperated by the hon. Lady’s mention of trade deals. I am not sure how much more has to be said or written to say that we are not going for cheap trade deals that bring contaminated food into the UK. The matter came up in this Chamber last week, and the Minister in that debate made the point—as indeed, did I—that that has been ruled out for very good reasons. I suggest that we remember that.
I want to raise a couple of concerns about the Government’s response. Finn’s law—the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019—which, as the hon. Lady will know, was introduced as a private Member’s Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), is a very good indication of general as well as specific thinking. Specifically, the law ensures that service animals such as police dogs and horses are offered greater protection, which is extremely valuable, and removes a section of self-defence law that is often used by those who want to harm service animals. Finn’s law is indicative of a wider appreciation of animals shown by the Conservative party, and there seems to be agreement across the House that we should show such appreciation. That is a very good indication for the future.
The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill will increase maximum sentences for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years. That is an appropriate sentence to apply to those who commit such offences. Since some of those issues were first raised with us in 2018, I ask the Minister why not enough has been done in the short term to bring those changes forward. Why are we still having debates like this? Why have we not been presented with Bills so that we can make our commitment plain in debates in the main Chamber? I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I am the promoter of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Second Reading will take place on Friday 12 June, and I hope that hon. Members present and across the House will support it.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am pleased to participate in this debate, secured by a petition with over 100,000 signatures, just like the debate on farm animals immediately after this one. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her comprehensive opening to the debate. Like probably every Member, I received a huge number of emails from my constituents about this issue, and it is important to give voice to their concerns.
Since being elected in 2015, I cannot recall any animal welfare debate in which I have not participated, from straightforward debates about animal welfare to puppy farming, microchipping cats, bans on ivory sales, the fur trade—the list is endless. Those matters are hugely concerning to those we represent, and the debates matter to them. As we have heard, animal sentience is a self-evident truth for all living creatures. They feel pain, pleasure, distress and fear. It is incumbent on anyone with an ounce of compassion or empathy to recognise that and act on it. As elected representatives, we act on that self-evident truth through legislation to ensure that the welfare of animals is protected to the fullest extent possible. The Scottish Government have recognised the importance of that and acted accordingly.
There is some concern, which has been touched on, about a reduction in animal welfare standards below EU common standards in the wake of Brexit. I know the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) was quite irritated that the issue had come up again, but it does not matter whether this is inconvenient or irritating; the fact is that the fear persists among our constituents. We do well to recognise their fears and address them as best we can. In that spirit, I hope the Minister will tell us that those concerns are completely unfounded and will put to bed the ghost of chlorine-washed chicken, as that is in the public imagination. It does not matter whether that fear is real or imagined; if it persists, it needs to be addressed further. I hope the Minister can assuage those concerns suitably. Perhaps she will tell us what commitments her Government will make to reassure those who are concerned that animal welfare standards might be sacrificed, to whatever extent, during trade negotiations.
Animal welfare is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish National party Scottish Government have an excellent record in this area, and in a variety of debates, some of which I listed, I have heard Members across party political lines recognising the SNP’s work. A few months ago, the SNP’s programme for Government set out a range of new animal welfare commitments, not least to maintain EU animal rights standards as a minimum, and that there must be no compromise on or diminution of the standards as trade talks proceed with the US. That is a genuine concern; Tory Back Benchers and Ministers might raise their eyes to heaven in impatience, but these matters are extremely important.
I am particularly pleased that the SNP Scottish Government are set to increase the maximum penalties for the most serious animal welfare offences to five years’ imprisonment and/or unlimited fines, and to make changes to the maximum penalties for various wildlife offences.
Chris Loder
Can I put it to the hon. Lady that the SNP Government are perhaps following my example of leading the way and saying that we need to ensure that those who have committed the greatest crimes against animals should be punished with up to five years?
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a new Member to the House, and I am sure he is a welcome Member to his friends and colleagues. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—I may well be—but I am sure this measure was in the pipeline for the Scottish Government even before he started his selection process. Having said that, I pay tribute to him for bringing this important matter forward to the UK Government, because sadly the SNP’s measures do not apply across the UK. I am sure he will press and persuade his party of Government to do the right thing, and he must be applauded for that.
Environment Bill
Chris Loder ExcerptsWednesday 26th February 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Our natural environment is of growing importance and concern, both in the United Kingdom and around the world, so, it is of great importance that we get this Environment Bill right.
Conservative Governments have had huge successes in introducing measures such as the charge for single-use plastic bags, resulting in a 90% decrease in plastic bag usage in the United Kingdom, but there is still much work to be done. I encourage the Minister to consider banning plastic milk cartons as part of our Conservative mission to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than that in which we inherited it.
By introducing a framework for our independent environmental standards after leaving the European Union, specifically on areas such as air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste reduction, the United Kingdom is exercising its sovereignty and world-leading ambition. Setting our own laws is a significant opportunity not only to maintain high standards, but to exceed them.
I strongly welcome the fact that the Government have set long-term environmental objectives and principles. Long-term outlooks are a crucial element in tackling the effects of climate change. However, more immediate measures are required in the Bill. For example, we need positive measures to reduce further single-use plastics through deposit return schemes and other community engagement projects, and I warmly welcome those aspects.
My constituency of West Dorset is a prime example of excellent environmental stewardship, with its vast stretches of countryside and Jurassic coast—that is clear to see. Our land has been nurtured and maintained by generations of farmers, and those farmers have played a vital role throughout history in taking care of the countryside. They nurture wildlife and habitats, a duty that should not go unnoticed. Unfortunately, however, that vital work often goes unnoticed, and I pay tribute to the thousands of farmers for their environmental stewardship across the country and for dedicating their lives to doing so. I am especially keen to seek assurance and clarification from the Minister that the crucial role of farmers is recognised and that they are granted the freedom to thrive and continue their vital work.
Surprisingly for some, a key concern of my constituents in West Dorset is air quality. Chideock, a small village in my constituency between Bridport and Lyme Regis, is especially subject to air pollution, as the A35 runs through it. Traffic congestion means that the air is polluted with the harmful exhaust gases of vehicles. The World Health Organisation recommends a maximum pollution limit of 10 micrograms per cubic metre of air, but in 2017 West Dorset District Council measured a reading of 61.8 micrograms per cubic metre of air. My constituents in the rural village of Chideock are subject to such high levels of air pollution. The British Lung Foundation has confirmed the damaging effect of high levels of exhaust pollutant, which must be a much higher priority, in my opinion. I hope that the targets set by the Government will recognise the impact of exhaust pollutants in villages such as Chideock, and ensure the safety of all residents from harmful gases that cause a direct and immediate health risk.
I welcome the environmental direction in which the Government are heading, but I am keen to encourage the Minister to be more robust with target setting so that our important environmental standards will not just continue at our normal high standards, but that our standards going forward will lead the world.