Pet Abduction Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, after “if” insert “without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that an offence is only committed if the acts complained of are shown to have been made without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse, so that it is not necessary for the person alleged to have committed the offence to prove their innocence.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 3, after “to” insert “permanently”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only acts where the dog is permanently removed from lawful control would fall under the offence.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 3, leave out “any person” and insert “its keeper”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only where a dog is removed from the lawful control of its registered keeper falls under the offence, rather than removal from any person.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 5, after “to” insert “permanently”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only acts where the dog is detained so as to permanently keep it would fall under the offence.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 5, leave out from “of” to end of line 6 and insert “its keeper”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only where a dog is detained so as to keep it from its registered keeper falls under the offence.

Amendment 6, page 1, leave out lines 21 to 23.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 16, leave out “(3)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 30, at end insert—

“(aa) references to a dog are only to a dog which—

(i) has been implanted with a microchip pursuant to the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023; or

(ii) has been certified as exempt from such an implant under those Regulations”.

The above Regulations provide for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. This amendment ensures that the offence of dog abduction can only be made in respect of dogs which have been microchipped (or are certified as exempt) in accordance with those Regulations and will thereby incentivise keepers to comply with the rules about microchipping.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

“(aa) “keeper” has the meaning given to it under the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023”.

This amendment ensures that “keeper” is intended to have the same meaning as under the specified Regulations.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 39, leave out clause 2.

This amendment removes the offence of cat abduction.

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out “or 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 12, page 4, line 5, leave out “or 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 13, page 4, line 8, leave out “or 2(5)”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 38, leave out “or 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 15, page 5, line 6, leave out “and 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 19, page 5, line 6, leave out

“come into force in relation to England”.

and insert

“, so far as they extend to England and Wales, come into force”.

This is a technical amendment to ensure that it is clear how the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 operates in so far as those clauses extend to England and Wales (rather than just in relation to England).

Amendment 21, page 5, line 7, at end insert

“provided that the Secretary of State has fulfilled the requirement to publish the guidance required by section [Guidance]”.

Amendment 16, page 5, line 11, leave out “and 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 20, page 5, line 11, leave out “in relation” and insert

“so far as they extend”.

This is a technical amendment to ensure that the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 is dealt with in the same way throughout clause 6.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Before I begin to address the issues, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I, on behalf of myself and many others, express our condolences to Mr Speaker, who I know is unable to be present today because he is attending his father’s funeral? I had the privilege of serving with Doug Hoyle in this House from 1983 until 1992, and he was an exemplar for Back-Bench activity during that time. Our sympathies are very much with Mr Speaker.

Turning to the amendments, and particularly new clause 1, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, with whom I was privileged to have a meeting last week to discuss my amendments. They will have a better understanding of the way I work than quite a lot of other colleagues. I am pleased that as a result of that meeting there was essentially an agreement—an acceptance—that we must try to link communications about the appalling incidents of pet abduction or theft to the need for people to microchip their loved animals, particularly dogs and cats. In the course of that discussion, it was pointed out by the Minister of State that before the Bill is to become law, it will be necessary for guidance to be discussed with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding exactly what the enforcement provisions would be. I hope that in responding to this debate, my right hon. Friend will expand on that point.

Following that discussion, I thought I would table a new clause about guidance, so that any references in the debate could include references to the specific issue of guidance that would be issued following the enactment of the Bill. I would like that guidance to set out clearly the position for people who do not microchip their cats and dogs. Microchipping of dogs is mandatory and has been since 2010, but we know that something between 5% and 10% of the 9.5 million dogs in this country are not microchipped. In early June, it will be mandatory for all cats to be microchipped, and probably about 70% have been microchipped by now.

I hope that we can send out a message, in discussing this important legislation, that if someone does not have their cat or dog microchipped, they should not expect the law to rush to their assistance in the event of their cat or dog being abducted. Apart from anything else, if they complain to the police that their dog or cat has been abducted and it has not been microchipped, it is all the more difficult to identify it, search for it and so on. On that great principle of English equity, it seems to me that if someone seeks the protection of the law, they should come with clean hands. In this context, that means they should be able to say that they have complied with the law in respect of the pets for which they have responsibility and have microchipped them. I hope people will realise that if they do not—I hope that the Government will point this out in the guidance—have their pets microchipped, they will not be able to take advantage of the benefits and special provisions in this legislation.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a fair point that if people want help when their dogs have been stolen, they should have them properly chipped in accordance with the regulations. I do not think puppies are included in that. It is important that we think about the pet owners for whom we are trying to get this Bill through. I know that he is not seeking in any way to block it, but these people would almost certainly have complied with the law, and I understand that the amendment would make it far more difficult for the police. While I understand the sentiments, I hope he will not press this to a Division.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will hold my counsel on that until I hear the Minister’s response. If I said now that I agree with the Minister before he has even said anything, I would be closing off an important option. Despite the temptation from my right hon. Friend, I will not do that. She herself has said to me in private that she thinks there is a lot to be said for what I am trying to achieve on microchipping. I have a specific amendment linking microchipping to the text of the Bill. The guidance is perhaps another way of achieving the same objective.

My right hon. Friend reminds me that when the Bill came out of Committee, it was originally put on the list of Bills to be considered without debate on a Friday, on the basis that everything that could have been said about it had already been said and it should now proceed directly to the statute book. It was with wry amusement that I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), the promotor of the Bill, has now taken advantage of the opportunity provided by having a debate on Report to put down her own amendments to the Bill. She could not have done that if her original intention of having the Bill go through all remaining stages on the nod had been implemented. I hope she will thank me for that.

Since the Bill was first produced, the Government have brought forward some important new measures related to microchipping to deal with the problems of the conflicting or complementary microchipping databases. The pet theft taskforce was commissioned to look into these issues of pet abduction, and it strongly recommended that something be done to ensure that there is one consistent database for microchipping that is accessible to vets, the police and local authorities. I was pleased to see that the Government have issued guidance, and that there will potentially be new regulations, on that. When we met, the Minister told me that that will come into force before the end of this year. Hopefully that will make the use of the microchip database easier and reduce the costs of enforcement.

Obviously, the priority that a Bill or an issue has in the House depends largely on the views of right hon. and hon. Members. The Government obviously believe that pet abduction is an important issue, as indeed it is, but we need to keep it in context with the burden on the enforcement authorities of bringing in new laws and, with that, new penalties and essentially new pressure for prosecutions. That is why the guidance will be important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Perhaps he might consider that the instances of motor vehicles being stolen to order are a symptom of organised crime, just as we recognise that pet theft is now a key contributor to organised crime.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I accept that behind the incidence of pet theft there is organised crime, but in the latest figures that we have, that organised crime has resulted in only some 2,000 incidents of dog theft, compared with more than 130,000 incidents of motor vehicle theft, many of which have been stolen to order. I accept that some of the pet theft we are experiencing is because pets of increasing value are being stolen to order, so I am not saying that we should not deal with that; I am saying that we should ensure that the guidance issued reflects the public priorities and does not divert too much police resource away to concentrate on pet theft rather than other crimes such as motor vehicle theft.

That is the background to new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. I hope that in responding, my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he will do that anyway, so there will be no need to include this provision in the Bill.

In our discussion, one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was that he would prefer the Bill to go through the House totally unamended. I suspect, however, that that aspiration has been abandoned, because the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, has tabled her own amendments. They seem perfectly reasonable, but that would mean the Bill would be amended in this place. If the Bill is to be amended, one or two of her amendments could be a complemented by other amendments, should they be necessary. In that respect there has been a development since our meeting, when nobody declared a need for the Bill to be amended. My hon. Friend will speak in due course.

I will speak briefly to some of my other points. The Bill, as drafted, states:

“A person (A) commits the offence of dog abduction if they—

(a) take a dog so as to remove it from the lawful control of any person,

or

(b) detain a dog so as to keep it from the lawful control of any person who is entitled to…it”.

It is only after having been arrested for that offence that a person could take advantage of the defence, under clause 1(2), that before the alleged abduction the pet was living in the same household as that person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. I note that he has informed the Leader of the House of his strong views on the matter, so I think he is right that at this stage we leave that there.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I take it from the ruling you have just made, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, unfortunately, there was no application for an urgent question on the matter that my right hon. Friend raises. If there had been such an application, in the circumstances it is likely to have been granted. Perhaps the Government, when thinking about whether they will make a statement, should take into account that so far they have been very lucky that there was not an application for an urgent question in the required timescale. They were probably prepared for such an eventuality, so it would be reasonable for the Government to come along and volunteer a statement, as my right hon. Friend has requested.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is rather pushing his luck. Could he return to his speech on the Bill?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker, to emphasise the importance of the Bill we are discussing. This is not the only occasion when, compared with what is happening in the rest of the world, the legislation we are discussing seems to many people to be relatively unimportant, but pet abduction is a very important subject for those who are directly affected by it.

Before the point of order, I was seeking to make the point that people should not be charged or arrested for dog abduction if it is clear at the time of the initial investigation that, at the time of the taking or detention of the dog, the person who took or detained the dog, the person from whom lawful control was taken and the dog all lived together in the same household. Why should a household in that situation be faced with having to defend themselves against arrest and prosecution by using this defence? Surely it would be better and fairer to require that someone only commits an offence if they abduct a dog without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse. That is the background to my putting forward new clause 1. We increasingly put the cart before the horse in accusing people of crimes and then forcing them to defend themselves against the allegations, instead of requiring the prosecuting authorities to look into possible defences or excuses before making an arrest or instituting a prosecution.

Amendment 2 is designed to test out whether an offence is committed if a dog is not permanently removed from someone’s lawful control. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments in response to that.

Amendment 3 is designed to ensure that an offence is committed only where a dog is removed from the lawful control of its registered keeper, rather than where it is taken from any other person. I know it will be said that if someone is a dog walker or running some kennels and is not the registered keeper, the offence of pet abduction should equally apply, but in those circumstances the more serious offence of theft should be applied under the Theft Act 1968. Again, that would emphasise the distinction between somebody who is a registered keeper and whose details are set out on the microchip database, and another person to whom the dog has been given for safe keeping, for whatever reason.

Amendment 4 would test out the distinction between the requirement of permanence where someone is depriving an owner of their dog, which in essence comes under the Theft Act 1968, and the less stringent requirements under this Bill. Amendment 5 is a similar amendment to ensure that only where a dog is detained so as to keep it from its registered owner would there be an offence. Amendment 6 is consequential on amendment 1, and amendment 7 is consequential on amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I declare an interest, as a cat owner—my cat is called Hetty. Part of the reason that cats have been provided for specifically in the Bill, a move I supported, was the excellent campaign run by Cats Protection. The briefing I have received from Battersea shows that there were 379 pet cat thefts in 2022 . I am not sure of the equivalent figure for tortoises, but I suspect it was a lot smaller.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I suspect that the incidence of theft of tortoises is much higher, if we look at the percentage of thefts in the relative populations. My hon. Friend says there were only 379 cases of cat theft, and my understanding is that there are 10.5 million cats, so if we work out the percentage of cat owners who find that they have been deprived of their cat, I suspect that it is much lower than the percentage of tortoise owners who find that their tortoise has been abducted.

However, I think what my hon. Friend’s point shows is that, in the context of 10.5 million cats, 379 thefts is hardly a really serious issue. He is a cat owner; I am not—my family are dog lovers, but the two are not necessarily incompatible. I recognise the importance of microchipping cats. Obviously, this legislation will not get on to the statute book until after the microchipping of cats has become mandatory, and until there are criminal penalties if that is not complied with.

I am proud to have visited the premises of the Cats Protection League in my constituency, in Ferndown, which is a very important centre for the rehoming of cats, and that is one of the great tasks that that important charity undertakes. I am not against cats, but I tabled this amendment to test the Government’s thinking. The original taskforce set up to look into these issues reached the conclusion that dogs should take precedence, but the Government subsequently gave way because of behind-the-scenes lobbying by interest groups—not as a result of public consultation—and supported the extension of the legislation to cats.

The taskforce’s advice was to start off with dogs and then extend the measures to cats. All I am doing is, in a sense, repeating what the taskforce said. The essence of my amendments 10, 11 and so on is that they would enable cats to be included at a later stage under the provisions of clause 3, thereby bringing the Bill into conformity with the recommendations of the pet abduction taskforce. If the Government do not want to do that—I understand why they may not—then so be it, but I still think that is worth exploring in debate. That is why I tabled the amendments, including amendment 13, which is consequential on the removal of clause 2, as are amendments 14 and 15.

The next amendment on the amendment paper is amendment 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, who promotes the Bill. She says:

“This is a technical amendment to ensure that it is clear how the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 operates in so far as those clauses extend to England and Wales (rather than just in relation to England).”

Who could possibly object to that? However, when Back Benchers bring forward legislation and do not get it drafted by Government lawyers, there is always something faulty with it, and Ministers delight in saying at the Dispatch Box, “We agree with the intent, but the wording is inadequate.” The question I throw out for debate and discussion is this: why did the Government lawyers who drafted the Bill for my hon. Friend not get it right in the first place? Why did they leave it until so late in the day before insisting that this amendment, and Amendment 20, be included in the Bill? When she addresses her amendments, I hope that she can explain the background to that situation. It shows that instead of being all-knowing and beyond criticism, Government drafters have some of the same frailties as Members of the House when trying to draft legislation, even with all the expertise that the Public Bill Office is able to bring to bear when assisting us in that task.

Amendment 21 links back to my new clause 1, which would make the commencement of the legislation contingent on the necessary guidance having been issued. From discussions I had with the ministerial team, it seems that is the intent, but the amendment would put that in the Bill. Amendment 16 is consequential, and I have already referred to amendment 20, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West.

That is a quick run-through of the amendments. I hope it will generate a proper debate and discussion, and enable people who take an interest in the matter to become more familiar with the issues around microchipping, including the importance of ensuring that cats and dogs are microchipped, the burden on the enforcement authorities, and the deterrence that microchipping provides against those who are minded to engage in the theft of pets. I hope those issues can be shared more widely across the country. There is a lot more detail behind the Bill, but there is no need for me to go into any more of that at the moment. If the Government cannot accept new clause 1, I hope they will be able to provide undertakings that its measures will be implemented voluntarily.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for passing on his condolences to Mr Speaker. As he said, Doug Hoyle was a great parliamentarian and a very kind person, who was always there with a ready smile and good advice to all of us. I pass on our condolences to Mr Speaker from the whole House.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I am delighted to have another opportunity to speak about this important Bill, and to speak to amendments 19 and 20, which are minor technical amendments in my name. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his interest in the matter. I hope he will forgive me when I say that his amendments seem to fall into two broad groups: laudable concern about microchipping; and legal issues about the offence as drafted.

I will start with my hon. Friend’s amendments concerning microchipping. It is very clear that he has a great passion for ensuring that keepers microchip their pets. I am sure that we can all get behind that as a general point; that is a very responsible way for dog and cat owners to behave. Microchipping is a safe and reliable way of identifying animals. Whether they are found as strays, or whether, in keeping with the topic of this debate, they are recovered having been abducted, the microchip should be a lifeline to help them get home. That is obviously good for the animal and good for the keeper.

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s wishes to ensure that we are more responsible and that we encourage microchipping, although I do not agree with his trying to lever those principles into the Bill. The microchipping of dogs has been compulsory in England since 2016, nine years ago. It has also been compulsory in Northern Ireland since 2012. As he rightly points out, microchipping has been a success story: around 90% of dogs in the UK are already microchipped. There is also good evidence that microchipping works. The Government’s recent post-implementation review of the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 concluded that the introduction of the regulations had increased microchipping and reunification rates, with obvious benefits for animal welfare and pet owners.

I am delighted that these benefits are soon to be extended to cats, through the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023. I agree with my hon. Friend when he says that all cats over 20 weeks in England will need to be microchipped from 10 June of this year, in a couple of months’ time, before—this is the key point—the Bill comes into effect. Indeed, already, more than 70% of cats in the UK are microchipped; the levels are similar in England and Northern Ireland. The amendments that my hon. Friend seeks to make today are totally unnecessary, because we will be overtaken by events in relation to the microchipping of cats.

The effectiveness of microchipping relies on keepers ensuring that the information on the microchip is up to date. That is what the police and the rescue centres need: accurate information to enable them to reunite the keepers with their animals swiftly and efficiently. As I keep saying, I could not agree with my hon. Friend more on the importance of that, but I do not think that it has anything to do with the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to go into more detail about ways in which he intends to encourage more microchipping.

I understand my hon. Friend’s motivation for his amendments 3, 5, and 8 to 16 to further incentivise compliance with microchipping, but as I have already made clear, there is a high level of compliance already, and further legislation is coming down the track shortly. There is also an effective enforcement mechanism: where a dog in England is found not to have a microchip, police in local authorities have the power to issue a notice. That notice will require the keeper to get that dog microchipped within 21 days. That will apply unless the dog has been certified as exempt from the microchipping, perhaps by reasons relating to health, and it is an offence to fail to comply with that notice. A person would be liable for a fine of up to £500, and the same regulatory regime will soon come into force and apply to cats.

As I have said, these amendments are not necessary, because we will soon be overtaken by events. However, far more importantly, amendments 3, 5, and 8 to 16 would restrict the scope of this Bill considerably. Amendments 10 to 16 would remove cats from the Pet Abduction Bill entirely, as well as removing certain dogs from the scope of the offence. I regard that as a very retrograde step indeed, and one that I would oppose entirely. This legislation has been a long time coming. It has been very carefully considered by the pet theft taskforce, involving three Government Departments, and to seek to undermine it in this way is entirely wrong.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anna Firth]

No, I will not give way. My hon. Friend had a very long time to speak and I would like to get through my remarks.

Cats are among the most beloved pets in the UK. There are around 11 million pet cats across the country, and a quarter of households have them. I must declare an immediate interest here, as I have two wonderful cats, Merlin and Marmalade, who are appalled by these amendments, which would take them entirely out of the protection of the Bill.

We heard impassioned stories on Second Reading about the importance of cats to people and the heartache it would cause them if they were lost. We heard about Mrs Landingham, the cat of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), and Liesl von Cat, the cat of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) about her beloved ragdoll cat and we have of course heard about Cats Protections today.

The “Cat Theft Report 2022” from Pet Theft Awareness shows that cat theft increased by 40% in 2021 and more than quadrupled between 2015 and 2022. This is a growing problem. Cats deserve the same protection as dogs.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anna Firth]

I have already said to my hon. Friend that I will not give way at this point—

[Sir Christopher Chope]

At all?

[Anna Firth]

Oh—I will give way.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is a debate, and I wondered if instead of giving percentage increases she could give put a figure on the number of cat thefts.

--- Later in debate ---

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

First, may I from the Government Benches send our condolences to Mr Speaker, who is unable to be here today because he is attending his father’s funeral? We send our sympathies to him.

It is a pleasure to speak about this Bill, which is so important to many people. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his considered attention to the Bill, not only today but previously and in the meetings that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State held with him in consideration of the points he has brought to the House. I also thank him for his support of some of the measures that we are bringing forward in the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for her considered responses and her contributions on Report.

Let me start by addressing amendments 1, 6 and 7. As was eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, the Bill already makes it clear that prosecutors bear the burden of proof. We want to create suitable offences that will crack down on cases of dog and cat abduction, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment that amendments 2 and 4 would undermine the scope for prosecutions to be brought for the offences of dog and cat abductions. I, too, urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to withdraw amendments 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 on the basis of the points that I have made and the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West.

New clause 1 and amendments 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 21 have already been discussed. I commend the dedication of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to microchipping. I know he has a branch of Cats Protection in his constituency, as does my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who rightly contributed to this debate, stating that Cats Protection has been instrumental in supporting the extension of the compulsory microchipping requirements to cats. I am pleased about both the extension and its support for this issue.

From the first moment that an offence of dog abduction was introduced in this place, MPs and stakeholders alike have asked for it to be extended to cats. The Department has received a significant number of letters from the public and parliamentary questions from right hon. and hon. Members in support of this proposal. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West that the Government cannot support removing cats from the scope of the Bill. However, I understand that the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to remove cats from the scope of the Bill was guided by the laudable intention of incentivising microchipping. I am pleased that we very much agree on the importance of microchipping, which is the best way to reunite people with lost and abducted animals.

The Government made microchipping compulsory for dogs in England in 2016, and we are now extending the benefits of that legislation to cats. From 10 June, all owned cats in England over the age of 20 weeks must be microchipped and registered on a compliant database. Microchipping is a safe, simple and effective procedure. The average cost is £25, plus an average £10 registration over the lifetime of the animal. Microchipping undeniably helps to bring displaced pets home. In the UK, around 90% of dogs have been microchipped. In 2023, more than 70% of cats have already been voluntarily microchipped.

Our post-implementation review of the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015—the predecessor to the 2023 regulations—showed that this legislation has had a positive effect on reunification rates. Stray dogs that have been microchipped and have up-to-date database records are more than twice as likely to be reunited with their keeper than stray dogs without a microchip. Police and local authorities can and do issue notices requiring a dog to be microchipped where it is not already. That has been demonstrated to be an effective mechanism to support compliance.

Since we introduced the English compulsory cat microchipping legislation, we have been working closely with a number of animal welfare stakeholders to develop a co-ordinated communications campaign to explain to cat owners the benefits of microchipping and the new legal requirements. Last summer, we even enlisted the support of our chief mouser Larry the cat, who himself was once an un-microchipped stray, before being taken in and rehomed by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Larry’s tweet on International Cat Day, explaining the importance of microchipping for reuniting pets with their owners, received half a million impressions.

I am also grateful to stakeholders who have helped to spread the message at the start of our 100-day countdown campaign to the introduction of these measures. With just over 50 days to go before the 10 June deadline, we are ramping up our communications strategy with stakeholders for that final push. I urge anyone who has not yet microchipped their cat to do so as quickly as possible. Our communications around the new cat microchipping rules, as well as around this Bill, will provide a clear message that microchipping will help bring abducted pets back home sooner.

However, compulsory cat microchipping is just one of a number of planned microchipping reforms. Last month, we published our response to the consultation on English pet microchipping reform. We are committing to a number of improvements to the microchipping regime around three themes: first, making it easier for approved users to access records; secondly, improving the accuracy of records; and thirdly, standardising database operator processes. Those reforms will implement one of the key recommendations of the pet theft taskforce that more robust processes should be in place to stop stolen pets being registered to new keepers by ensuring that the current keeper has up to 28 days to object to a transfer of keepership request made to a database operator before any transfer can go through, and by preventing database operators from creating a duplicate microchip record for a pet. We are also making all database operators record whether a pet is reported as missing. That will assist enforcement bodies and flag concerns to a database operator, should they receive a transfer of keepership request. We are looking to legislate specifically to deal with that issue in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West has eloquently outlined how the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would overly restrict the Bill, and the Government cannot support them. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch rightly made some points on guidance in his new clause 1 and amendment 21 and asked for statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. I agree that guidance will be essential for frontline workers enforcing new pet abduction offences, ensuring that those are used appropriately. The Government are committed to working with key stakeholders to ensure that appropriate guidance relating to this Bill will be available before the Bill’s offences come into force. The cross-Government pet theft taskforce already establishes relationships with police officers, operational partners and animal welfare organisations working in the area, so we have a network already in place, and I can confirm that conversations are already under way. I will ensure that the points that my hon. Friend has rightly raised are part of the conversations that are already under way. Enforcers will have the support and information they need to effectively implement the legislation once it comes into force without the need to legally require enforcement guidance.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is concerned about people benefiting from the legislation when they have shirked their responsibility to have their pets microchipped. I assure the House that we are doing work with police colleagues to make them aware that, in the event that they recover an abducted cat or dog that is not microchipped, they have the power to issue a notice under the English microchipping regulations requiring those pets to be microchipped within 21 days.

For completeness, failing to comply with such a notice is an offence and subject to a fine of £500. In addition, the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023 provide for the police to be able to take the animal in question to be microchipped without the keeper’s consent, and allow the costs associated with that to be recovered. The enforcement regime for the English microchipping legislation is designed to ensure that an animal will end up being microchipped if it is found not to be. We understand that most people comply with such a notice where issued, so only a small number of such cases are taken through the courts.

In addition to the existing enforcement mechanism, we are considering enabling penalty notices for the offence of not microchipping a cat or dog through the Animal (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2023. In summary, I cannot, therefore, commit that we will work—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I can commit—I want to reiterate that—that we will be working closely with enforcement partners to ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are addressed. We are working at speed to prepare for this engagement.

On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, I thank her for bringing forward these minor, technical adjustments to the Bill. The Government support them and agree that their clarity help to progress the Bill, specifically in relation to clauses 1 and 2. I urge all hon. Members to support them.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. We have made great progress, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for facilitating that. My amendments—particularly amendments 10 to 15—were designed to address the problem of potential waste of police and local authority enforcement resources in trying to trace pets that had not been microchipped. My hon. Friend, in saying what he did about the guidance and advice that will be given to enforcement authorities, got to the core of my concerns.

It has never been my intention to be anti-cat. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) suggested that I do not think that cats matter. I will not put myself into a category where cats do not matter, because I have enough emails coming in already on other issues. [Laughter.] Cats do matter, and so do dogs —and, for the sake of completeness, so do tortoises.

I have never been against including cats in the Bill, but I have been nervous about doing so when many cats are still not microchipped. From 10 June, that will be compulsory and, as the Minister said, there will be stronger enforcement measures. Given the number of local authorities issuing notices, I do not think they are applying their minds to it, but perhaps when they link that in with the prospect of complaints if cats have been abducted, they will realise that there is a strong link between the two issues. I hope that the consequence of all this debate will be that we have a much better, more complete database, and that more cats and even more dogs will be microchipped. Having a million-plus dogs not microchipped at the moment is unacceptable.

One cannot always say on a Friday that we have made progress, but I think that we have on this issue. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

Commencement

Amendments made: 19, page 5, line 6, leave out

“come into force in relation to England”

and insert

“, so far as they extend to England and Wales, come into force”.

This is a technical amendment to ensure that it is clear how the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 operates in so far as those clauses extend to England and Wales (rather than just in relation to England).

Amendment 20, page 5, line 11, leave out “in relation” and insert

“so far as they extend”.—(Anna Firth.)

This is a technical amendment to ensure that the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 is dealt with in the same way throughout clause 6.

Third Reading

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point and for highlighting the level of support. Of course, that was reinforced by the Government themselves in January in their response to the petition instigated by Mr Peter Egan, which said:

“We will continue working to deliver our manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals, which has overwhelming support from MPs and the public…We recognise that this is an issue that the public feel very strongly about, and over 85% of responses to our consultation supported further action. In the previous Parliamentary session, the Government fully supported the Hunting Trophies Bill during its passage through Parliament. The Bill passed the House of Commons in March 2023, with strong support from MPs, but did not progress through Committee stage in the House of Lords. We will continue working to deliver this important manifesto commitment.”

I hope the Minister will be able to back that up further in her contribution later on. That was reinforced in a reply at the end of January to a letter from a number of Members across the House that the hon. Member for Crawley organised, in which the Minister once again said that there is considerable debate, and that the Government support the Bill and shared the hon. Member’s disappointment that it did not pass through the Commons. It is absolutely clear that whatever our other divisions, we are united in support of a ban.

There is one particular aspect that I want to highlight. We have talked a lot about hunting in the wild, but there is the even more deplorable business of so-called canned hunting, where animals, especially lions, are bred in an enclosure to be shot by depraved individuals who want a trophy. I pay tribute to Lord Ashcroft—again, someone with whom I might disagree on other issues—who has spent a considerable amount of time campaigning on and instigating research into that appalling trade. I hope the Bill will help reduce the attraction to such trade. One firm involved in that dreadful trade advertised that

“Your hunt is never complete, until you receive your animals at home for you to reminisce and re-call your experiences for the rest of your life.”

Do we really want to be associated with people who take that sort of attitude?

I have taken a fair amount of time and a number of interventions. We could go on a lot longer and in a lot more detail, but I recognise that the House will want to make progress, and that colleagues will want to make what I hope will be brief contributions.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman take us through the clauses of the Bill? Clause 4 was incorporated as a result of the acceptance of one of my amendments when this Bill was last debated. Clause 4 has not yet been explained, and I would be interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman supports it, and how he thinks it will work in practice.

[John Spellar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who sits with me on the British-American Parliamentary Group; we are joint officers. I consider him a parliamentary friend. I thank him for highlighting the fact that the Bill was amended to take account of various views. It was carried forward without dissent in this House, and was forwarded to the Lords. That is precisely why the Bill should be voted on again, sent back to the other House, and incorporated into the laws of this land.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I pay tribute to him, and to many other Members from across this House who have worked so hard, not only in supporting my Bill when it was before the House last year, but in campaigning to end the importation of hunting trophies—the body parts of endangered species —to this country. It has been a fantastic effort. As we have heard, the Bill enjoys the support of well over four fifths of the British public. Indeed, there was a commitment to do what the Bill proposes in a manifesto on which I stood for election four and a half years ago, and I understand that that commitment has been reflected in the manifestos of many other parties represented in this House.

Last March, the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill that I introduced passed through this elected Chamber unanimously. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), we accepted compromise amendments to make sure that it reflected as many views as possible. When it went to the other place, a very small minority of peers acted discourteously in the way that they sought to block the legislation. That is why we have had to bring it back, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Warley for doing so.

I mentioned the widespread support for this legislation in this country, but it is also extremely popular in other parts of the world. Southern Africa has been mentioned. Last year, I was in a number of southern African countries where there is a clear desire among the majority of people to make sure that such legislation is enacted in this country—and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in other countries as well. Hunting for trophies is not a natural practice for people in southern Africa; it is a colonial import to the continent from the time of colonisation. It is not native. The ending of this practice enjoys widespread support across the world.

As the right hon. Member for Warley said, the practice that we are discussing is not unique to Africa. Claims have been made that somehow this is racist legislation that tells countries around the world how to act and conduct their hunting policy. Let us just remind ourselves that this Bill is import legislation; it says that we in this country, by a clear majority, choose not to allow the importation of body parts of endangered species slaughtered by hunters to Great Britain; that is the territorial extent of this Bill and what it is designed to do. Nevertheless, it would send a strong signal that these practices are deeply damaging to conservation, as he eloquently said. Damage is done to the gene pool by taking out the top animals in a pride of lions, or the big tuskers from a herd of elephants. That is beginning to damage the ability of those animals to survive. Let us remind ourselves of what this Bill is about. It is not about banning hunting, although I might have a view on that; it is about protecting endangered species before it is too late.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In my hon. Friend’s tour of Africa, did he have the opportunity to meet President Masisi of Botswana, who has described western interventions as “a racist onslaught”? He has said:

“It’s racism. They talk as if we are the grass the elephants eat. It startles me when people sit in the comfort of where they are and lecture us about the management of species they don’t have.”

[Henry Smith]

I have not met the current President of Botswana, but I have met the previous one, President Khama, on a number of occasions. He is passionate about ending trophy hunting, because it is not typical African communities who benefit from it, but the big industry that supports it. Botswana is a good example, because in such countries there is a huge difference of opinion over whether trophy hunting should go ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pity that in a debate that should be about facts, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has allowed his prejudices to come to the fore. I do not think that helps his cause—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and I agreed that it shows that we are winning the argument, because the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues are having to resort to smearing Members of the other place. Those Members tabled perfectly reasonable amendments; the problem was that they ran out of time for discussion.

The previous Bill was amended in this place. That was only because my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire and I tabled a large number of amendments, which put pressure on the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), and the Government to accept some of those amendments. One of the amendments was to add what is now clause 4 of the Bill, and another was to remove from the Bill a Henry VIII clause allowing the subject matter to which the Bill would apply to be extended by statutory instrument without any proper consultation. This Bill is a better Bill than the one that was first introduced into this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, but it is still very defective. Certainly, I think it would be a much better Bill if the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire in his excellent speech were to be incorporated into its text.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

rose—

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will happily give way, if need be.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am most grateful—sorry, I was a little slow to intervene. As always, my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that we take any risk of racism away from this legislation, because at the end of the day, we are united in wanting better conservation.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That is what unites us. The disagreements across the House are on the means to the end. Everybody wants to have better conservation of endangered species and wildlife in Africa. Like the hon. Member for Eltham, I have had the privilege of going on safari in Africa—indeed, in South Africa—on two separate occasions. One was in about 1984, when it was pretty hard to find the wild animals we were looking for in the game reserves. When I went again, about 18 months ago, there was an abundance of rhinos, giraffes, elephants, lions, leopards and so on. We had the most amazing experience. People used their cameras, and they relied on the protection provided by the excellent team that looks after and conserves that safari park or game reserve.

We could see with our own eyes that people were trying to poach the animals that were being looked after, and the cost of anti-poaching measures is incredibly high. How will that cost be funded unless it is paid for by the people who are engaged in the conservation? One small means by which they raise funds is by allowing the collection of trophies, and almost all the trophies that are not kept in Africa are imported into the United States, Spain or Germany. Very few are brought into this country.

Whatever happens to this Bill, trophy hunting will continue—but it may not include the import of a small number of trophies into this country under a licensing and regulatory regime that has stood the test of time. Instead of regulation, we will have an outright ban. Why are we doing that? The 2021 impact assessment in respect of an earlier Bill said:

“Why is government intervention necessary? Government intervention will address public concerns about imports of hunting trophies from endangered animals.”

Essentially, the Government’s impact assessment admits that this is about presentation, virtue signalling and pandering to public opinion, whether or not that public opinion is sound.

Let us take ourselves back to when the Government and Parliament took the view that we should abolish capital punishment. At that time, a vast majority of the population took the view that we should keep capital punishment. If we had applied the principle that is being applied to this Bill, we would still have capital punishment because it would “address public concerns” about people being murdered. We, in this House, need to rely on science and fact, rather than allowing prejudice and ignorance to prevail, which is one of the reasons why I hope the Bill will be improved, if it receives Second Reading today.

Section 4 of the impact assessment, from paragraph 98 onwards, refers to the costs of this proposed legislation, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire and I are seeking to get across to the Government.

The impact assessment says:

“A 2019 letter from 130 researchers described how in African countries that practice trophy hunting, more land has been conserved under trophy hunting than under National Parks, with hunting areas contributing to landscape connectivity. Some argue that restricting the import/export of trophies from hunting risks land conversion and biodiversity loss, and other alternative area management strategies must be in place to promote conservation, protect endangered species, and support livelihoods. Furthermore, many questions remain on whether alternatives such as wildlife tourism can effectively replace trophy hunting, especially in areas with poor political and economic stability, and areas with less aesthetic appeal.”

That is not what I am saying; it is what the Government said about the costs of this legislation when they did their impact assessment, which goes on to say:

“Wildlife conflict with local people can impose serious costs including causing physical harm and death, damaging crops, predating livestock and competing with livestock for food. Where wildlife provides few benefits to local people and/or imposes substantial costs, animals are often killed for food, trade, or to remove problem animals.”

That is a welcome recognition by the Government of some of the realities surrounding this subject, rather than the prejudices of people who have been ill informed by certain organisations.

In paragraph 100 of the impact assessment, the Government also concede that:

“Evidence suggests that trophy hunting can provide a value for animals which incentivises their protection for the purposes of hunting rather than indiscriminate removal, e.g. land use change to agriculture. Without trophy hunting, an income stream linked to positive conservation outcomes could be lost and other options need to be in place to address this conflict.”

That is what the Government said in their impact assessment, so I hope we are going to hear from the Minister how they will address the concerns that they recognised, if indeed they are still hell-bent on pushing this legislation through to try to get it on to the statute book.

The Government also conceded in their impact assessment—perhaps this is a point that my hon. Friend the Minister could refer to—that:

“A ban in the legal movement of animal trophies could have the unintended consequences, including increasing the illegal trade in wildlife parts which is unregulated. It could also reduce the amount of protein available to local communities as meat is often a by-product of trophy hunts. After a hunting ban in 2014 in Botswana one village lost the provision of 154 tonnes of meat, so less protein was available to the community. This resulted in an increase in illegal poaching and documented declines in wildlife.”

Those are facts. What is the Government’s response to the facts to which they referred in their own impact assessment in 2021?

The issue of costs is discussed in paragraph 102:

“One of the major arguments for hunting for trophies is that it provides financial benefits to local communities, and without trophy hunting these benefits could be lost. However, the extent to which local communities truly benefit is widely debated.”

Of course, that is the debate we are having today. Let us not take a view that all the people who support this Bill are lovers of animals and all the people who are against it despise animals. Nobody could be a stronger supporter of animals than I am. Indeed, my wife and I are proud that we have produced a daughter who is now a veterinary surgeon. Can one adduce any more evidence of the importance of inculcating into one’s children a love of animals that their parents share? Let us have none of this nonsense suggesting that this is not a vile activity and that those who are against this Bill should be subject to some sort of vilification. That is completely ridiculous.

Let me also refer to the letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire referred from the Namibian Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations. The letter was sent to all British MPs, and I am disappointed that more of my parliamentary colleagues who will have seen that letter are not present. One asks rhetorically, what have they done as a result of the points made in it? Mr Louis says:

“Please do not regard Africans as being incapable of deciding our domestic policies. The reason we have legal hunting is that it pays for protected land for our big animals. As our human population grows, it is crucial for our lions and elephants to have such space.

Our rhinos also require armed guards to safeguard them from ruthless poaching gangs financed by Chinese criminals. When there are no guards, massive numbers of the animals get killed by these brutal gangs. Legal hunting pays for the guards and kills far fewer.”

When we as a family were in South Africa, we saw the consequences of what happens with rhinos. To try to disincentivise the illegal poaching of rhinos, the rhinos are de-horned, but such is the value of rhino horn now, even from dead animals, because of ill-conceived bans on its use, rhinos are now being poached just for that part of the horn that is no longer visible, which is part of an extension of the head. That is a consequence—an unintended consequence, obviously—of the restrictions on countries exporting the rhino horn from dead animals. That is why this is a very nuanced debate, and I am not sure we are getting as close to that today as their lordships were when they were debating the legislation on Report in their House.

This very important letter from Maxi Louis goes on to say:

“The evidence for this is in the peer-reviewed science which shows how successful Africa’s system is at defending our precious animals. People who have read this science—and back legal hunting—include the EU Commission”—

I am not sure that is his strongest argument—

“and George Monbiot”,

which is a stronger argument. He continues:

“So does the global regulator, the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We use legal hunting to manage our big animals because they are a mortal risk to us and our children. African lives are at stake.

You do not have any dangerous wild animals. Britain got rid of its last brown bears 1,000 years ago and its last wolves 264 years ago.”

In his conclusion, he says that

“wildlife in Africa is flourishing. Because of our management. We ask for no more virtue signalling. It is arrogant, ignorant and racist.”

I could not have put it better myself. That is why I am disappointed that the Government continue to pander to those who would fit into the description given by Maxi Louis.

I turn now to the amendment that was made to the Bill introduced in the last Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. In introducing this Bill today, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) did not refer to that, except to say that that amendment was in the proposed legislation, and that it showed how we had passed a Bill to the other place as a result of a consensus. That is one interpretation of what happened on that Friday when we were debating amendments on Report. Essentially what happened, as you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, was that there were a large number of amendments, and a deal was done whereby two of those amendments were accepted, and all the others were rejected. One new clause about setting up an advisory board on hunting trophies is now in the Bill, and I wish to speak briefly about the importance of that and the background to it.

Who will decide on issues relating to hunting trophies? I think we should have expertise, rather than people who are prejudiced. Clause 4 states:

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an Advisory Board on Hunting Trophies

(“the Advisory Board”).

(2) The Advisory Board appointed under subsection (1) may have up to three

members.

(3) The role of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary of State—

(a) on any question relating to this Act which the Secretary of State may

refer to the Committee;

(b) on any matter relating to the import to Great Britain of hunting trophies derived from species of animal which appear to the Secretary of State to be, or to be likely to become, endangered.”

That is an improvement on the original Bill, because it would require the Secretary of State to take advice, instead of just listening to the mob, so to speak, and I am pleased that that measure is in the Bill. Clause 4(4) states:

“In appointing members of the Advisory Board, the Secretary of State must have regard to their expertise in matters relating to the import of hunting trophies.”

One thing we discussed previously, which I do not think we have discussed today, is the extent of the Bill. The Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the prohibition on imports applies only to imports into Great Britain. Why is that, and why does the right hon. Gentleman, in limiting the Bill to imports into Great Britain, think that that will help meet his objective? Does it not show that we are no longer one nation of the United Kingdom, but that there will be a different regime in Northern Ireland, compared with the one that prevails in the rest of our country? I hope the Minister will be able to explain why, if the Government are in favour of the Bill, and if they purport to be a Government for the whole United Kingdom, rather than just Great Britain, they are proposing to restrict the import of hunting trophies into Great Britain and not into Northern Ireland. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is an open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and that Ireland is in the European Union, which has a much more benevolent approach to the import of hunting trophies than this Government seem to have. That important issue needs to be addressed in the Bill, and I hope that if it goes into Committee, we can ensure that its provisions apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom.

There is no need to speak at great length on something like this when the arguments against the Bill are so strong, but we should not vilify those people who engage in conservation measures in the way that some have been seeking to do. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If we compare Kenya with other countries in southern Africa, we see that Kenya’s well-intended ban has been totally counterproductive, whereas in southern Africa there has been tremendous progress on the conservation of endangered species.

On a lateral point, is the collection of rare and endangered butterfly species illegal in this country? No, with very few exceptions. If we are free to pin butterflies to the wall or put them in display cabinets, does it suit us to preach to people in Africa about their conservation measures? I think not. We talk about the importance of culling, which is essential to control the numbers of a species in the restricted area of a wildlife park. We cull in this country, particularly deer. That culling can include the use of rifles to shoot the deer that people think have the finest antlers. Those antlers are kept as trophies. That is not my line of business at all, but I respect that other people might like to do that. It is all part of culling to ensure that we do not have too many deer to manage.

This complex Bill is worthy of further detailed consideration, but I am worried that the Government may have a secret agenda: they may try to use the Parliament Acts on this legislation. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that under no circumstances will the Government seek to override the Parliament of this United Kingdom by seeking to use the Parliament Acts on a Bill that was rejected in the other House—not because it was voted down, but because not enough time was given for it. I am not sure that there is any precedent for the Parliament Acts being used when debate in the other place has been curtailed through lack of time, the Bill has been brought back in the next Session, and the Government’s failure to provide time is used as a justification for using the Parliament Acts. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point when she winds up the debate.

Finally, let me put on record that I am against this Bill having a Second Reading in its present form. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to vote that way later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Obviously, there were issues going on in the other place that I was not party to at the time, so I am sorry, but I cannot comment on his point.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Lady keeps referring disparagingly to hereditary peers, but is it not correct to say that a significant proportion of hereditary peers were elected to that House, unlike most of the other peers, who are appointees?

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He says that I keep referring to hereditary peers, but I have referred to them once, in response to one of my colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Many Members on both sides of the House have been eagerly awaiting the passing of this piece of legislation, as have many outside campaigners who have worked tirelessly on the issue and many of our constituents. I have had many emails on the issue in Taunton Deane. I thank the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for introducing the Bill and all those who have taken part in the debate, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who did such a sterling job just one year ago. I think he will agree that we had a lively debate then, and we have had a similarly lively debate today.

I want to list some of the colleagues from both sides of the House who have spoken eloquently. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made the point well about taking photographs of these wonderful creatures. There were interventions by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), but there have also been moving speeches, in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. Of course, many Opposition speakers have joined in as well.

It is clear that the issue of hunting trophies continues to divide opinion. We have witnessed some of that today from my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin). There is disagreement over the scientific, social, economic, moral and ethical rationales for trophy hunting, and that will no doubt continue for some time. There are those who point to evidence of the potential benefits of well-managed hunting—we heard a great deal about that from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. We also heard the other side of the argument, with evidence of the harm caused by poor practice.

I want to stress something critical: we face the triple planetary crisis of biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution. Those are the greatest threats we face globally and, as the nature Minister, they are in my inbox every day. I am only too aware of all those threats and of how we need to tackle them. About 1 million animal and plant species face extinction. Much of that has occurred very recently—in our lifetime. The abundance, diversity and connectivity of species is declining faster than at any time in human history, and that includes the species targeted for trophy hunting. We all know and love them: elephants, rhinos, lions, leopards and polar bears, to name just a handful.

There are those who argue that banning the import of trophies from those animals will do nothing to improve their conservation status, and I am certainly listening to my hon. Friends on that, but we have to ask ourselves whether importing into Great Britain trophies from endangered animals helps to tackle biodiversity loss. Does this trade really help to secure a sustainable future for species on the brink of extinction? Many animals are under terrible threat anyway because their habitats are shrinking. That is happening for a range of social and economic reasons, but climate change is certainly part of it. Ultimately, the aim of the Bill is to ensure that imports of hunting trophies to Great Britain do not put additional pressure on already threatened species. That is what should concentrate our minds, and that is why I am pleased to confirm that the Government will support the Bill. In doing so, we signal our continued determination to fulfil our manifesto commitment in this regard.

I have heard the argument that a ban will have implications for local communities and conservation efforts globally, which is definitely something we must consider carefully. We must be alive to the unintended consequences. However, the Bill is about imports into Great Britain, as many have said in the debate—my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal reminded us of that. This is about listening to the British public. There is a clear, strong and consistent message that we need to bring to an end the imports of endangered animals taken as hunting trophies. The winds of change are blowing us in that direction, and a number of countries have already put restrictions in place.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am not going to take any interventions, because Members have made so many already and we do not want to restrict the debate on the ultra low emission zone, but I will refer to some of the points that my hon. Friend rightly raised in a moment.

It is important to recognise that the import ban will not prevent a UK resident or citizen from participating in hunting while they are overseas. Trophy hunting can and will continue around the world. It is right that each country should be able to decide how best to manage its own wildlife, and the Bill does not change that. That point was highlighted vociferously by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for North Herefordshire, but it has to be remembered that we are not preventing that. Countries around the world on both sides of the debate have had regular opportunities to discuss this issue and raise their points. Indeed, we have had letters from the Presidents of Botswana and Namibia—the high commissioner was written to just yesterday.

It is important to keep in mind the contribution that the UK trade in hunting trophies makes. Annual imports of hunting trophies to the UK are very few in number—on average, there have been 73 a year over the last 10 years. Even so, it is essential that we play our part to ensure that communities around the world benefit from conserving the wildlife that they live alongside. That was reflected in the agreement of the hugely important global biodiversity framework. There is now a strong and essential focus on how, as a global community, we finance biodiversity, conservation and restoration work. Members will be aware of just how much the Government are doing on that front, with our huge £93 million Darwin initiative and our £30 million Darwin Plus initiative. All of that focuses on biodiversity and conservation, working with locals and indigenous peoples.

Penultimately, let me run through some of the provisions in the Bill. The Bill will ban the import of hunting trophies from specific species, with the explicit aim of ensuring that imports into Great Britain do not place unnecessary pressure on species that are at risk. For those species, an import ban without exemptions will be the most effective protection, as it will provide clarity and address the conservation concerns arising from trophy hunting.

Clauses 1 and 2 make provision for the import ban, which will cover trophies brought into Great Britain from animals hunted after the legislation comes into force—there are strict, clear lines about anything that happens before that. The definition of a hunting trophy in clause 1 is:

“the body of an animal, or a readily recognisable part or derivative of an animal, that…is obtained…through hunting…for the hunter’s personal use”.

That is how hunting trophies are defined in our current controls under CITES.

Clause 2 applies the import ban to all species listed in annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulation. The wildlife trade regulation implements the convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES—in Great Britain. Annexes A and B are broadly equivalent to appendices I and II of the convention, and include species that the global community has agreed to protect through trade restrictions due to their conservation status. They cover a great number of species threatened by international trade, such as big cats, all bears, all primates, hippos, rhinos and elephants. As a result, the Bill will end the permit system for imports of hunting trophies derived from those species. There will be no provision for exemptions to the import ban.

Clause 3 is about movements from Northern Ireland. The clause states clearly that the import ban will

“not apply in relation to the removal of qualifying Northern Ireland goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.”

Clause 4, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, establishes an advisory board on hunting trophies. The clause states:

“The role of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary of State on any question relating to this Act”.

Clause 5 simply covers the Bill’s extent, application, commencement and short title.

Let me quickly discuss the impact assessment, as I did not allow any interventions. We heard some views about the impact assessment and what the Government will do about it, but there are two sides to that. The impact assessment presented both sides of the debate, but it also highlighted that trophy hunting can lead to population declines and that over-hunting threatens more than 30% of endangered mammal species, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The impact assessment also noted that trophy hunting quotas are inappropriate, unscientific, excessive and over-reliant on opinions, and that the management of such quotas is based on poor-quality data. Similarly, a report by the University of Oxford found that the damaging effects of the unsustainable trade in hunting can extend beyond hunting areas.

I hope that I have answered some of the questions. This has been a very positive and lively debate on both sides of the House. I thank the right hon. Member for Warley for bringing the Bill back to the House, and reconfirm that the Government are fully committed to supporting it.

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. As the Secretary of State who introduced this legislation—in fact, it was my last act in Government—I thought it appropriate to contribute to today’s debate.

The debate surrounding the ban on XL bully dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is itself a complex issue that evokes strong emotions. I understand that very much, and the approach taken was carefully considered. I was also aware before your earlier ruling, Dame Caroline, that there are potential legal challenges against the Government, so I need to be measured and not reveal all the information that we considered during this time.

I have had three rescue dogs, and my mother and sister have another rescue dog at the moment. There is no doubt that an adorable pet brings a lot to people’s lives and hearts. I am also very conscious of the challenges faced by those people who have suffered from dog attacks, whether it be against their children, themselves, or indeed their own pets. They obviously can be very distressed by that.

In reality, there was no knee-jerk reaction; there were simply too many attacks happening, and the proportion of attacks by XL bully-type dogs was considerably higher than others. Yes, I am sure we have all read about how other dogs—whether a collie, Jack Russell or potentially a rottweiler—have also been involved in many attacks. The issue is about the proportion and seriousness of the attacks, and indeed about how they can be stopped—that is pretty difficult. It is about the fatalities as well.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about how we define a breed, and some of the point is that this breed is not defined. I pay tribute to the chief veterinary officer and the many officials who have been involved extensively in this sensitive matter, working with animal welfare experts and experts from the police and, indeed, local councils, who will have to undertake a lot of this work. I want to assure the House that a lot of care has been taken over this approach, and that is also why a lot of this will be through guidance and there will be individual decisions.

I come back to the fact that, of course, many of these dogs are pets. They are not necessarily status symbols, but we know that they have been used for that. We see a lot of that in how the ears of these dogs have been cropped to give them a more aggressive feel and appearance, despite the fact that that is already illegal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is not illegal to import the dogs, but we are talking about an extensive element where that is the case. Since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, there have been some amendments along the way, partly driven through case law. That was back in ’97, and there were further regulations in 2015, but there was a specific reason for that. I suggest that the extent of the attacks is the reason why the XL bully is the first breed to have been added to section 1 since 1991.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is an esteemed legislator of great repute. Does she agree therefore that in this Parliament we cannot legislate with imprecision? That is exactly what the statutory instrument does. It talks about “characteristics”, which it says may or may not be necessary for the definition. Surely we need to make the law clear beyond peradventure so that the people of this country know which side of the law they are on.

[Dr Coffey]

I would say to my hon. Friend that the guidance is as clear as it can be. It gives a number of physical characteristics, and I am sure the Minister will say more about that and the process being gone through. I suppose that in introducing the legislation, I very much wanted to put across that the issue is not being considered lightly and that a lot of care and attention has been given to the detail.

I must admit that I have had several death threats about this legislation and I am conscious that it is driving those strong emotions. What I will say is that the Government took an approach that would allow time for people to rehome an XL bully-type dog if they felt they could not keep it. Also, the situation is very different from what has happened recently, when people have had a pit bull or similar: owners can still apply to get a certificate and join the index of exempt dogs. The default here is that every person who registers their XL bully-type dog will get a certificate automatically and will automatically join the index. That is a significant difference, even though I am conscious it will cost some money to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship and to participate in this excellent debate.

What concerns me is that 600,000-plus people have signed the main petition that we are debating today, and on 31 October the Government laid a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, so unless the Government agree to a debate under that negative procedure, this will be the last opportunity for Members of this House to express an opinion on this sensitive subject.

To try to prompt the Government into holding a debate, I have today tabled an early-day motion praying against the statutory instrument. It asks:

“That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (England and Wales) Order 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1164), dated 31 October 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October 2023, be annulled.”

When my right hon. Friend the Minister responds to this debate, if he does not agree to withdraw the order and think again in the light of this debate, I hope that he will allow a debate on this very sensitive statutory instrument. We are a lawmaking body and at the moment we have a statutory instrument that has been laid and that will come into force automatically, the drafting of which leaves much to be desired, not least because it does not have any clear or precise definition of what an XL bully dog is and a requirement under the 1991 Act is that there should be such a definition in any subsidiary legislation.

This whole debate takes me back to 1991 and the circumstances in which the dangerous dogs legislation was introduced. I was a junior Minister at that time and I owned a rottweiler, which frequently used to come into the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, in the days when there was no ban on dogs, of whatever breed, coming into the Palace. My wife, who worked for me then and continues to work for me, and I used to look after this rottweiler within the precincts of this House when we were here working.

In 1991, the late Dame Angela Rumbold was charged as a Home Office Minister to make an urgent reaction to public concern being expressed about dog attacks on children, largely by rottweilers, that were being reported in the press. It became apparent that a distorted picture of the pattern of dog attacks and the dog breeds responsible for those attacks was emerging. I think there are 22,000 incidents of dogs biting humans every year, and if the dog concerned in an incident was of a particular breed that was under focus at that time, then that resulted in a report in the newspapers, which would not happen otherwise.

As a result of pressure put on the Minister from within Government by the late Alan Clark—he was the only other member of the House who had a rottweiler and he was also a Minister at the time—and I, we were able to persuade Dame Angela that, as she could see from our rottweilers, they were not inherently dangerous dogs that should be banned and whose owners should be effectively criminalised if they did not take action. I remind the House of that.

What happened after that? In the context of that debate, Alastair Campbell—when he was running the Daily Mirror—thought it would make a very good story, because he found out that I had rottweiler, to show me going out with my rottweiler and walking on Southampton common, and thereby endangering everybody else on the common. He paid for one of his junior staff to camp outside my house in Southampton—I was then representing Southampton, Itchen—to try and see me, or somebody else, going out on to Southampton common with our rottweiler so that he could take a picture of it. He failed to do that because we were alert to the risk, but that did not stop him putting an article in the Daily Mirror referring to me and describing my rottweiler as a “Minister’s devil dog”, with a picture of our dear rottie.

That was the emotion at the time, and it was being played up by what was then Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I think that contributed to the Government rushing into what was essentially emergency legislation. I fear that, with the Prime Minister’s announcement and the announcements that have followed, the current Government are similarly being pushed into doing something perhaps against their better judgment, in a rush, and without thinking it through properly.

Particularly, if we are going to ban a particular type or breed of dog, then we need a robust definition. We cannot leave it to individual owners to decide for themselves whether their dog complies with the new definitions. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), said that there are people whose XL bullies fit that: their parents were registered as XL bullies, and so on. That is fine, but what we are discussing today is a situation where a lot of dogs, which were never bought or officially described as XL bullies, may well be caught by this legislation because it is so vaguely drafted. To then have guidance that says, “If you think that you may be in this category, then you should self-police and report yourself to the authorities, because you think you may have what is described as an XL bully-type”—that is just not the way in which we should be legislating in this House.

I also fear that this debate is undermined by the lack of data. There is no hard data on how many dog bites, resulting in either fatality or serious injury, in this country have come from different breeds of dog. I used that great resource, the internet, and came across a website, askadamskutner.com, that gives us these statistics for what happens in America. The most recent statistics by breed for dog bite-related fatalities included the following: pit bulls, 284 deaths; rottweilers, 45 deaths; German shepherds, 20 deaths; mixed breeds, 17 deaths; American bully dogs, 15 deaths; mastiffs, 14 deaths; and Siberian huskies, 13 deaths—the list goes on. After those statistics, however, the major finding is that Adam Kutner believes that irresponsible ownership to be responsible for most of these dog bite-related fatalities.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

We have statistics in the UK showing that 12 of the last 23 deaths were from American XLs. Other breeds are not blameless. In fact, on 8 August, a 77-year-old gentleman, Mr Vic Franklin, was bitten by two rottweilers and had to have an arm, leg and part of a finger amputated following the attack. There are other breeds, but they do not feature disproportionately in the statistics.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The problem is that the statistics are of a moment. My right hon. Friend is talking about the statistics over recent months, but if one looks back at statistics since 1991, they might be able to show that there have been a number of rottweiler attacks, and rottweilers were exempt from the dangerous dogs legislation in the circumstances that I have described. We are now picking on a particular breed—and not even a precise definition of that breed—instead of doing what all informed opinion has been asking for, which is to look back at the legislation itself and legislate against those who have allowed their dogs, of whatever breed, to get out of control and attack other dogs or humans.

It is telling that about a year ago, in response to a petition asking for the Government to review the dangerous dogs legislation, the Government set up a review because they recognised that there might be a problem with the current legislation. However, as soon as there were a few headlines about XL bullies, in what I think was a knee-jerk reaction, the Prime Minister decided, “I must take action on this and so I must announce a ban.” That ban comes into effect on 31 December, with, as I have described, the legislation laid and no opportunity whatsoever for the Government or Parliament to consider the detail of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) said that we need to continue to look at these issues and ensure that there is an iterative process. There is no iterative process now. The statutory instrument has been laid and will come into law on 31 December, unless or until this House forces the Government to bring forward a motion so we can then vote it down, or the Government themselves decide to withdraw it and think again.

We are talking about desperate measures, imposed in an autocratic style over a short space of time, with challenging consequences for our constituents up and down the country. Members on both sides of the House have referred to individual constituents who have written to them. A number of mine have written to me in very persuasive and emotional letters and emails explaining why their particular dog should not have to be muzzled, or ultimately even euthanised, as a result of this legislation, which they think is totally disproportionate.

One particular person who wrote to me is the owner of a mastiff cross, which he and his wife believe may satisfy the definition of an XL bully as contained in the guidance issued by the Government. Why should somebody with a mastiff cross find their dog defined as an XL bully type when it is not? It just happens to be a large and thickset dog. That family took the dog from a rescue centre about five years ago following a family disaster, and it has been their way out of a difficult, mentally stressful situation. Given that they may find that their dog will no longer have the freedom to walk through the New Forest, on beaches, or in the hills of Dartmoor as a normal dog would, one can understand how upset they are. The dog, who is called Ronnie, is not an XL bully but could be classed as one under this vague and imprecise legislation.

My daughter was born in 1990, and when she was one— at the time of the Dangerous Dogs Act—she was living with our rottweiler. I think that was another factor that Angela Rumbold took into account, because here was a rottweiler—a so-called dangerous dog—living a perfectly quiet existence in the same household as one of Her Majesty’s Ministers.

I do not know whether it was because of the legislation, but my daughter ultimately became a member of the esteemed veterinary profession. She is now part of the cohort of experts who are saying, “This is not the right way forward.” They have said that the Government’s legislation is completely the wrong way to go about it, so why are the Government not listening? It is perhaps—dare one say it?—the arrogance of having too large a majority, or deference to the Prime Minister, who decreed that this will happen on the basis of little evidence at the time. In scrambling to get the evidence together, Ministers perhaps feel that they have to deliver on the Prime Minister’s will, rather than stand up to him and say, “Hang on a minute. I think your knee-jerk reaction was wrong.”

The people concerned about the ban, including vets, are in the Dog Control Coalition, which is made up of the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Hope Rescue, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association. They say:

“The Dog Control Coalition agrees that urgent action needs to be taken to protect the public from out-of-control dogs”—

not specific breeds—

“but we are disappointed that the Government hasn’t taken the opportunity to completely overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act. With its continued focus on specific breeds, rather than a focus on prevention and implementation of tougher penalties for those owners not in control of their dogs, it is not fit for purpose.”

Those organisations say that this legislation is not fit for purpose, and yet the Government—unless we hear something to the contrary from the Minister—will not even allow the House to have a vote on it so that Members can be held to account by their constituents and express whether they think it is good legislation or not.

Even if the intention of the legislation is good, surely we should look at the detail, because we are talking about new criminal penalties that will affect people’s freedom. Do we want to criminalise owning or handling dogs of a description so vague that people will not be certain in advance whether they will be offending by not registering their dog as being an XL bully type?

In my view, this is one of the worst pieces of legislation brought forward by this Government—that is quite a high bar to get over, given what has happened since the 2019 general election. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) introduced the debate in such a mild, rational way that he would single-handedly persuade the Government to think again. My style is perhaps slightly different from his, but I hope that between us we will be able to persuade the Government and, ultimately, the Prime Minister, because nothing can be changed unless he says so, to change their view and listen to the voices of the 600,000-plus people who signed the petitions.

Mr Gray, you and I know how difficult it is to get people to sign petitions, so to get 600,000 signatures is no mean feat. We ignore that mass of opinion at our peril, unless we are able to show that we have done everything possible to examine alternative ways of dealing with this problem and introduced proper safeguards in terms of definitions. Ultimately, we must recognise the plea that has been there ever since the 1991 legislation that we should not legislate in haste, but should actually deal with the underlying problem. That problem is just as bad as it has ever been, which is that there is a significant number of dog owners who are irresponsible.

Some people have talked about having a licensing system for dogs. Perhaps we should have a licensing system for dog owners in the same way that we have one for car drivers. Why not have a licensing system for dog owners? I put that forward as a proposition. I do not normally campaign in favour of more legislation and regulation, but I put that forward as a reasonable alternative to the rotten legislation we have here.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am responding on behalf of Lord Benyon, the Minister responsible, who sits in another place.

We have seen the House at its very best today. We have had an informed debate in which a series of Members have wrestled with the challenge the Government faces of keeping people safe in our communities while at the same time making sure we do not affect people’s much loved pets. The debate was informed and enriched, not least by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who added a great deal to the debate with her presence, and by the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who has done a lot of work in this area. I knew when I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) that I was about to be challenged on dog-on-dog attacks, as she is a tenacious campaigner. I know her constituent Michael will be very pleased to see her in her place representing poor old Millie, who suffered terribly in a dog-on-dog attack. I pay tribute to her for the work she does. We have had some great contributions.

We should stop and pause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) did at the start of the debate, to recognise that dog attacks can have horrific consequences. The Government take that very seriously indeed. Sadly, we have seen an increase in serious and fatal dog attacks in recent years. The XL bully breed-type appears to have been disproportionately involved in that rise in attacks. That is why we have taken decisive action to ban the XL bully breed-type, to attempt to keep our communities safe. From 1 February 2024, it will be illegal for someone to be in possession of an XL bully breed-type unless they have a certificate of exemption.

We recognise the strength of feeling on breed-specific legislation, and that some people are opposed to the prohibition of specific breed-types. However, the Government must balance those views with our responsibility to protect public safety. We remain concerned that lifting any restrictions may result in more dog attacks. Therefore, there are no plans to repeal the breed-specific provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

Police and local authorities already have a range of powers available to them to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog. Those powers range from lower level community protection notices, which require dog owners to take appropriate action to address behaviour, to more serious offences under the 1991 Act, whereby people can be put in prison for up to 14 years or disqualified from ownership, or dangerous dogs can be euthanised. We are working closely with enforcers to make sure that the full force of the law is applied to incidents involving all breeds of dog.

Of course, we know that dog attacks are complex and that there is no single silver bullet. That is why, alongside the ban, we are taking a multi-factoral approach to reducing dog attacks through our responsible dog ownership taskforce. The taskforce is considering the role of education and training for both dogs and their owners, and how we can improve data collection, recording and enforcement practices. We expect the taskforce to make its final recommendations very soon. In the meantime, DEFRA officials have been collaborating with the police and local authorities to deliver sessions to share best practice in preventive dog control enforcement and to encourage multi-agency working. We have been co-ordinating communications—for example, we can co-ordinate communication pushes with key partners, so that families are equipped with practical tips about how to enjoy spending time safely with dogs. This messaging has been widely disseminated to parents, health visitors, school nurses, safeguarding professionals, police forces and local authorities.

More widely, we are actively considering whether action is required to further protect dogs in breeding settings. As part of that work, we are reviewing the regulations for anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs, and we have commissioned a report from the Animal Welfare Committee on the welfare implications of specialised canine reproductive practices.

I hope that colleagues are reassured that the Government are taking this issue very seriously and that this wide-ranging action is necessary to ensure continued public safety. I look forward to discussing the conclusions of the responsible dog ownership taskforce in due course. I wish to put on the record my thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate today.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend the Minister facilitate a debate on the statutory instrument, which is obviously of great concern to many Members of Parliament and even more so to our constituents, before it comes into force on 31 December?

Environmental Protection

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

On the farming laws related to water, we normally find that people are not trying to break the law deliberately, so it is about guidance and how we make the fixes, but we have to act and, where necessary—in severe or continuous cases—undertake a criminal investigation. That will always be a decision for the regulator—the Environment Agency, in this case. That is where an element of judgment can and should be applied, but ultimately we have to allow our regulator to use the full force of the powers available to it to clean our water and improve our environment.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What will be done to force the Environment Agency to do its duty? In the lower Avon, north of my constituency, flooding across the area is affecting farmland because the Environment Agency has refused to enforce the law and ensure that the blockage at the Knapp Mill waterworks is removed.

[Dr Coffey]

Clearly, my hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency MP in raising this issue during our discussion about how penalties can be applied. If he would like to write to me with more details, I could ask the new chief executive of the Environment Agency to investigate the matter further and respond to him directly.

Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. The writing needs to be on the wall for the plastics industry. We need to say that creating more and more virgin plastic is just not acceptable, and there needs to be a transition to a future and to a green jobs revolution across the world, as we hope to have in this country.

I thank all of the ocean activists who have campaigned for our oceans, including Surfers Against Sewage, the Marine Conservation Society, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WRAP, and David Attenborough and his “Blue Planet” programme, which several Members have mentioned. I also thank the Putney Tidy Towpath group and Thames21 in my constituency, who clean up our beautiful River Thames. I thank all the equivalent groups across the country who do so much work to clean up our rivers. They want to know what is happening at a Government level so that they do not have to keep coming back and picking up the plastic week after week. They are watching this debate very closely.

So many children in schools have asked me about this issue. I have been to many classrooms where there are ocean animals swinging from the roofs and pictures on the walls. We have had so many questions from children; we know that it matters to people across the country, but especially to children.

No one doubts the importance of plastic to the modern global economy, and it has transformed human life in many positive ways. However, this is the bottom line: our production and consumption habits, coupled with the current waste management systems, are totally unsustainable, and we are heading towards an irreversible environmental catastrophe if we do not take action.

If we continue on the current trajectory, the OECD estimates that global plastic production will double by 2040. In the UK alone, it is estimated that 5 million tonnes of plastic is used every year, nearly half of which is packaging. We cannot detach plastic from climate change. Plastic is highly carbon-intensive to produce. According to a study published in the journal, Nature, last year, plastics are responsible for 4.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing about 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually. Tackling plastic production means saving the planet.

We also know that 100 million marine animals die each year from plastic waste alone, according to the Marine Conservation Society, ranging from birds to fish to other marine organisms. It is a disgraceful state of affairs and we must all do more, go further and try harder to preserve our planet and protect our environment.

With recycling rates where they are and with most plastics single use, it is no surprise that plastic is oozing its way into our water at an unprecedented rate, and 80% of marine pollution originates on land. We cannot rely on beach and river clean-ups to keep our beaches tidy. We need to take holistic and co-ordinated action to end plastic pollution.

As many Members have pointed out, plastic pollution is far-reaching. It is found everywhere—in all parts of the world—from fresh Antarctic snow to the deepest ocean trenches. The pollution that we see on our streets and our beaches is just the tip of the iceberg.

Plastic pollution harms human and animal health. Plastic has been found in human blood, mothers’ placentas, whales’ stomachs and numerous fish, sea birds and other marine animals. The World Wide Fund for Nature believes that a human could ingest about 5 grams of plastic every week, which is the equivalent of a credit card, just because of the way it moves through our food chain. We might literally be eating a credit card’s worth of plastic every week.

Plastic pollution of the ocean obviously crosses borders as well, so we need to do all we can in the UK. However, without leading successful global action, we will not save the oceans. Half measures from the Government simply will not wash.

One issue that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention is how Government action can protect our environment through banning plastic in wet wipes. In 2019, 11 billion wet wipes were used across the United Kingdom, and 90% of them contained some form of plastic. The use of wet wipes has increased enormously since then, because of covid and additional hygiene uses.

Wet wipes with plastic in do not break down; they pollute our rivers and oceans, harm wildlife and clog up our sewers. Tesco and Boots have stopped all sales of wet wipes with plastic in them. They have led the way on that and shown what can be done. A ban, however, would create a level playing field for businesses and make action go further and faster.

The Government promised to take action to ban plastic in wet wipes in 2018. They held a consultation on that and on other single-use plastics, which closed in February last year. I welcome the announcement that, from October, there will be a ban on other single-use plastics, such as plastic plates, trays, bowls, cutlery, balloon sticks, polystyrene cups and food containers, but we now need to know the date for the ban on plastic in wet wipes. It could have been included in the Environment Act 2021 or in the water strategy, with an actual date, but there is still no ban. I hope to hear more from the Minister on this issue later.

The Government should go further and faster to preserve our planet and protect our environment, as a Labour Government under my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will do. In Labour-run Wales, the Welsh Government, under First Minister Mark Drakeford, have committed to banning a range of single-use plastics. Their long-standing commitment to reduce waste and unnecessary plastic is outlined in their circular economy strategy, “Beyond Recycling”, which aims to have a zero-waste Wales by 2050.

That is important, because it is about priorities, focus and action, and I am sorry to say that priorities, focus and action have not been the order of the day with this Government in Westminster. The Conservatives have been in power for 13 long years, but have left the agencies that should tackle waste and pollution underfunded and understaffed. No wonder we have not seen the action that we need. We have seen the mess that has been caused with sewage pollution. The Environment Agency has struggled to tackle waste crime and monitor waste exports, and councils are struggling to deal with waste effectively while cutting waste collections. Government Members shamefully voted against Labour’s amendments to the Finance Act 2021 on a plastic packaging tax, which would have required the Government to pay due regard to the principles of waste hierarchy and a circular economy. The Conservatives are weak on tackling the effects and causes of all waste. Labour would take the issue seriously. Action is a no-brainer, and we have to get on with it.

I have seven questions for the Minister. First, as I am sure she is aware, in 2018, the UK launched the Commonwealth clean ocean alliance with Vanuatu, which brings together 34 Commonwealth countries in the fight to tackle plastic pollution. Can she update us on the progress that the programme has made, and what the next steps are? Secondly, will she consider bringing forward a national action plan for tackling plastic pollution to increase the focus and action on this issue?

Thirdly, will the Minister give an update on progress towards the deposit return scheme? Fourthly, she will know that plastic packaging accounts for nearly 70% of our plastic waste. When was the last time the Government sat down with manufacturers and worked on a road map for eliminating plastic packaging in food and other products, thereby driving down plastic production?

Fifthly, have there been discussions with the Secretary of State for Education regarding the role of schools in tackling plastic pollution? They have a huge role to play. Sixthly, can the Minister provide more detail on the upcoming ban on plastic in wet wipes that was announced in April, and will she meet me and my shadow Environment colleagues to discuss it? Finally, can she give an assessment of how well the Government’s environment plan is working in relation to reaching their target of eliminating all avoidable plastic waste by 2042, and whether she feels that target is ambitious enough in the light of the need to save our oceans?

Our oceans are precious. Plastic pollution is irreversible, drives biodiversity loss, and has a devastating impact on marine and human life. Without dramatically reducing plastic production and use, it will be impossible to end plastic pollution in our oceans. Banning plastic in wet wipes is widely supported by the public, MPs, retailers and producers. Last year, 250,000 people from across the UK, including more than 9,000 school students and 36 MPs, including myself, took part in the Big Plastic Count. Such actions show the public demand for action. The public are on board and so are the Opposition. We are just waiting on the Government. If they do not have the appetite for it, we will provide the plans if they step aside.

I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for bringing this critical matter to the House. I am so glad that we have had this debate, especially this week. I assure her that she has an ally in the Labour party if she wants real, ambitious and comprehensive change and protection for our natural world.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Minister, you have about half an hour in which to respond.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

All of it. One of the problems I will come to in a moment is that, where we are asking people to stop trophy hunting, we are not necessarily replacing that with funding. In one area, which I look looking forward to telling the House about in a moment, we do provide funding, and we are encouraging local people to protect their wildlife and build businesses, particularly for the women, but they are arguing that, by withdrawing trophy hunting, we are cutting the legs off that effort. There are real contradictions here, which is why it is such a difficult subject.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that Vernon Booth, a conservationist and wildlife consultant in Zimbabwe, writes in today’s Daily Mail that

“Revenue from trophy hunting contributes 25 per cent of the income of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority”?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I have no reason to disagree with that, and it demonstrates what a thorny issue this is.

It is worth remembering that this Bill is designed to stop the importing of trophies, rather than prevent the banning of hunting. I have tabled new clause 2 on implementation and monitoring, which is similar to new clause 1 in that its intention is to assess the practicality and effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill. It would require that

“Within three years of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on its implementation and the effectiveness of its provisions”,

with that report including an assessment of the impact the Act has had on the conservation of endangered species.

As the UK is a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, we should follow its recommendations before restricting trophy hunting. Those include sound analysis of the conservation role of trophy hunting, meaningful consultation with affected Governments and communities, steps to address poor practice and implementation of feasible, fully funded alternatives that generate equal or greater conservation benefits. Since I do not believe that those steps have been adequately taken, it is only right that new clause 2 be adopted, to ensure the effectiveness of the Bill in promoting conservation of endangered species, measured three years after its implementation.

If there is such confidence that the Bill will contribute to the conservation of such species, I see no reason for there to be any objection to a post-implementation review being undertaken that examines the impact on species abroad. In order to test the efficacy of the legislation, and whether it has achieved the desired goal of improving the population numbers of endangered species, I hope that the House will consider the new clause, which will ensure we continue to keep the effectiveness of the Bill under review until it is enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

The detailed response to that needs to come from the Minister, not from a simple backwoodsman Back Bencher, but I have had assurances from Ministers that Northern Ireland will not become some sort of back door or stepping stone for the introduction of trophies from endangered species into Great Britain. The Windsor framework, subject of course to its agreement by the House next week, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 should cover those concerns, but I defer to the Minister, who will no doubt address that question shortly.

In conclusion, I am happy to support new clause 4 and amendment 1. I am grateful that the other 30 amendments and new clauses will not be pressed. I hope that we can move on to ensure that this legislation protects the most endangered species in the world, and that Britain plays its full part in doing that, and that it can proceed to its next phases both here today and later on in the other place.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for supporting new clause 4. The background to that has been explained—there are diametrically opposed expert opinions on what would be a good hunting trophies ban and what would not be. It is important that the debate should be informed by the facts and the science.

I hope that by accepting new clause 4, we will give some solace to Dr Dilys Rose, the chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s sustainable use and livelihoods specialist group, and Professor Adam Hart, a member of that specialist group. They wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 22 February, setting out their concerns for the Bill and the risk of the United Kingdom Government ignoring the scientific evidence and actively harming conservation globally. They said that for the sake of wildlife all over the world, now it is time to listen to quieter, more informed voices. Setting up such an advisory panel will facilitate that. I am delighted that the Government have indicated that they will support that.

There is agreement about the objectives but not the means by which those objectives should be achieved. The objective is to protect endangered species and encourage their revival. We have made a lot of progress today, but I draw attention to my new clause 3. I have made it clear that I will force it to a vote. It would deal with the problem that the Bill fails to deliver in full on the Conservative party manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals to the United Kingdom. The Bill’s title makes it clear that it is limited to prohibiting the import of hunting trophies into Great Britain. Northern Ireland is excluded from its scope, which has prevented me from tabling amendments to extend the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom.

That aspect of the debate featured in a report on page 14 of yesterday’s Daily Telegraph and a commentary by Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who asked what was the point of election manifestos if MPs do not vote for what is in them. Eduardo Goncalves, the founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, has said:

“We are aware of trophy hunters from Northern Ireland who are shooting threatened species…and are bringing their heads and bodies back home. This needs to be stopped.”

He went on to say:

“Exiting the EU made it possible for the UK to introduce world-beating legislation to ban hunting ‘trophies’. It would be a travesty if the Bill were not to apply to the whole of the UK because of unfinished business with Brexit.”

Given that Mr Goncalves feels so strongly, it is a pity that he did not criticise the limiting long title of the Bill when it was introduced on 15 June last year. He is, however, correct to highlight that under the Northern Ireland protocol and the proposed Windsor framework, the European Union’s single market rules will still apply in Northern Ireland, raising fears that Northern Ireland could become a back door to get the trophies to rich clients in Britain and dodge the ban. He says:

“Hunting trophies could be stopped from entering Northern Ireland overnight with the stroke of a pen…The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would need only to issue a Ministerial Decree stating he”—

or she—

“will no longer sign import permits”.

I would be interested to hear from Ministers in the Department what they think about that suggestion. If it is correct, surely it could also apply to the whole United Kingdom, thereby making this legislation totally redundant.

I ask the Minister to comment specifically on the assertion that France and the Netherlands have used ministerial decrees to ban trophies because single market rules prevented them from legislating. Is that correct? Is it also correct that Belgium and Finland are considering doing the same? Would it be possible for the United Kingdom to do likewise? We try not normally to legislate by decree, although I notice that the President of France is trying to do just that in his own country at the moment.

I am a bit sceptical about what can be done to deal with the problem that the legislation does not apply to the whole United Kingdom. My new clause 3 would therefore require the Government to report on the implications for Northern Ireland of what is happening, so that in due course Parliament will be properly informed as to whether legislative action is needed to address any loopholes or avoidance. I am disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept the new clause.

I put a challenge to the Government. What solution does the Minister have to the Daily Telegraph headline “Brexit loophole allows import of hippo heads and stuffed tigers”? Quite a lot of people will want a clear answer to that question, but I do not think it is forthcoming in the Bill, which applies only to Great Britain and not to Northern Ireland.

I will not go into all my other amendments, but I do think that the compromise that is now emerging should be of some help to our friends in the six African countries that have expressed outrage in their letter to the Government about the implications of the Bill for those countries. In this House we make much of the importance of soft power. I think we need to start thinking more about what we can do to engage positively with the countries in Africa that abstained in the recent United Nations General Assembly vote calling for Russia’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine: Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Uganda.

In my view, we need to work much more closely and positively with the Governments of those countries, instead of letting them think that they are alienated or that we view them as subject to colonial control, which is the essence of the complaint that has been made to the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and the Foreign Secretary. Let us see whether we can work with those countries, listen to them and try to understand them. We might then find it easier to prevent them from falling into the hands of Chinese and Soviet influence, which they seem to be tempted by at the moment because they are being neglected. This compromise has great potential to improve relations between our country and those countries in southern Africa, based on a better understanding of the need to protect wildlife in a sustainable way that fits in with local economies.

This is an historic day for me, because it looks like the Government will accept one of my amendments. I will not say anything else in case they change their mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

My right hon. Friend makes a convincing point, but it should be recognised that this is a Brexit opportunity. We would not be able to make this progress across Great Britain if we were still in the European Union. It is not ideal; I would be the first person to state that clearly. We want to make further progress. We will make further progress, I am sure. I will continue to meet with those in Northern Ireland, as will my officials.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does the Minister accept that, apparently, the Netherlands, despite being within the European Union, has imposed a complete ban on trophy imports? If the Netherlands can do it, why can it not be done in respect of Northern Ireland?

[Trudy Harrison]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will excuse me from being drawn into that wider argument. To return to the crux of this debate, since the Bill Committee, we have published the environmental improvement plan, setting out our goal in the UK, across our country, to see thriving plants and wildlife, and how we are going to achieve that. The UK is supporting other countries to take action, working together with a shared commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, as we agreed at the UN nature summit COP15 in Montreal last year.

I know that we want to get a great many other Bills through today, so I will close. I thank and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley for his relentless determination. I thank other Members from across the House, particularly the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees). She and I have met and I know that she feels passionately about this subject, and I was pleased to work with her. I thank my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who have worked collegiately to ensure that this House passes the Bill—I am incredibly grateful for that. I am pleased that Members have contributed not just today but previously.

We are sending to the rest of the world the strong message that we in this country demonstrate where we can our support for endangered species across the world, as set out in CITES, and we do not accept their body parts being used as so-called trophies to be brought back into this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I do wear a wetsuit when I go swimming in the sea—I am a bit of a coward, but I love to put my wetsuit on and go swimming in the sea.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, he will have to wait until May to see where we go with that particular designation, but we already have 421 designated bathing sites in England as of last year—that number has gradually been going up. The good news about those sites is that 93% of them are classed as “excellent” and “good”, so their record is extremely good. I will take a rain check on whether I join him for a swim.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why are there only 421 such sites? People can go wild swimming anywhere in England and other parts of the United Kingdom. Is this whole designation scheme not essentially a rationing scheme? Why do the Government not abandon it and enable people to swim in bathing waters anywhere?

[Rebecca Pow]

To be quite honest, one can swim wherever one wants; it is just that there is a process for what we call designating bathing waters. In the application for that, one has to demonstrate that there is sufficient interest in using that site—that high numbers of people want to use it—and that there are car parking facilities and public facilities, including loos and so forth. That is all part of encouraging designated sites, but it is not to say that people cannot choose, in their own right, to swim wherever they want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the campaign. The Yellow Wellies campaign had an action week last week; I hope he saw my contribution to that. It is very important that we recognise that mental health is a challenge in rural communities. If someone is working alone for many hours, it can lead to dark thoughts. We continue to work with charities in the sector to address the challenges those people face and to give them the support they deserve.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why is the deposit return scheme in England not going to include glass bottles, unlike the one in Scotland?

[Rebecca Pow]

As my hon. Friend points out, two different schemes are proposed. We have consulted widely, in particular with industry, and that is why we have taken the decision not to include glass bottles. Glass bottles will remain in the consistent collections from the doorstep. From our consultation and stakeholder engagement, that is considered to be the best way to increase the amount of glass we recycle.

UK Food Shortages

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

We set out our commitment to British food in our food strategy and our manifesto. It is a welcome compliment that the Leader of the Opposition is following a Conservative Government policy. We will act on the response to the consultation, and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) will be aware that we need careful consideration across Government of how to take certain policies forward. We also need to be mindful of things like World Trade Organisation rules, but I will continue to champion British produce and local procurement. The public sector can make those choices now if it wishes; it does not need Government clearance.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that 170,000 tonnes of fresh produce is wasted each year in this country? Does she think the current crisis will encourage consumers to value their fruit and veg, and their five a day, more highly?

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This is a potentially useful Bill, but my concern is that it does not specify exactly what is going to be done. In introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) referred repeatedly to the plight of Asian elephants. When the Government introduced their action plan for animal welfare in May 2021, they said:

“We will legislate to ban the advertising and offering for sale here of specific, unacceptable practices abroad.”

With the exception of the reference to Asian elephants, we do not know what those “specific, unacceptable practices abroad” are, the advertising of which will be banned under the Bill. There should be a lot more specificity on the face of the Bill.

At the moment, the Bill could cover any matter that is already illegal under UK legislation or legislation in the devolved Administrations. For example, on the basis of its current wording, it could outlaw the advertising or promotion of hunting wild animals abroad, essentially trying to give extraterritorial application to our hunting legislation. If that is the intention of the Bill, then that should be spelled out openly, instead of being hidden away in the Bill’s regulation-making powers.

My main point concerns an omission. The Bill is based on the Government’s commitment to improving animal welfare—who could be against that? However, there remains a gap in that programme: the prevalence of the use of non-stun slaughter for animals in this country. I declare an interest as my daughter is a vet. The British Veterinary Association and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, of which I think you are a patron, Mr Deputy Speaker, are at the forefront of trying to ensure that the non-stun method of slaughtering livestock is removed, or certainly mitigated, so that it is done only when there is strict evidence that it is necessary for religious purposes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Whatever private sympathies I may have with what the hon. Gentleman says, he has been in the House almost as long as I have, which is long enough to know that he has to talk about what is in the Bill and not what is not in it. He is stretching a point, if I may say so.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are both looking forward to celebrating, in June, the 40th anniversary of our first being elected to this House. Unlike me, you have been here continuously since then. Obviously, those missing years have impacted on my failure to follow the procedures today.

On Second Reading, one is entitled to look at things that are not included in the Bill. What I seek to find out from my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford is how this Bill will apply to what we know is already going on within our own country, where the non-stunned slaughter of animals can take place. It does not take place in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, but it does take place in England. Could this Bill create a situation where we would be able to outlaw the advertising of hunting trips abroad but we would not be able to take action if in Northern Ireland or Wales an attempt was made to ensure that the same rules for the slaughter of animals through not being stunned in advance were applied?

There is a potentially a big gap in this Bill and I hope that for that reason when it gets into Committee we will have a chance to look at these issues in more detail. I hope we will be able to find out a bit more about why the Government have said that they were going to act in relation to the non-stunned animals being slaughtered, and the fact that a large proportion of all halal meat is actually already pre-stunned but a lot of the non-stunned meat is going to places that are not part of the religious community. I look forward to being able to discuss those issues in Committee or on Report if this Bill gets its Second Reading, as I hope it does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will take the Bill through its legislative stages. I reassure him that I understand that that would be beneficial and that I will meet him and look into that with my officials before we go to Committee.

It is clear that the British public do not accept low animal welfare standards. The recent poll conducted by World Animal Protection revealed that 81% of UK respondents agreed that countries should stop the commercial exploitation of wild animals. In the same poll, 85% of respondents believed that wild animals had the right to a wild life.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does the Minister think that the provisions in the Bill could cover, for example, people who go whale watching in South Africa?

[Trudy Harrison]

To give a very brief answer to a very brief question, my first instinct is, absolutely not because people watch whales in their natural environment behaving in a natural way. The problem comes when we force wild animals to behave unnaturally in captive environments for our benefit up close and personal. As far as I understand it, that is not what my hon. Friend was referring to.

There is no specific reference to Asian elephants in the Bill, but we anticipate they will be covered under the Bill. Alongside the general support for the measures in the Bill, there is particularly strong support for Government intervention in relation to low-welfare activities involving Asian elephants. Asian elephants often undergo brutal training to break them in and make it safe for them to be in the vicinity of tourists. Methods include being chained up for long periods without access to food or water and being beaten with bullhooks to gain compliance. Elephants are often forced into unnatural activities, such as playing football, painting and tourist rides. As Members will have heard last Tuesday in the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), Asian elephant rides, performances and experiences are often a popular choice with tourists abroad.

In closing, I thank everyone on all sides of the House for their contributions, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. She has not just led on the Bill but has had a very busy morning contributing to every single debate, representing her constituents extremely well indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that particular issue. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, assuming that it was sewage, and it was proven not to be. That is why monitoring is so important and why this Government have set in place a comprehensive monitoring and data-gathering programme and project. We need that to sort out those issues, as well as all the other measures we have put in place.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with the Chair of Natural England on the (a) efficiency and (b) effectiveness of that body's regulatory work.

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

I have recently met both the chair of Natural England, Marian Spain, and the chief executive, Tony Juniper. DEFRA frequently discusses regulatory work with Natural England. Its efficiency and effectiveness is appraised in a range of measures, including 19 key performance indicators, which are published in Natural England’s annual report and accounts.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. When she next meets Natural England, will she tell it to stop exploiting the insufficient information loophole, which prevents it from having to respond within 21 days to planning applications as a statutory consultee? Brocks Pine in my constituency is a development that would be on the heathland and inside the green belt. It took Natural England nine months to respond to that, and when it did, it said it had insufficient information. Is that not wholly unsatisfactory?

[Trudy Harrison]

Clearly, when statutory consultees do not respond promptly, it causes delays and deeper problems for developers and communities. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and esteemed colleague to discuss what went wrong with Brocks Pine, but I would say that Natural England are making significant progress across a number of measures, from countryside stewardship scheme agreements to the coastal path, national nature reserves and many others. There will be creases to iron out, and I will discuss those when I meet him.