Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Loder]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have in excess of 1 million reports to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of difficulties with animals or the mistreatment of animals. It results in fewer than 100 ultimate prosecutions, so that, further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), clearly indicates that the area of animal welfare needs much more attention, and particularly the enforcement point, as I shall come on to in my speech.

I am pleased to say that the Bill introduces one of the toughest punishments in the world and will bring us into line with the maximum penalties available in other Commonwealth countries, including those in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India, which are all at five years’ imprisonment. With this Bill, we will lead the way in Europe on animal sentencing, where the average custodial sentence for animal welfare offences is currently just two years. It is a simple, yet vital measure that will ensure perpetrators who harm an animal by, for example, causing unnecessary suffering, mutilation or poisoning, face the full force of the law. That includes cases of systematic cruelty, such as the deliberate, calculating and callous behaviour of ruthless gangs who use dog fighting to fuel organised crime. The Bill will mean that the courts will have sentences at their disposal commensurate with the most serious cases, so that the punishment fits the crime. This will send a clear signal.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing forward this very important Bill. He touches on something very important: the link between these crimes and other criminality. Should it not be reinforced by Government to police forces and prosecutors that those who break the law break the law and, therefore, there should be many more prosecutions, because in many cases, these people are also involved not only in other crime, but, actually, in cruelty, particularly to children and other human beings?

[Chris Loder]

I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those who break the law and who carry out crimes, whatever those crimes may be, should feel the full force of the law. I am delighted that the Government support the Bill, and many other measures to tackle those crimes, to address that point.

The Bill will mean that the courts have sentences at their disposal commensurate with the most serious cases so that the punishment fits the crime. That will send a clear signal to any potential offender that there is no place for animal cruelty in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder]

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Part of the reason this Bill needs to be put forward is that the support from the organisations that specialise in animal care, such as those I have outlined, will increase the publicity of this much more. I invite all Members, both those here today and those who are not, and everybody watching on television, to support the case and make sure that this is well known.

We now have an opportunity to deliver a strong message to animal abusers that their behaviour will no longer be tolerated. When this Bill is passed, they can expect those tougher sentences. The increase in the maximum penalty for animal cruelty will be the first increase for such offences in more than 30 years, since another private Member’s Bill, from the then hon. Member for Ealing North, increased the maximum from just three months’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of just £1,000. I know that this House contains many hon. Members who have spoken up for animal welfare over the years, and I am sure we will continue to do so again. I hope that with the support of hon. Members from across this House this Bill will reach the statute book and make a real difference by reducing the instances of animal cruelty, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted.

Although this Bill will go some way to correct the deep injustices of cruelty to animals across this country, there are many aspects of animal cruelty that it does not address. I am sure Members on both sides of the House will speak about other areas of priority for animal welfare, such as addressing pet theft and the right to keep family and pets together no matter what the accommodation arrangements. At that point, I should pay tribute to my hon. and dear friends the Members for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is not in his place. I should also thank my hon. and dear friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), whose kind concern, support for the Bill and help I appreciate.

[John Spellar]

rose—

[Chris Loder]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, and as I have given way once to him already, I would like to make a bit more progress.

I particularly look forward to when the Government will introduce legislation on animal sentience as well, a matter that has given the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs much cause for concern. I pay tribute to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, for his work and to its members who are present, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore).

Two areas of animal welfare concern should be firmly on our list of priorities as the nation’s Parliament. The first is live animal exports. It is disgraceful that our well-cared-for farm animals can be loaded on a lorry and sent thousands of miles by land and sea to a destination in southern Europe. As if that is not bad enough, these poor animals go on to be slaughtered not even in continental Europe but in places such as Libya and Lebanon, as reported by the BBC a couple of weeks ago.

For those who believe that the National Farmers Union is on the side of animal welfare and that this Government are not, I say that it is this Conservative Government who want to stop live animal exports. Who is it that wants live exports to continue—for our cows and other animals to be subjected to a disgraceful level of care and slaughter, thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom? It is the National Farmers Union. Today I call on Members to ensure that this Parliament delivers on the Conservative manifesto pledge to stop live animal exports. Let us remind ourselves of how that pledge became possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

Well, the hon. Gentleman did thank the hon. Member for Redcar, and he did not mention Anna, but let us not quibble over it. She does deserve a lot of credit for her indefatigable campaigning on this issue, and I have to say with no offence to the current hon. Member for Redcar that I miss her in this place.

The Government never really explained why they would not support that Bill back in 2017, and then we got bogged down in the process of bringing in a joint sentencing and sentience Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny—the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is nodding away, because we both went through that process. It was basically all about the sentience side, and I would argue that it was about delaying the sentience side, which I will come on to later. There was no need for pre-legislative scrutiny of one clause that talked about sentencing.

We then debated another version of the Bill on 10 July 2019. I recall the Government saying then that it was really important to legislate as quickly as possible. The Bill went into Committee, and I was on that Committee. The Government wanted to get it done and dusted before summer recess, so they did not want to talk about any amendments or complicate things. There was a suggestion that there should be a more severe penalty for those who film themselves indulging in animal cruelty and post it online, partly as a deterrent, but also because such actions encourage other people to indulge in that behaviour. I must admit that quite a lot of 2019 is a bit of a blur to me. We did not know whether we were proroguing or nor proroguing, getting a Brexit deal or not getting a Brexit deal, having an election or not having an election.

That Bill did not become law either. The Government promised to legislate in autumn 2019, and then they called an election. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for West Dorset, but I do not see why, when this was in the Queen’s Speech, it has been left to a private Member’s Bill—it could have been Government legislation. I see the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) in his place. He was here when we debated this in 2019, and he joined me in saying that there was so much of this legislation—the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill was another example—where the Government kept saying, “We really want to do this, but we just don’t have time to bring it forward.” But there have been loads of days when we have been on a one-line Whip, having general debates. We could have got this legislation through in one day, and then everyone could have taken part, and by now it would have been law.

Although the Government will seek to get a lot of credit for supporting this Bill now, it could have become law in 2017 when Anna Turley first proposed it. That means that we have had three years of light sentences for the very worst animal abusers and three years of not being able to send out a strong message to potential abusers that they would face five years’ imprisonment. That deterrent has not been there, and that is a great shame. Having said that, I welcome the fact that we are here now. I hope that the accelerator will be pressed and the Bill will get through Committee quickly and through the House of Lords, and perhaps by year end it will be law.

While we are talking about the messages that are sent out and the importance of a deterrent, I think that children should be taught about animal welfare in schools. Far too many people, and particularly young men, think that the way to treat a dog is to be very harsh with it, to abuse it and to almost beat it into submission, as if that is the way to train a dog. There are others who abuse animals because they find enjoyment in it. Discussing animal welfare at an early age—particularly for children from families that do not have pets—would be really important in instilling the right behaviour and helping people to understand what owning a pet is all about.

I would not want to do anything to delay the Bill, but I hope that reports of a far more comprehensive animal welfare Bill are true, because they have been kicking around for quite a while—I see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), smiling. Animal welfare is about a lot more than being nice to puppies or pets generally. There seems to be a focus on what I would describe as the low-hanging fruit, which is the “being nice to puppies” end of the spectrum. It is great that we have legislated for things such as Lucy’s law and trying to crack down on puppy farming, although I understand from Marc Abraham, who promoted that campaign through Pup Aid, that there are still some concerns about loopholes, so there is a new petition about the need to tighten that up. Finn’s law was a really good step. A petition on pet theft was discussed earlier this week in Westminster Hall, and there are also debates about ensuring that the law on microchipping is enforced.

[John Spellar]

My hon. Friend rightly mentions microchipping. It appears that there has been very limited enforcement of that by the police. Does she agree that the Home Office ought to give clear instructions to police forces that this is the law of the land and therefore they need to enforce it? I suspect that the police will find that the perpetrators are often subjects of interest in other criminal matters as well.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right, and of course there is the whole question about how animal welfare is enforced at a local level and what resources that are made available. In the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we have also debated the dangerous dogs legislation—the breed-specific legislation and things like that—and it really is a question of resources on that front.

As I said, there is a lot going on about being nice to dogs, in particular, and to pets, but at the same time as we talk about Britain having the highest animal welfare standards in the world we still allow hunts to flout the hunting ban. We repeatedly see stories of people basically getting away with chasing a wild animal and ripping it to shreds; they are not being prosecuted for that. Millions of game birds are raised in factory farms in France, Spain, Portugal and Poland and imported into the UK every year and shot in the name of sport. People will have different opinions on shooting as a sport, but I think we can all agree that the conditions in which those birds are raised in those factory farms and in which they are imported are very questionable, aside from the separate issue of driven grouse shooting, which we have discussed in Parliament recently. We are also allowing the “unscientific, inhumane and ineffective” badger cull, to quote the experts, to go ahead, with thousands more badgers due to be slaughtered this autumn.

We have also seen a failure to curb the unnecessary rise in animal experimentation and to address what leaving the EU means for the duplication of experiments if we are not subject to REACH, the EU regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. I always feel that I have to say this when I speak on this issue: I am not totally opposed to all animal experimentation. I have a niece with cystic fibrosis, and I would want to see whatever is possible done to procure medical advances that might help solve those genetic issues, but I think most people would agree that a huge number of unnecessary animal experiments are still being carried out. There is so much duplication and so little data-sharing, and that will become worse once we leave the EU because we will not be part of the same regime. That is a cause for concern.

The hon. Member for West Dorset mentioned live exports. Again, a promise made during the Brexit referendum campaign was that we would end the practice. I would argue that we could have done a lot more, because the EU set minimum standards that governed the export of live animals and we could have gone further. As I understand it, there were efforts in the EU led by, I think, Germany and the Netherlands, to reduce the number of hours for which animals could travel, but the UK opposed that in EU negotiations before the Brexit referendum. Before the general election, the latest news was that the Government were going to ban live exports for fattening but not for slaughter, and there was no real explanation as to why that was the case, but we may have moved on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

I cannot discuss the individual cases, but I can say that applications were reviewed by a panel of experts, including several representatives from the catching and processing sectors. The judging panel awarded funding to projects that best met the criteria, especially those that could deliver benefits to a range of fishing businesses.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

What estimate his Department has made of the increase in plastic waste as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

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

DEFRA continues to monitor the impact of covid-19 on material flows. We have made no specific estimate of the impact of the outbreak on levels of plastic waste. However, we remain committed to eliminating the scourge of avoidable plastic waste by 2042, as demonstrated by our plans to ban single-use plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds, which we discussed in this very Chamber just a week ago. We continue to monitor recycling rates for plastic packaging and we have committed to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers to incentivise people to recycle more plastic.

[John Spellar]

May I suggest that the Department actually needs to get on and make some plans for this? We are talking about not avoidable but unavoidable plastic waste, because the covid-19 crisis has clearly necessitated the use and disposal of massive quantities of disposable personal protective equipment, much of it plastic, and new mitigation measures for the catering and hospitality industry will generate another wave. We all accept that this is necessary to protect health and get Britain back to work, but what is the Department going to do now to deal with this volume of waste, much of it plastic?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who raises some good points. This Government are absolutely committed to getting rid of plastic waste, as our resources and waste strategy shows, and as measures in the Environment Bill will demonstrate by bringing forward the deposit return scheme and extended producer responsibility. We need to get all businesses to think about what happens to the plastic products they make at the beginning and where they end up, with a view to greatly reduced quantities going to landfill. He raises a good point about PPE. Many companies are rethinking all this, and lots are now starting to have reusable face coverings and to make their own. There is a very useful guide to that on the Government website.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly interesting point. It is something I am personally very interested in. As we speak, there is a project under way to plant kelp and to look at how its carbon capture is going. Mudflats are similarly really important, as are salt marshes. There could be a big future for this on our new horizon of dealing with the land and the landscape. All this carbon capture is a new feature in relation to climate change, and I think kelp will definitely be part of it.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Minister has talked a lot about planting trees, but made no mention of where those trees will come from; in other words, will they be sourced within the UK or will we be importing them, which will have an impact not only on employment but on the importation, as we have seen previously, of pests and diseases? Will the Minister therefore give long-term contracts to the horticultural industry so that it can rapidly ramp up the production of seedlings, for the sake of the British economy and as a health and safety measure ?

[Rebecca Pow]

I forgive the right hon. Gentleman for going on, because it is brilliant to mention horticulture. Horticulture is such an important part of this country, and we are in discussions with nurseries, because he is absolutely right that they have to provide these trees. We would obviously like as many as possible to come from the UK, because that is very important, particularly on biosecurity grounds. I see a great new future in that for those nurseries, and we are in discussions with the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. During this situation, we need everybody to be considerate to others. A number of supermarkets have piloted the idea of a reserved hour at the start of each day for the elderly and most vulnerable. That appears to be working and we will encourage others to do that. There is a limited amount of delivery capacity—currently about 7% of the market—but we will increase that if we can.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

T4. As part of the key worker strategy, will the Secretary of State recognise the crucial importance of food and drink manufacturing and distribution in the food chain? In discussions about the long-term sustainability of the industry, can he and his colleagues persuade the Treasury to abandon its dogma for public purchasing that cheapest is always best?

[George Eustice]

When it comes to public procurement, for a number of years, we have had an approach called the balanced scorecard, which means that it is not all about price and that our procurement authorities should also take into account quality and other factors, too.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, who was here a moment ago, told me that he thought it was unpalatable to think of police animals as equipment. In addition, the penalty for criminal damage is largely determined by the value of the property that is damaged, and a seven-year-old police dog who is close to retirement is simply not worth much money. And so it proved at court, where no separate penalty was imposed on Finn’s attacker for the attack on Finn.

The offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act is potentially a better route, but there are two problems with it. First, the maximum penalty is only six months’ imprisonment. After a consultation, happily the Government have committed to increasing that to five years, and that has been widely welcomed. I pay tribute to the campaigners who have pressed for that, including Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which is also a strong supporter of this measure. The Government’s commitment to a maximum penalty of five years clearly represents a great improvement.

Secondly, there is a difficulty with the application of section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the Animal Welfare Act, which sets out that various factors must be taken into account in deciding whether the infliction of suffering on an animal can be considered unnecessary—those factors include the protection of a person or property—and currently contains no reference to the role of service animals. Clearly, the mission of a service animal is to restrain a suspect or to use its physical presence to support the actions of an officer in accordance with his or her duty, but there is no reference to that in the Act. We have heard from police dog handlers, prosecutors and all the police and crime commissioners in the country that there is concern that the provision allows defendants to argue that they are justified in applying force against a service animal in self-defence, rendering the force necessary. That has apparently been an issue in deciding not to prosecute for the offence under the Animal Welfare Act.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman—on this occasion, I will call him my right hon. and learned Friend—for the doggedness with which he has pursued this Bill, and I thank those who have campaigned outside. It is unfortunate that the campaign has been necessary. Surely we should be protecting those who protect us. In this instance, we are talking about police dogs, but the same should apply to uniformed staff and the blue-light services. We should treat attacks on them and attacks on service animals as aggravating circumstances, and the CPS should get that message loud and clear.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I certainly agree with my friend the right hon. Gentleman. He is right that such attacks are really attacks on those who keep us safe, and it is a pity if that is not adequately recognised in law. I pay tribute to him; in his support for the measure, he has been like an old dog with a bone—[Interruption.] I will not repeat the sedentary comment that has just been made.

I thank Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, particularly Lord Gardiner; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; My hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is the Minister today and who was supportive at an earlier stage; and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who dealt with the Bill in Committee. They have discussed the matter with me at length, and now they are supporting the Bill, which is the outcome of discussions. The Bill follows the example of the Australian Animal Welfare Act, which makes similar provision for service animals. This approach is becoming the norm in advanced countries, and that is good to see.

Clause 1 provides that the consideration in section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 should be disregarded if the animal was under the control of a relevant officer at the time and was being used by that officer in the course of the officer’s duties, in a way that was reasonable in all the circumstances. A relevant officer is defined as a police constable or a person such as a prison officer who has the powers of a constable, or persons in analogous positions. Clause 2 makes provision for commencement in the normal way. The measure applies to England and Wales, but it is fair to mention that a campaign for Finn’s law to apply in Scotland is gaining ground, and the same is true in Northern Ireland. My hope is that this will become the law across the United Kingdom.

Taken together with the Government’s increase in the animal welfare penalty, this change in the law will mean that for the first time there is suitable protection for service animals and a proper sentence for offenders. Service animals such as Finn do a great job, and there are 1,200 police dogs in service at any time. There should be proper recognition in law of their vital role, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill promoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and to follow the able contributions of so many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Each and every one of them made a great contribution, often citing specific issues in their constituencies.

I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire for championing the cause of our much-loved service animals and promoting this important Bill in recognition of the strong support among the public for Finn’s law. In particular, I congratulate him on his persistence. The original draft of the Bill would have created a completely new offence, and he will be aware that at the time—I think that I first discussed this issue with him about a year ago—the view of lawyers was that a new offence was unnecessary. However, I had tremendous sympathy for the cause that he advocated, and I was delighted to ensure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs engaged with him to consider how his Bill could address this challenge. Together we came up with a sensible solution that is built on a model used elsewhere in the world, particularly in western Australia. It effectively removes an assailant’s ability to claim self-defence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in circumstances involving a service animal.

The Government recognise that service animals do invaluable work that can take them into dangerous situations, and the highest level of protection for such animals should be made clear in law. That is why the Government are supporting the Bill, which introduces what has become known as Finn’s law. I might add that it shows their characteristic commitment that both PC Wardell and Finn have followed each and every stage of the Bill’s passage through Parliament from the Public Gallery, and we are delighted to see them here today as well.

When the Bill becomes law, animals such as Finn will have more protection from unprovoked, callous attacks. That is because the Bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as it applies in England and Wales, to make it clear that someone’s ability to claim that they were acting in self-defence when they attacked a service animal shall be disregarded. No longer will someone be able to inflict suffering on our much-loved service animals—police dogs like Finn, police horses, or animals that support the prison service—and say that they were simply protecting themselves.

In supporting the Bill, we agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that using offences under section 4 of the 2006 Act to prosecute attacks on police and other support animals that cause unnecessary suffering could be made more difficult due to fact that the court must consider whether the defendant was acting in fear of harm. The Bill will make it easier successfully to prosecute people for causing animal cruelty by attacking a service animal. We are also taking separate steps to help to protect all animals under our care and protection—including our heroic service animals—by increasing the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) asked when that measure will be introduced; it will be brought forward as soon as possible. As he noted, the House is often preoccupied with other issues at the moment, but the matter remains at the top of the Government’s agenda. It is a clear commitment, and we will bring forward that legislation as soon as possible.

[John Spellar]

The Minister is pleading absence of parliamentary time, but did we not finish at about half-past two in the afternoon on Wednesday?

[George Eustice]

The parliamentary agenda and timetable are somewhat unpredictable at the moment, but the point remains that we are committed to raising the maximum penalty for animal cruelty to five years’ imprisonment. Specifically, we will amend the maximum penalties set out in section 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That will cover cruelty caused by attacks on service animals, which is the second limb of the Finn’s law campaign.

As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, Finn was stabbed by an assailant in 2016 when he assisted his handler, PC Dave Wardell, in the apprehension of a suspected offender. Finn received serious injuries, but we are all thankful that he survived and was even able to return to duty, before later retiring and attending debates such as this. In August 2018, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of meeting Finn and PC Wardell at DEFRA’s offices. The Secretary of State stated clearly that

“every day service animals dedicate their lives to keeping us safe, and they deserve strong protections in law.”

That was why he undertook to continue working with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire in developing this law.

The Bill is concerned with the offences under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which relate to animal cruelty or, as the Act states, causing

“unnecessary suffering to an animal”.

When considering a prosecution for cruelty, the court must currently consider whether the defendant was acting in fear of harm. Relevant here is the list of considerations in section 4(3) that the court must consider, which include whether the suffering was caused for

“a legitimate purpose, such as....the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal”.

In other words, the perpetrator of an attack on a service animal could use that provision to claim that they were acting to protect themselves. The Bill amends section 4 so that that consideration shall be disregarded with respect to incidents that involved unnecessary suffering inflicted on a service animal that was supporting an officer in the course of their duties. It will therefore be easier successfully to prosecute people for causing animal cruelty by attacking a service animal.

Clause 1 amends section 4 to allow the self-defence provision relating to animal cruelty to be disregarded if it concerns a service animal under the control of, and being used by, a relevant officer in the course of his or her duties in a way that was reasonable, and if the defendant was not the relevant officer in control of the service animal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

1. What steps the Commission is taking to increase the sale of UK-produced food and drink (a) in catering outlets and (b) for events hosted on the parliamentary estate.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to know that there is a lot of promotional activity for British food. For example, Red Tractor Week took place in September, and we worked with British farmers and the National Farmers Union to promote British food. He will also be pleased to know that the wine list in Strangers’ and Members’ includes a good selection of English wines. Something that he may want to consider—if he has not already taken advantage of it—is that individual Members can ask for a specific cask of ale from an independent regional brewer from their constituency to be placed in the Strangers’ bar.

[John Spellar]

I am certainly aware of the provision for regional breweries in the Strangers’ bar. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the steps that the Commission has taken on this and on reducing plastic use, but will the Commission take the lead from other public bodies in ensuring that our suppliers are, at every possible opportunity, prioritising and insisting on supporting British farmers, manufacturers and workers, and maximising UK-produced food and drink, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises?

[Tom Brake]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in this place we push hard for very high quality produce, which is often British-sourced. The overwhelming majority of food throughout the catering establishments is British. If he is suggesting that we should adopt a “buy British” policy, I am sure he aware that that is not something that we can do in practice.

Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 222419 relating to including Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Walker. I admit that I am no expert on this subject; my only qualification to open the debate is that I have been bitten twice, both times while leafleting and both times by that breed of dog made famous by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle—the ones that do not bark. I therefore intend to outline the arguments briefly to allow others with more expertise than me the time to speak.

The petition was started by those opposed to suggestions in some quarters that Staffordshire bull terriers should be included on the list of prohibited dogs maintained under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Those of us who are a bit long in the tooth will remember that the Act was introduced following a lot of reports in the press about dogs—in particular pit bull types—mauling people.

The Act forbids the keeping of certain breeds, unless the dog is granted an exemption certificate, adding it to the index of exempted dogs. In that case, the owner has a certificate of exemption for the lifetime of the dog, but they must comply with any restrictions placed on him or her, such as keeping the dog muzzled in public. It is an offence to breed from, sell or exchange any dogs listed in the Act—even an individual dog that has an exemption certificate.

Those of us who, again, have been around for a while know that legislation that gets passed quickly, with agreement from both Front Benches, is usually flawed, and many people have argued from the beginning that the Dangerous Dogs Act has serious flaws. It was intended to prevent people from keeping and breeding dogs for fighting, but for a long time it has been argued that it is easy to get around the legislation—for example, by claiming that the dog is a Staffordshire bull terrier or an American bulldog, or by having a crossbreed, which is perfectly legal.

Other people have argued that such breed-specific legislation, or BSL, is the wrong way to proceed anyway. For example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that whether a dog is dangerous is

“influenced by a range of factors including how dogs are bred, reared and experiences throughout their lifetime”.

The British Veterinary Association states:

“we are opposed to any proposal or legislation that singles out particular breeds of dogs”.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend leading to the key criticism of that piece of legislation, which is that the police, and particularly the courts, ought to be taking on irresponsible and vicious owners, instead of showing such reluctance, as they have done on so many occasions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

That is often the case, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman managed to get Roger into Hansard—let us all hear it for Roger! That is the argument that organisations such as the RSCPA put:

“Breed is not an appropriate criterion to assess a dog’s risk to people.”

However, the RSPCA also argues that the existing legislation does not promote animal welfare. It had to put down 232 dogs in two years, many of which it says could have been rehomed—I have reservations about the “many” because I am not sure how many people want to take on dogs listed under the Act. The RSPCA also said that, over the time we have had the legislation, admissions to hospital for injuries inflicted by dogs have risen. In fact, they rose by 76% between 2005 and 2015. There is also no scientific evidence to tie those injuries to the prohibited breeds.

As someone who is fairly neutral in the debate, I would like more information about that, simply as a precaution. Are we admitting more people to hospital than we used to? Are non-prohibited breeds causing the injuries? Or are too many dogs being kept in less than ideal conditions? All of us have met such dogs when canvassing—big dogs kept in small houses or flats without enough space to exercise and so on. Perhaps those conditions make the dogs more likely to bite.

We have to take the matter seriously. After all, about 21,000 people a year in England suffer a dog bite, and most of them are going about their normal business—for example, postal workers or delivery drivers. We need to find a way to protect them. In fact, 37 people have died in dog attacks since the Act was introduced.

The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is chaired so ably by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is looking at the issue. The evidence it has had so far from animal welfare organisations and dog behaviourists—I did not even know that that was a job until I started to look into this—has been overwhelmingly in favour of looking at deed not breed when considering dogs.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, however, supports a different approach. PETA has argued that Staffordshire bull terriers and American bulldogs ought to be added to the list of prohibited breeds. Its argument—if I may summarise it—is that those breeds are abused and neglected to make them fiercer, and it cites a number of incidents involving attacks. For example, last year an owner was killed in an attack by a Staffordshire bull terrier, and earlier this year, two of those dogs turned on a smaller dog and ripped it to shreds. PETA also recalled a 2012 incident when five police officers faced a pit bull-type dog. One of them ended up requiring skin grafts, two others were hospitalised, and three bullets were needed to stop the attack.

[John Spellar]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Before she moves on, I must say that I find it surprising that we give any credence to that ridiculous organisation. Its main intervention previously has been attacks on anglers in the United Kingdom, which would not find favour with the huge number of anglers in the west midlands or indeed with you, Mr Walker.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his sterling defence of anglers.

I am simply trying to sum up the various views on this issue. Our petitioners say that these dogs make very loyal and loving pets and faithful companions—the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) mentioned his dog. On the one hand, the RSPCA promotes a more holistic view of dealing with dangerous dogs, with more education—especially for children—a better legal framework and greater enforcement of the law, along with more research into what makes a dog bite in the first place. By contrast, PETA would say that these breeds are kept, abused and fought because of their breed, and therefore should be banned. I am fairly agnostic in all this. We need much better information on which breeds are responsible for many of the injuries. Is there a pattern?

The League Against Cruel Sports says that the number of reported dog fights has risen sharply, from 72 in 2013 to nearly 500 last year. I do not doubt the figures, but I think we need to look behind them and find out whether they are increasing or whether the public and the police are getting better at reporting and dealing with these things. After all, dog fighting was rife in the 19th century, but there were no reports of it because there was no law against it.

[John Spellar]

The fact is that an organisation wishes to blacken the name of Staffordshire bull terriers, but this is—I say this as, I think, the only Member here from the old Staffordshire county—a very popular breed. As has been said, these can be, and often are, extremely good, friendly family dogs, and they are wonderful with children. It is absurd that this organisation is trying to ban them, rather than deal with the vicious owners and those who get involved in dog fighting. That should be the priority—not damning a breed that is so appreciated by so many in the west midlands.

[Helen Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right that there are strong arguments on the other side of the issue. Although it is undoubtedly true that we have made progress since 1991—all dogs now have to be microchipped, and we have extended the legislation to cover attacks on private land—we need to do more. What the animal welfare charities are putting forward will work very well with responsible dog owners.

The problem, as my right hon. Friend points out, is that many people who have these kinds of dogs are not responsible dog owners, but criminals. They use the dogs to fight, to defend themselves and sometimes to terrorise their entire neighbourhood, as we have seen. That is why the police have said in evidence that they are not prepared to move away from breed-specific legislation at the moment, although they might be prepared to do so in future. If we are going to do that, we will need much more evidence of what has caused the increase in dog attacks. We will also need a much stronger legal system and a better system of enforcing the law. There is no doubt that, when a number of people have these kinds of dogs, they abuse them deliberately to make them fearsome. [Interruption.]

[John Spellar]

I see I am no longer the only Staffordshire MP in the debate. My hon. Friend talks about the enforcement of the law. Perhaps that should start with the enforcement of microchipping—taking people to court and dealing with them when they have animals that are not microchipped or when they have damaged the microchip to make it undetectable.

[Helen Jones]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are all sorts of things that we should do, because we say we are a nation of dog lovers, but what is happening out there actually shows that many people are not dog lovers at all—they abuse animals, whether unintentionally or through malice. Dogs are often abused through being kept in unsuitable conditions and not being given enough exercise. Others are abused deliberately to make them more likely to attack. We need to look at that.

I am unconvinced about whether we should have a list of prohibited breeds at all, and certainly about whether Staffordshire bull terriers should be on it. I look forward to the other contributions to the debate and to the Select Committee’s report, which I am sure will be of great use in deciding how we move forward, both to protect animals from abuse and to protect the public.

Fur Trade

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I will come very specifically to that point later in that speech, but my belief is that we do have the power.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the widespread public support. One should always be careful to differentiate grassroots and astroturf in email responses. On this issue, it is clear that there has been sustained interest for a long time from all the different areas of my constituency, all indicating a deep and long-standing concern that the trade should be ended. I am sure that that is true of other hon. Members as well. That is not just a transient mood, but a long-standing demand.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The number of hon. Members present shows the breadth of support, and the petition shows that it is consistent across the country. It has also been a response to some strong campaigns. There have been 109,554 signatures to the petition, but there is a spectrum of support behind it from significant organisations, including the Humane Society International; businesses such as Lush; and a range of cultural figures such as Brian May of Queen and Evanna Lynch of “Harry Potter”. It is fair to conclude that our country wants to ban fur.

It is not just the UK. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting a Finnish member of the European Parliament, Sirpa Pietikäinen, who leads the cross-party group on animal welfare. She assured me that there is growing and widespread support not just in the Parliament but in countries that have traditionally been more sympathetic to the fur trade.

The faux fur issue is an added complexity that is currently being probed by the EFRA Committee. The public are being duped into buying fur by mistake. We have a bizarre situation where less scrupulous retailers, or retailers that have been misled by wholesalers or people further down the supply chain, mislabel their products as faux fur when in fact they are real fur. That is partly a consequence of the fact that, from some suppliers, the real fur is very cheap, which says a lot about how it is produced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I had not necessarily considered that, but as so often with legislation, it seems that there is more scope to do things than people tell us. There may be more flexibility than is sometimes suggested, so that may certainly be worth looking at.

[John Spellar]

That is an extremely important point and is actually an important part of the wider debate. Many of these issues are not a matter of EU regulation—they are a matter of political will and choice in this country. The debate’s clear message to the Minister needs to be that the Government have options and should exercise them, and not keep hiding behind a figment of rules from Brussels, which do not have the weight that the Government put on them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I also hope that the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) recovers his voice soon.

The Government have made no assessment of the effect of trail hunting. However, anyone who believes that an offence has taken place during a hunt, including during a trail hunt, should report the matter to the police, as the police deal with complaints of illegal hunting. Decisions on the arrest and prosecution of those taking part in illegal hunting activities are matters for the police and prosecuting authorities.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that concerns are growing that trail hunting is being used as a cover for illegal hunting. This was recently brought into focus by the invasion of a cat sanctuary—run by the well-known Celia Hammond Animal Trust—in East Sussex by a pack of hounds from the Romney Marsh hunt. What action will the Government take against those who continue to hunt illegally?

[George Eustice]

The law in this area is clear. Between 2005 and 2015, 682 individuals were prosecuted and 423 were found guilty, so the law is clear and is being enforced. Even groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have accepted that this is a law that is being enforced.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have already committed themselves to upholding the highest environmental standards—standards that we cherish—in developing HS2, and, indeed, other infrastructure.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

May I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for a national framework rather than ad hoc local decision making, especially given that emissions are currently declining? Will the Minister bear that in mind while she is working on the EU air quality regulations? In drawing up the framework, will she take account of all causes of air pollution, properly cost the alternatives—I am thinking particularly of the costs to drivers and the taxpayer—and urge the Government to stop demonising diesel drivers?

[Dr Coffey]

I think it fair to say—and we have said it at this Dispatch Box before—that when we are tackling air quality issues we must work with local communities, because the solutions will vary and there must be targeted interventions. I am afraid—well, I am not afraid—that our Government are not demonising diesel drivers at all. It was the Labour Government who introduced incentives for people to start using diesel. It happens to have been the current Mayor of London who stood at the Dispatch Box in his last year in the Brown Government and said that Euro V emission standards would solve the problem. We know that that is not the case, but we are clearing up the mess. Together, we can work across party lines to ensure that we have cleaner air for the people whom we all represent.

Domestic Ivory Market

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Given the intensity of the crisis that the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies, are we not in danger, as in so many other areas, of paralysis by process? Should the consultation be brought to a close, and should we now take action?

[Luke Hall]

I will come to my thoughts on the steps the Government should take later in my remarks.

There are a number of reasons why we should go further. First, the proposal will not cover worked ivory dated before 1947, which makes up the vast majority of the current UK ivory market. Secondly, it is difficult for our law enforcement officers to tell the difference between pre and post-1947 ivory, especially as newer ivory is frequently and deliberately disguised as antique. Thirdly, it is unclear how all ivory could be age tested.