Animal (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Debate between Angela Richardson and Flick Drummond

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to you, and to everyone who has joined the Committee to consider this important Bill once again.

I thank officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who have supported me throughout this process, and the Ministers at DEFRA, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, who is answering today, for speaking up for the Bill along its journey so far.

I welcome the Government’s support for this legislation. Currently, there is no statutory provision in England or Northern Ireland to regulate the advertising or sale of animal activities abroad. This Government are well intentioned on the subject of animal welfare, and I know that this legislation has been a long time coming. The Government’s ambitious “Action Plan for Animal Welfare” states:

“we also want to make sure that businesses do not benefit from selling attractions, activities or experiences to tourists involving the unacceptable treatment of animals”,

and the Bill will deliver just that.

I will not repeat everything I said in the Chamber on Second Reading a few weeks ago, but it is important to break down the clauses and their effect. Clauses 1 and 2 establish the framework of offences that would involve the sale and advertising of animal experiences abroad that are considered to be low welfare. One section of particular note is subsection (3) of clause 1, which sets out the test for assessing whether an activity would be considered low welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England, and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in Northern Ireland.

Clause 3 is about penalties, prosecution and liabilities under the legislation. The clause also disapplies section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and article 19 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. That will ensure that the more complex cases that arise as a result of this legislation can be dealt with in a longer period than six months, which is the regular limit for a summary offence.

Clause 4 establishes the authority of the relevant departments in England and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to investigate any allegations resulting from the offences created under the legislation. Clause 5 outlines the procedures for making regulations under the new legislation, both in this Parliament and in the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. Clause 6 defines the terms commonly used throughout the Bill, including “activity regulations”, “animal”, “appropriate national authority”, “appropriate national legislation”, “offering” and “vertebrate”.

Finally, clause 7 details the territorial extent of the Bill—it applies to England and Northern Ireland—the commencement of the Act, which is due to take effect two months following Royal Assent from His Majesty the King, and the short title of the Act.

Animals cannot speak up for themselves, but we can speak for them. Charities including Save The Asian Elephants and World Animal Protection have highlighted the plight of many animals, including elephants and dolphins, which suffer in appalling conditions behind the scenes before being paraded around for visiting tourists. World Animal Protection estimates that up to 550,000 wild animals are suffering in poor conditions for the entertainment of tourists worldwide.

While we cannot outlaw those practices overseas, the Bill goes a long way to ensuring that we do our bit. Once enacted, it will prohibit the advertisement in England and Northern Ireland of tourist activities abroad that infringe on animal welfare standards. By reducing the visibility and prevalence of advertisements for such activities on high streets across England and Northern Ireland, the Bill will lead to more welfare-conscious offers being made to tourists who wish to go abroad.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for promoting this incredibly important Bill. Do those advertisements include those for swimming with dolphins?

[Angela Richardson]

It does. I will come on to talk about dolphins and other animals later in my speech.

A briefing note circulated by a number of animal welfare charities to members of the Committee highlighted 12 recurring themes in the keeping of animals in low-welfare attractions and facilities. It is prudent to bring them to the attention of the Committee to show the difference that the legislation could make. Animals are taken from the wild, which harms the animal, local wildlife populations and people. Mothers are killed, injured or harmed simply so that their infants can be captured. Breeding mothers are kept and forced to raise their young in low-welfare facilities, as opposed to in the wild. Infants are taken from their mothers far too young. There is a high mortality rate among animals that are in transit or traded.

Animals are kept in situations that are unnatural to them, including close captivity, which can be particularly harmful to long-lived species and to those accustomed to a large range in the wild. Animals are forced to perform unnatural behaviours. The use, or threat, of fear, pain, or drugs is used to control or train animals, and methods of domination are used to traumatise or subdue them. Animals are closely handled by several untrained people, and are often given no option to retreat. There is a risk of zoonotic disease transmission from animals, particularly when they are used as photo props and handled by large volumes of people. Finally, animals who are no longer used for exhibition are kept in cruel surroundings or killed before they have reach the natural end of their life. Those 12 themes paint a picture of a experiences that none of us would wish on an animal in the wild. This legislation will result in fewer animals being treated in that way by bringing about less consumer demand for experiences based on low-welfare treatment.

Let me mention some of the experiences that feature poor conditions for animals, as well as the species that the Bill could have an impact on. I will start with the Asian elephant, used as a tourist attraction for rides, particularly in south-east Asia. Animals from that precious species are brutally taken in the wild at a young age—sometimes their mothers are killed right in front of them—and then subjected to a breaking of their spirits by isolation, starvation, stabbings and beatings to make them submissive when engaged in activities with tourists.

Another experience used in tourist activities around the world is the use of animals as photo props. That can include primates, reptiles and avian life being used for selfies; and big cats, such as tigers, lions and leopards, being used in public interaction.

Southern Heathrow Rail Link

Debate between Angela Richardson and Flick Drummond

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Angela Richardson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree with her that now is the right time to look at the economic benefits and the skills and jobs that this will bring. It is exciting that this sort of project could have bids coming in from a range of providers, and the competition would be very beneficial. The Heathrow to Waterloo link could be looked at in the wider scope of the project, but I am sure she will understand that I am keen to see a line go to my constituents in Guildford. I will come on to the western link later in my speech.

Members from outside the south-east of England often, and understandably, criticise policymakers for taking a London-centric view of issues. I would like to reassure them that London-centricity can work to the detriment even of other towns and cities in the south-east. Access to Heathrow is just one example of this phenomenon. It is possible to reach the airport by train on a number of services, such as London Underground’s Piccadilly line, the Heathrow Express, Heathrow Connect services and hopefully, before too much longer, the hugely impressive Elizabeth line, which will bring direct trains to the airport from City and docklands. However, it is nigh on impossible to reach Heathrow by train from a whole number of boroughs in south-west London or substantial towns such as mine in Surrey and Hampshire, even though it is possible to see aircraft taking off and landing from some of them.

Transport authorities serving many of Heathrow’s competitor airports, such as Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle, have long since understood that a major hub for flights should also be a public transport hub. In Heathrow’s case, people can arrive by train if they like, as long as they are coming from the east. That gigantic airport, one of our drivers of economic growth, tourism and investment in normal times, and undoubtedly again after the pandemic, effectively sits at the end of a branch line.

Clearly, there are other public transport connections to Heathrow that are not based on railways. It is served by a variety of coach and bus connections that are valuable to airline passengers and the many thousands who work in the wide range of businesses located there. Those services include a direct hourly coach link from Guildford that opened in the last two years. Nevertheless, however many buses and coaches are available, they fail to attract the substantial number of users who otherwise default to their own cars or taxis and private hire vehicles. Those vehicles congest still further the greatly overloaded road network that serves the airport, cause damage to economic efficiency and reduce the attractiveness of the region south of Heathrow to investment.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about an incredibly important topic. A direct rail link from Guildford to Heathrow would make a massive difference not only to her constituency but to mine in Meon Valley and beyond. At the moment, it takes up to two hours to get there by train and coach, as she has mentioned, but about 45 minutes or less—or half the time, anyway—by car. Does she agree that it will take cars off the road, which will have an incredible environmental impact on her constituency and the others surrounding Heathrow?

[Angela Richardson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I could not agree more. The time spent in the car on those journeys to Heathrow from constituencies that are further down the line than mine and further away from Heathrow has an impact on the environment. Those cars on the roads generate vast quantities of noxious gases and particulate matter that are harmful to the health and wellbeing of our citizens, along with substantial volumes of avoidable carbon dioxide.

In such circumstances, some might say, “Build more roads then,” but it was recognised by Highways England in 2016 that no amount of road building could overcome the problem. Its “M25 South West Quadrant Strategic Study” concluded that only a solution based on public transport investment could address congestion on this vital national motorway. Indeed, I understand that it is one of the most congested stretches of motorway in Europe.

With such a blindingly obvious need for rail access to Heathrow from the south, there have been a number of attempts to find an answer. The most significant of those was a scheme known as Airtrack devised by BAA, then owners of Heathrow, in the early years of this century. The fundamental, and ultimately fatal, flaw in the Airtrack proposal was that it was based on knitting together various sections of existing railway, with a few short additional stretches, and then greatly increasing the frequency of trains on those tracks.

The Victorian lines were built in an era when road traffic was horse-drawn, so they intersected at multiple locations with level crossings that now serve thousands of cars and lorries every day. The increased frequency of trains over those crossings would cause the level crossing barriers, and hence the roads, to be closed for unacceptably long periods. When the opposition of road users, communities, businesses and local authorities found voice through hon. Members of this House, the Airtrack project was doomed.

Airtrack had been conceived in part as an attempt to mitigate the major expansion of airline passenger numbers and employees at Heathrow associated with the opening of terminal 5. The one positive legacy of this story is that, beneath terminal 5, there sits in cavernous darkness a station awaiting the arrival of a railway from the south.

I understand that similar provision exists for a western rail link to Heathrow at terminal 5. The western scheme has been under development for as long as the southern route and would contribute to making Heathrow a public transport hub on the international model I described earlier. I know the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has been an energetic supporter of a western link for the benefits it would bring to his constituents and I am delighted to see his interest in the debate this evening.

Returning to a new railway for my own area, the prospect of a southern rail link to Heathrow was raised once again as part of the consenting process for the expansion of the airport by means of constructing a third runway. Without revisiting all the many powerful arguments for and against Heathrow expansion, it was noted, as part of the scrutiny of the proposal by the Transport Committee, previously chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), that a southern rail link was urgently needed with even a two-runway airport, let alone with the third in place.

It was in that context that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) announced, as Transport Secretary in March 2018, that a southern rail link to Heathrow would be the pathfinder scheme for a radical initiative to attract private sector investment and ideas into the design and construction of new railway infrastructure. That was a widely welcomed announcement, as it opened up the prospect of not just businesses but local authorities and local enterprise partnerships helping to accelerate the development of vitally needed new railways, rather than having to wait in a queue with many other existing schemes being devised within the traditional rail industry process. Now, more than ever, we need to allow the talent and expertise in the private sector to contribute to our levelling-up efforts across the country.