National Food Strategy and Public Health

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a huge pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on securing the debate and on her work on the all-party parliamentary group.

I echo the commendations and praise for Henry Dimbleby and his excellent team, and particularly the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). The team put in a huge amount of effort. Of course, it was a long time ago that Henry Dimbleby was asked to carry out this work on behalf of the Government. If Government Members are looking for a present for the Prime Minister, I commend this report. It is a weighty tome. They may feel that they gave him his Christmas present last night, but the national food strategy is really good—I see well-thumbed copies around this Chamber.

It was not the team’s fault that the political world has changed and that Secretaries of States come and go, but while the politics may change, the underlying problems really do not. I echo the fury of the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). He is right to be angry about our current food system. Dimbleby’s words at the start of the report are damning:

“The food system we have today is both a miracle and a disaster…the food we eat—and the way we produce it—is doing terrible damage to our planet and to our health.”

That is quite an introduction—terrible damage to our health. That should be a big flashing warning light to any Government.

I am glad we have a chance to discuss this issue at all. I have been chiding the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, for many months on this issue, and she has promised that there will be a response in January, but that is almost six months since the report was published. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said, the initial response from Downing Street was to pour a bucket of cold water all over the strategy, in response to some rather foolish tabloid headlines, as if the salt and sugar tax was the only thing in this substantial report.

It was pretty clear that the Government did not like Dimbleby’s observations on trade policy either. I raised that issue at DEFRA questions a while ago. I pointed out that Henry was hardly a happy man, given his comments to the Soil Association conference, where he is reported as saying,

“the Government has clearly rejected my advice.”

He also said:

“There is no point in creating a food and farming system here that looks after animals, sequesters carbon, and supports biodiversity, if overseas products on our shelves don’t do the same.”

Well, quite. It is significant that the finished national food strategy report has on it in big red letters, “THE PLAN”—it is the overarching plan that has been missing in this space.

The Food Foundation and Sustain made those points powerfully in their briefings. The Agriculture Act 2020, the Environment Act 2021 and the Fisheries Act 2020, which some of us have been involved in over the last couple of years, would have made much more sense if they were not just a post-leaving-the-EU fix, but part of an overall strategy for how we feed ourselves in a fair and sustainable way. It has all been done the wrong way round—it is back to front. Tomorrow we will see the Government sneak out their report on food security on the last possible day that they are allowed to under the Agriculture Act. How much food we wish to produce should have been a key starting point, not an afterthought. As the Climate Change Committee points out, there is still no plan from DEFRA on how we get to net zero. So it is muddle, muddle, muddle—perhaps the Prime Minister is in charge after all.

To return to the report and what it tells us about the current state of our food system, that system is highly efficient in narrow economic terms, but Dimbleby also concludes that it contributes to a range of health issues, and particularly obesity, as other Members have picked up. Although there are many fantastic British food and drink producers serving us nutritious, healthy and affordable food—I am grateful, as always, to the Food and Drink Federation for its excellent advice—there is, as has been pointed out, an increasing prevalence of high-salt, high-sugar, ultra-processed and unhealthy foods in our diet.

Many of these figures have already been quoted, but I will repeat them: £18 billion—8% of all Government healthcare expenditure—is spent on conditions relating to high body mass index every year, and one in seven children in England is already obese when they start primary school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) so powerfully pointed out, those trends exacerbate existing inequalities. Children living in the most deprived areas are more than twice as likely as those living in the least deprived areas to be obese, which is not surprising given that the Food Foundation tells us that healthier foods are nearly three times as expensive as less healthy foods calorie for calorie.

The national food strategy shone a light on a lot of this and called for significant Government action to address it. I will not repeat all the points that others have made, but when one looks at where we are now, the Government are failing on too many fronts. In the course of 10 years in government, they have presided over a growing food bank scandal and obesity crisis. Inequality and poverty have gone up, and we know that poor health is often directly related to lack of income. It can hardly have come as a surprise that cutting universal credit and raising taxes for working families at a time when food price inflation is severe—let us remember that with 5% inflation today, many people face a really difficult new year—would not produce good health outcomes. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central pointed out, Sustain and the Food Foundation have produced damning statistics on how much it costs poorer people to feed themselves with decent, healthy food. I pay wholesome tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby for the Right to Food campaign that he and colleagues are running.

When it comes to changing our food culture, there is a clear role for the Government and the food and drink sector to work together. With Labour, there will not just be healthier food for all, but healthy British food. In her Budget speech, the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), told the country that Labour would buy British and make changes to public procurement so that our schools and hospitals are stocked with healthy, locally sourced food—a policy also promoted in the national food strategy.

I have no doubt there is considerable common ground in the Chamber on these issues: we all want a healthier country; an end to food banks; shorter, more secure supply chains; a fair deal for producers; and healthy, nutritious British food widely available. The question is how. When Labour left office, we had a plan, “Food 2030”. Since then, the country has not had a plan. Ultimately, this Government’s plan is not to have a plan and to leave it to the market. That is one approach, but it does not work if we want healthy, sustainable, fair outcomes, which is why “THE PLAN”—Dimbleby’s plan—is such a welcome contribution to this vital debate.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Veterinary Agreement

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who is an expert on this issue. He is a highly distinguished former Minister and shadow Secretary of State, among the many other roles he has carried out during his political career, so his words carry real weight. His introduction was exemplary and his critique was gentle and nuanced—I suspect I will be a little more aggressive, but I may make similar points.

The contributions from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), and the exchanges between them, were fascinating. In many ways, it was a résumé of the discussions we have, sadly, been having over many years. The almost intractable nature of some of the problems came out, but it is good that people are discussing them and pulling out the difficulties that we face as we try to find a constructive way forward. I was particularly struck by the idea that we would not start from here. Well, I do not think anybody would, and I have some sympathy for the Minister in trying to untie this knot at the end. These are not all problems of her making, but she is part of the Government so she bears the responsibility.

This is a hugely important issue for people in Northern Ireland, for the future of the United Kingdom and, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, for trust in politics. Of course, it was the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who famously said that no British Prime Minister would allow a border in the Irish sea. Sadly, it turned out that she was wrong. Despite all the promises, all the clever technical solutions and all the rest of it, the truth is that since the start of this year there have been additional checks. Despite the Northern Ireland protocol, life has been made much more difficult for everyone, which is why securing a veterinary agreement is such an important prize.

As others have said, a veterinary agreement would help not only the situation in Northern Ireland. Meat, dairy, fish and agrifood products accounted for over £11.3 billion of annual trade into the EU in 2019. Now, however, costly red tape in the form of burdensome SPS checks on every food and agrifood product entering the EU is costing British farmers, fishers and businesses dear, hampering their efforts to trade. Between 2019 and 2021, exports of beef to the EU fell by 37%, with a 34% fall in exports of cheese. Other products have been similarly affected, with a 19% drop in exports of milk, cream and chocolate. According to the Food and Drink Federation, this has led to almost £2 billion in lost sales. Its head of international trade, Dominic Goudie, commented:

“The return to growth in exports to non-EU markets is welcome news, but it doesn’t make up for the disastrous loss of £2bn in sales to the EU. It clearly demonstrates the serious difficulties manufacturers in our industry continue to face and the urgent need for additional specialist support.”

He is right.

The UK failed to secure an agreement on SPS standards with the EU, so each agrifood product entering the European Union has to be accompanied by an export health certificate costing £150 to £200, is subject to physical checks at ports of entry and requires veterinary sign-off. Exporters must also give EU border control posts advance notice of goods arriving—a process that The Guardian newspaper has estimated takes 26 steps. Full SPS checks are due to be introduced in 2022, risking the problem getting worse. The chair of the British Chambers of Commerce has said:

“it should not be the case that businesses simply have to give up on exporting to the EU”—

a point made earlier in the debate.

The fishing industry has warned that companies that have been around for 30 or 40 years and that relied on the export market are closing their doors, calling the experience “an unmitigated disaster”. Without an agreement on SPS standards, which the Government sought but failed to secure in the Brexit negotiations, British businesses and farmers face steep and permanent rises in the cost of trade.

For Northern Ireland, the deal the Prime Minister negotiated inevitably resulted in a barrier splitting our Union. This year has been miserable for many, with all the problems that we have read about and that people in Northern Ireland endured in the early months. There is a suite of regulatory checks on food products, including dairy, eggs, meat and other staples, and there is the vexed issue of chilled meat. Those checks are now a requirement on GB-NI trade. Once the grace periods expire—we were all glad to hear that they may continue—we will face costly EHCs and a requirement for vets to sign off the product. Some products, such as chilled meat, will likely be barred altogether. Given the flow of trade between GB and NI, that is the equivalent of having an international boundary on a main road. The chief executive of Northern Ireland’s largest food manufacturer, Lynas Foodservice, has been quoted giving the example of mozzarella cheese, which we heard earlier. He says that his business is often out of stock because of the wait for a vet to certify products.

Maybe all of this was an afterthought—maybe nobody considered it—but people in Northern Ireland have paid a high price for those rushed negotiations in the days before new year. I am sure the Minister recalls the phone briefing she did for Members to try to defend the Prime Minister’s ludicrous assertion that there were no non-tariff barriers. Like everything else, I am afraid, it did not survive the collision with reality on the ground.

It did not have to be like this. The UK’s negotiating position called for an SPS framework similar to that in the Canadian or New Zealand trade agreements. As we all know, the Conservative party manifesto said:

“we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”,

so one might have expected something in any agreement to make sure that that happened. However, neither the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement nor the Northern Ireland protocol includes a veterinary partnership agreement. That is failing Britain’s farmers, dividing our Union and undermining the trade that tens of thousands of businesses rely on.

That is not perhaps for want of trying. Back in February, the DEFRA Secretary committed to a veterinary agreement, saying:

“what we want to do, and we’re very open to do this, is to work on a Veterinary Partnership Agreement established under the FTA so we can get some easements and ensure goods can flow more smoothly and improve the forms.”

In April, the cross-party Select Committee specifically called for such an agreement as a priority. But here we are, almost a year on, still looking for it. We know that an agreement could reduce the mountain of red tape that businesses currently face, easing trade into the European Union, not just into Northern Ireland. Trade in food and drink amounted to over £14 billion last year and two thirds of that export market was in the European Union. That trade has been most affected by the new red tape.

The Conservative party manifesto promised to “increase trade and prosperity”, but the Government’s failure to agree common food standards, which are part and parcel of trade agreements around the world, is hampering British business. An agreement on common standards would reduce the friction and allow businesses to trade more freely with our largest export market. Currently, EU trade into Britain gets a free pass, while British businesses face costly burdens. An agreement on common veterinary standards would dramatically reduce the number of physical checks and streamline or remove altogether the costly paperwork requirements that so disrupt supply chains.

There is no shortage of organisations calling for an agreement. NFU Scotland has said:

“an agreement on equivalence on sanitary and phytosanitary trade standards...is critical to alleviate the problems of asymmetric trading”.

Glyn Roberts of Retail NI has said:

“veterinary alignment would take a lot of the hassle out of the food transit problem”.

The Northern Ireland Retail Consortium has called for a veterinary agreement to remove friction. The Ulster Farmers’ Union has backed such a move, saying:

“It would do away with a large percentage of the physical and documentary checks that are currently required, helping to ensure agri-food products and livestock can continue moving, flowing as freely as possible from GB to NI without extra complications and costs.”

I am afraid that the checks that the Prime Minister insisted on having down the middle of our Union are doing damage. He should get the agreement he promised on common food standards, which has overwhelming support in Northern Ireland. But that prompts the question, why can’t he? Why is it so difficult? I am afraid that—others have alluded to this—that the conclusion must be that the Government do not want to enter into an agreement that might reduce their scope to undermine the high food standards enjoyed in Britain in the trade deals they want to strike elsewhere. That is the truth of it. The Minister shakes her head, but burdensome regulation and red tape strangling our farmers and food producers are being exchanged for allowing cheap chlorinated chicken to flood our market.

Labour absolutely rejects that path. We are ambitious for this country and seek the highest food, environmental and welfare standards in the world. We need a veterinary agreement but frankly this Government are unlikely to achieve it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale talked about having a trusted negotiator scheme. Well, I doubt that we could have one, because this Government are unable to maintain the trust of people in our own country, let alone in other countries. We may need a new Government to make that happen, and that cannot come soon enough.

Online Animal Sales: Regulation

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees). Her introduction was comprehensive, full, excellent and very moving. What a fantastic debate, and what fantastic unanimity around the Chamber. There were powerful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the right hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), and the hon. Members for Warrington South (Andy Carter), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and some powerful interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd).

I am pleased to have the opportunity to put on the record Labour’s tributes to the fantastic campaign for Reggie’s law. We offer our support for it and for the 109,000 people who signed the petition. Like others, I was delighted to meet Rick in a rather wet Trafalgar Square last week. What a walk, what a campaign and what a wounded heel. The simple message from the campaign is that the law is not working, and it is up to us in Parliament to do something about it. That was powerfully put by the right hon. Members for North Thanet and for Hemel Hempstead. The biggest question for the Minister is how DEFRA is working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, because this is as much about the online world as it is about animal welfare. During the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, Labour tabled an amendment that we believe would have gone a long way in securing progress on this; I will return to that later.

The concerns about online advertising have been around for a long time, and I will not repeat the points made by others, but it is clear that the pandemic introduced a new range of issues. The world has changed, as the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said. We have gone from the old world of notices on village notice boards to an online world where every notice board is available to everybody, everywhere. That creates a whole new set of problems.

We have heard the figures about the rise in the number of searches and the problems that that creates. From work on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, I could see the surge in prices and the problems with imports from abroad. It is clear that the treatment of imported cats and dogs, particularly, have fallen below acceptable standards and criminal gangs can see a lucrative revenue stream. The Government have recognised those problems, but we feel that their solutions do not go far enough, hence our amendments to try to crack down on that. There were some Government Members who agreed with us on that and decisions made during discussions were fairly close, so I hope that we will have the opportunity to go further on Report.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd made the point very well about changes over the past few years that have led to a range of worrying situations, including the click and drop situation, where animals are collected by potential buyers. Research from the Kennel Club suggests that, for many people, these ways of buying animals have become the new norms. We heard about some developments that have, quite rightly, been introduced, such as the licensing of activities involving animals regulations and Lucy’s law. There is progress, but more needs to be done. The problem that Rick and others have expressed to me is that PAAG may be well meaning, but it is not going to work with a voluntary system. Many PAAG members have come to the same conclusion.

There is a list of things that people want to be done, alongside the enforcement questions. The RSPCA makes it clear that there is plenty of evidence that those who break the rules do not face any real consequences. It tells us that it is not clear that online adverts that break the rules are routinely removed by many sites, and that neither social media sites nor the sellers responsible are punished. As we heard from a number of Members, local authorities do not have the resources or expertise to deal with this, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that if there were a real will, it could be done. The question is if there is a real will and if we are prepared to put resources into that.

Many of these websites and social media platforms, for which I do not think there is much sympathy in this room, are hugely profitable businesses. They are very good at—how can I put it?—being creative about how they account for themselves, but that is part of the problem, as they often have external jurisdictions and we need to work with others to try to clamp down on them. There is a wider problem, but we can see the sheer horribleness of it and its consequences. We need better resourced enforcement, to use some of those tax investigations and so that we can go beyond taking part on a voluntary basis.

To finish with the details of Reggie’s law, as I mentioned, we tried to introduce parts of that through an amendment to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which I hope will be reintroduced on Report. It required all websites that sell animals to verify the identity of all sellers. It also demanded that all prospective sellers who wished to sell a cat or dog aged one year or less should post a photograph of the animal with one of its parents, as a number of Members have suggested. It required listings by commercial sellers that did not include that seller’s licence number to be removed, therefore helping to ensure that all animals sold online came from reputable, trustworthy sources.

We had a discussion in Committee, but the Government chose not to accept the amendment. In her response to the amendment, the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food cited the existing legislation and guidelines that were in place, but they are not enough. The campaign for Reggie demands more, the petitioners demand more, and frankly, I think all of us in this room demand more. The online world has a lot to offer, but it must stop being a haven for those who profit from the cruel exploitation of animals. It is time to crack down on them.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Minister Jo Churchill. Just be mindful that you should leave a couple of minutes at the end for Christina Rees to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Covid has meant that the movement of livestock is recorded much more online, which has shown us ways of traceability.

In addition to the duties to show the age of the animal for sale and a recognised photograph, the commercial third party sale of puppies and kittens has been banned in England since 6 April 2020. That prevents commercial outlets from selling animals in England unless they themselves have bred them. As I said before, licensed breeders are prohibited from showing a puppy to a prospective purchaser unless the biological mum is also present. There is an exemption in limited circumstances when welfare concerns must take precedence. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) pointed out, some unscrupulous breeders rarely think of the consequences for the mother when they are doing this under the line.

Alongside the statutory regulation of commercial pet breeders and pet sellers, we support the self-regulation of online platforms that sell pets. We do this through the close working relationship we have with PAAG, which was created to combat concerns regarding the irresponsible advertising of pets for sale, or for rehoming for exchange.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I heard the Minister mention self-regulation, but are we not agreed that self-regulation is not going to be enough? Are we going to go further?

[Jo Churchill]

Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me a little longer?

PAAG has been engaging with the online marketplaces, to help them distinguish appropriate adverts from those that should be removed. PAAG has developed a set of minimum standards for advertising pets for sale. Several of the UK’s largest classifieds websites have already adopted these minimum standards, which the Government support.

DEFRA also runs a public communications campaign called Petfished, which we heard about earlier; it raises the awareness of issues associated with the low welfare and illegal supply of pets, including encouraging prospective buyers to research thoroughly. The current work in that area also includes progressing the pet theft taskforce recommendation, which was made in September, to encourage sales platforms to implement more identity checks. We will approach that work through our existing relationship with PAAG.

The inclusion of advertising requirements within the local authority licensing regime serves an important purpose, ensuring that those with the power to issue, revoke, refuse or vary a licence can act where requirements are not met. That builds on the local authority’s ability to investigate and prosecute animal welfare issues under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The net result is a rounded approach that lets local authorities investigate local instances of low-welfare breeding and selling, pursue prosecutions where animal welfare standards are breached, and manage the licensing regime. I have heard many hon. Members today saying that there are big gaps, so I will briefly address those comments.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke about mutilations of dogs. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill includes a power to make regulations about the importation of pet animals into Great Britain, for the purposes of promoting animal welfare. That will enable us to clamp down on the importation of dogs that have been subject to low-welfare practices, such as ear cropping or tail docking.

As I said to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), we have regular contact with our Scottish counterparts, but the LAIA regulations require anyone selling rabbits as pets to obtain that valid licence, as with any other area. On online sales, DEFRA does have a responsibility to improve self-regulation through PAAG and the LAIA regulations, but the other aspects sit with DCMS. I will come on to how we are working, and intend to work more fully, with the Department.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) spoke about how particularly special dogs are to families, and how parents need to be present; I urge people to ensure that they are. We have heard about the Dotties and the Doras, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead about how sad a home is when we lose a dog.

Online sales outside the UK that result in animals being imported are not captured by the current licensing regime and neither are pets rehomed by rescue centres, but the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will introduce further restrictions on imports to combat low-welfare movements. We are working towards the licensing of rescue centres.

To conclude, we think a holistic approach is possible, but I am well aware that the key stakeholders—trade associations, PAAG, the Pet Industry Federation, and the Canine and Feline Sector Group—will be integral to collecting evidence to inform DEFRA’s review. In addition, I would welcome any evidence that Justice for Reggie may hold about how we can improve that. Following this debate, I will ask officials to meet representatives of the Justice for Reggie campaign in the coming days so that we can take on board any information and evidence they can provide that can assist our understanding of these issues. There will also be a roundtable with PAAG and some of the online platforms in the new year, which Justice for Reggie would be welcome to attend to make its points in person.

To conclude, the Government are proud of the improved protections that we have introduced and of our ambitious and progressive reform programme, but there is further to go. I hope that those present today have been reassured that we take this issue seriously and will work together, across Government and with those involved, to improve the situation.

Animal (Penalty Notices) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not in the Scottish Parliament, so that might be difficult, but given the groundswell of opinion and support for the Bill, we should certainly be looking at exemplars of best practice right across the United Kingdom and taking those forward wherever they happen. I will certainly be advocating the same, which is why I am here today, to support the Bill whole- heartedly.

We are here in Committee with a broad consensus, although obviously we have to look at some of the details about which there might be disagreement among those present, to take things forward. However, I want the hon. Member for Romford and the Committee to know that the public seem to be firmly behind the Bill. For animal welfare everywhere, the hon. Member promoting the Bill is certainly being innovative, and this ground- breaking work is showing true leadership in animal welfare.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg, for the first time. It is also a pleasure to follow two such constructive and positive speeches. I might be a bit more grouchy, but that is part of my charm. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford on getting a private Member’s Bill this far. We all know the potential hurdles that must be encountered on Friday mornings. He has done a really good job.

Clearly, however, this is a Government Bill. If we look at the action plan for animal welfare—which many of us welcomed—it is clear at section 4, on “Sentience and enforcement”, that the Bill is a Government one, so I will treat it as such: many of my questions are directed to the Minister via the hon Member for Romford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

A comprehensive selection of Bills are going through Parliament, looking at the whole of animal welfare and ensuring that those gaps are plugged. That is why we support today’s Bill. It is about having a proportionate response, and ensuring that where we find a gap we find the right tool to deal with it.

For the most severe crimes of cruelty and abuse, imprisonment will always be the correct response and the most appropriate course of action. We have the necessary powers to deliver that. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which was passed in the summer, introduced a welcome longer prison sentence for heinous animal welfare crimes, which I am sure we all agree with. We now need penalties to redirect behaviour, which was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford made. It is about ensuring that, where appropriate, people can be put on to the correct path of behaviour before more troublesome and more abusive crimes are committed, and that we use the most proportionate and effective measure for each of them.

The Bill provides for penalties to redirect behaviour where animal keepers are not doing the right thing. We have an opportunity to improve how we tackle offences relating to animals and animal products. I would like to restate the relevant offences will be determined during collaboration and formal consultation with stakeholders, including those mentioned here, as I reaffirmed yesterday in discussion with the RSPCA.

Clause 1 is essential to establish the relevant offences and the enforcement authorities for those offences. It lists all the legislation to which penalties notices could apply, protecting the health and welfare of companion, farm and zoo animals, biosecurity and animal products. That does not mean, however, that the penalty notices would be considered an appropriate enforcement measure for every offence listed in the legislation.

Through the passage of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, another private Member’s Bill, it was good to see the punishment for acts of cruelty being bolstered to a custodial sentence of five years. Once again, I would like to put on record that we have no intention of watering down the severity of offences. However, it remains imperative that all the legislation listed in clause 1 remains as it is. In that way, we can properly consider, in collaboration with stakeholders, which offences are suitable for a penalty notice and which are not.

We will explain further in the guidance under clause 4 that will accompany the new regulations, to ensure penalty notices are used appropriately and consistently without diminishing how they address the most serious offences, particularly that of cruelty. Designating the most appropriate enforcement authority for each offence is important to ensure the right people have the right powers to take action and change the behaviour of those committing less serious offences. Actually, it might be the good breeder who helps make sure that the behaviour is the right one. It does not necessarily always fall to an enforcement officer to issue the behaviour notice in the first place. We want the whole system to be one that engages and directs people’s behaviour. Then, the enforcement officers can either bring the direct commentary to the individual or step it up to a fixed penalty notice or, in the case of a heinous crime, use the court.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister’s explanation is helpful, but I echo the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol: one can discern the Bill, as the Minister explains, but would it not be better to have an overreaching explanation so the wider world could understand the thinking? It takes interrogation of the Bill to understand what the plan is.

[Jo Churchill]

Most of our laws are made up of a collection of things that direct people’s behaviour in the right direction. The selection of animal welfare regulations from private Members’ experience, although there are gaps, from the Government legislating and from external stakeholders, is the right way to go on to ensure we cover everything effectively.

Enforcers must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before issuing a penalty notice, which goes to the hon. Gentleman’s point. If, for example, a case ends up in court because someone chooses not to pay because they wish to defend themselves in court, there must be a burden of proof. That is how we envisage this Bill working. Enforcers must be able to clearly articulate the evidence and the offence to the offender and be ready to pursue prosecution if an offender chooses not to pay or wishes to clear their name in court.

The clause also includes provision for the enforcing body to rescind a notice at any point. It adds an additional layer of protection for the recipient, such as in the event of an error or where prosecution is later deemed to be more appropriate. The additional tool will provide early redirection to those who are not doing things quite right, helping to prevent more serious offences from being carried out later.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is the point I was trying to get to earlier. I think the point that Battersea is making—I have not read every piece of legislation it refers to in the level of detail required to know the answer—is that there are offences in there that do not require the same level of proof, in which case it worries, and I worry, that this could be undermined. Could the Minister tell us how many of those cases are within the legislation, or whether that could be revealed by the grid that is to be drawn up?

[Jo Churchill]

The grid has been drawn up. It is just going through the process of clearance. I hope to have it with the hon. Gentleman imminently; I was hoping to get it to him before the Committee sat. It is through discussions with Battersea and other stakeholders that we give clarity to the offences we are trying to pursue. Essentially, this comes down to the burden of proof. Tail docking would be unacceptable in some circumstances, but some working dogs have to have their tails docked, so we need to ensure that we have a proportionate approach. We have spoken to stakeholders to ensure that we do not have unintended consequences there.

Clauses 2 to 9 build on the foundation of clause 1 to provide a clear framework for animals, keepers and enforcers alike. Clause 2 is near identical to clause 1, but brings up the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which is reserved. The purpose of the clause is to extend penalty notices for dangerous dogs offences to Wales, because obviously this legislation applies to England and Wales. Clause 3 is the workhorse of the Bill, setting a maximum fine amount and ensuring that both the enforcement authority and the person offered the fine understand their obligations. Clause 4 ensures that penalty notices cannot be used in a disproportionate way, such as for acts of animal cruelty, once again reaffirming that penalty notices are not for those serious acts but are the yellow card in the toolbox of the enforcer. Clause 4(2) establishes their proper and appropriate use as a means of early redirection. The matters to be taken into account mitigate the risk of penalty notices being used inappropriately without needing to list every specific offence in the Bill.

The matters in clause 4, alongside the guidance that will be laid before Parliament, will ensure that enforcers strike the right balance between advice, guidance, penalty notices and prosecutions, which I am sure we agree is the best way forward to ensure that those committing offences are properly encouraged to fulfil their responsibilities to the animal in their care. This all requires careful consideration, with the appropriate expert input, because it is to the experts that we will look to help us draw up the statutory instruments, at which point, again, there will be a second line of examination to make sure that we are going in the right direction. Laying the guidance before Parliament for specific offences allows time for thorough, crucial engagement with users, stakeholders and enforcers.

Clause 5 states where the proceeds from penalty notices will be paid. It is integral to the sound functioning of the Bill, enabling enforcers to retain costs associated with any enforcement, therefore limiting the financial burden. Clause 6 specifies the reporting requirement, which will ensure transparency and accountability. I share the views of Members from across the Committee—including the hon. Member for Cambridge, who brought this up—that that transparency and accountability through the reporting mechanism and the stakeholder engagement are crucial and will help to ensure that guidance has been followed consistently and that we have more oversight, rather than the numbers being lumped together.

Clause 7 states that secondary legislation will be required before a penalty can be issued for an offence. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is vital that full consideration is given to each offence individually to ensure that only appropriate offences will be included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

Should somebody receive more than one penalty notice, that is part of the suite of evidence that shows that they have not been behaving. We cannot just carry on giving fixed penalty notices. We cannot argue for these measures as having the power of redirection to improve behaviour, and then not expect to see behaviour improving. A penalty notice might be the right thing to do for low-level offences—the hon. Lady gave examples of what those might be—but not for committing the same offence repeatedly. People cannot just be given fixed penalty notices repeatedly. We are looking for another tool in the toolbox to redirect and improve behaviour, to ultimately help care for the health and welfare of animals.

I have answered the hon. Member for Rotherham. The Acts are listed. We will speak to the zoos as we will speak to all Members.

I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for her comments. I hope we will see Scotland follow us in this measure, to ensure that animals right across the UK are looked after, because I know that, across all four nations, we are a true nation of animal lovers.

This is about ensuring the burden of proof. Penalty notices are another tool in the toolbox. I hope we do not focus on the fact that a fixed penalty notice cannot be issued without the proper investigation, because it has to be as robust as it would be if we were pursuing alternative measures. As we work through the finer points with the organisations—I know the hon. Member for Cambridge is in regular contact with them— I hope that we will get to the point where we have reassured him, but, more importantly, reassured those who look after animals that where there are cases, there is extra care for those animals. That is the whole point of introducing the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford said.

[Daniel Zeichner]

rose—

[Jo Churchill]

I feel like I have given way enough. I thank the Committee for its comments and support.

Pet Travel

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ali—I think it is the first time I have done so. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on bringing the debate to the Chamber. I follow the work of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs very closely. It produced an excellent report, which the hon. Lady referred to extensively. Some of the issues are under consideration during the passage of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and I had the pleasure of being on the Bill Committee and will comment on some of those points.

Of course, the debate is also about pet travel in general. I start by following up on some of the comments of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who spoke for the SNP. In my part of the world, huge numbers of people travelled freely to and from our neighbouring countries in the European Union over many years, not just for holidays, but for work. For thousands and thousands of people in and around Cambridge, the changes that were introduced at the start of this year had implications that were perhaps not entirely foreseen, exactly as the hon. Member for Glenrothes has said.

As ever, the House of Commons Library briefing on this was very useful. As it explains, when we left the EU, we were treated as a third country. Now, the new scheme requires pet owners to obtain an animal health certificate for their pet every time they travel to the EU. That certificate must be produced in the 10 days before travel—not exactly always very convenient, when people are busy working. It is valid for four months, and the costs charged vary between an estimated £100 and £150 a time.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

Does the briefing that the hon. Gentleman refers to note what other measures EU member states are imposing on people who want to visit the UK and bring their pets? It would be interesting to see what the like-for-like situation is.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member raises an interesting point. Sadly, we are exactly in that tit-for-tat situation, so it does not work for anybody, which, of course, is what many of us rather feared.

My constituents now face considerable inconvenience and considerable costs. Frankly, it gets worse. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes said, the Government have negotiated for part 2 listed status, and believe that we should qualify for part 1 listed status, but it is of course part of a wider negotiation, which is the problem we have entered into.

I was quite shocked to read about the situation with Northern Ireland, which effectively means that animal health certificates are needed for trips in and out of Northern Ireland. When asked about the costs, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) said, in reply to a written question, that the cost of AHCs is

“a private matter between individual practices and their clients”.

That is a statement of truth, but no consolation for people who face those very high costs. It is a very unsatisfactory situation. Obviously, we hope that it can be improved in the future.

[Mrs Murray]

I am sorry to intervene again, but when I worked as a GP receptionist before I came to this place, suggested charges were circulated to all GPs on all sorts of things that they would term “private work”, including diving medicals, signing letters and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman have any information on what the BMA recommends GPs should charge?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am slightly confused by the question because I think we are talking about animals and pets.

[Mrs Murray]

The hon. Gentleman was talking about charges.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am talking about pets, and the situation is very clearly different from what it was last year. The hon. Member for Glenrothes said that he hoped for a consensual debate—he is absolutely right to—but I am just laying out the facts. Pet travel is more difficult, and although it may be a difficult question to answer, I hope to hear from the Minister about progress on that.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall raised a whole series of absolutely appropriate questions around pet smuggling, and I will address those.

[Mrs Murray]

To clarify, I should have said the British Veterinary Association and veterinary practitioners.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Ah, that is a different issue entirely. I have looked at the BVA policy position on pet travel, and it has a whole series of detailed recommendations. I am not sure that I want to take the Minister through all the various forms of tapeworm and rabies so late on a Thursday afternoon. Clearly, expert advice on how we might be able to improve the position is available to the Government, and I am sure that they will be mindful of it.

I will be brief, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Ms Ali, because many of the points have already been well made by both speakers so far. I very much agree with the hon. Member for South East Cornwall about cats—I am a cat person myself. In the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee, we had considerable back and forth on whether the legislation treated cats fairly. I had representations from Cats Protection, and it is fair to say that we would like to strengthen that Bill. I am sure that the Minister will reflect any comments and observations made this afternoon back to her ministerial colleague,

The good news is that the Bill will be back with us on Report and there will be some exciting amendments for people to support. I hope that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall will be with us on those points as we try to strengthen the Bill on behalf of cats. In Committee, there was considerable consensus—sadly, not with the Government, but with some Government Back Benchers—in two or three areas in particular, including whether five or three pets should be checked at the border, and of course, the EFRA Committee had a view on that. The consensus led to a historic tied vote in Committee, which was carried for the Government by the Chair’s reluctant casting vote—the Chair was a Labour Member but he did the decent thing. That matter will, I suspect, be an issue on Report.

Similarly, there was consensus on the age of animals that are being imported, pregnancy and, in particular, fashion-based mutilation. I think we all find it extraordinary that anyone would want to do those horrible things to dogs, or that anyone would want to buy a dog with cropped ears, but it seems, sadly, that people do and that there is a market for that, although I note that many of those poor animals are now being dumped post pandemic, which shows how difficult some of this stuff is. We would also like the legislation to be strengthened in the same way to protect against the declawing of cats, which I think most of us find extraordinary but which is being done, particularly in America. As the hon. Lady said, there are some implementation issues for border checks, because we would need visual checks rather than the current processes to make that work.

Although there are perhaps one or two points on which we cannot agree, we can agree on a lot. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to respond on pet travel. We all know that pets are part of people’s families. We want to ensure that our country is protected, particularly against rabies and other diseases, and to crack down on those who pursue the vile trades that have been mentioned. Provided that pet owners can travel with their pets safely, we want them to be able to do so in the smoothest and most efficient way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

You are not; but a lot of us here are. Those who are not are missing out, I think—hands up for cats. I did not get the name of the shadow Minister’s cat.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am afraid my cat has been 25 years gone, but I and the Minister’s colleague the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) have frequently mentioned Brian, who unfortunately was a female cat—I was not entirely accurate in my identification.

[Rebecca Pow]

And we are still talking about Brian, the female cat, 25 years on, which is pretty good, isn’t it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very clear point. Obviously, the details of the consultation will be analysed. A lot of views were put forward, and I obviously want to give reassurances that the issue will be fully considered and the response will be published.

One or two Members mentioned enforcement, and the Animal and Plant Health Agency works collaboratively with Border Force and other operational partners at ports, airports, and inland, sharing intelligence to enforce the pet travel scheme, disrupt illegal imports and seize non-compliant animals. The enabling power in the Bill allows the Government to make provisions about the enforcement of any new prohibitions brought in under the power. In addition, APHA has the ability, under existing legislation, to undertake checks on pets, including documentary, identity and physical checks.

We do not propose to make fundamental changes to the enforcement regime as we believe the network of agencies and stakeholders who work on puppy smuggling are doing a good job. We operate one of the most rigorous and robust pet-checking regimes in Europe, and all non-commercial dogs, cats and ferrets entering Great Britain on approved routes—every route other than via the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Crown Dependencies—under the pet travel rules undergo 100% documentary and identity checks by authorised pet checkers.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall is correct that commercial movements of cats, dogs and ferrets into Great Britain from the European Union must soon enter Great Britain via a designated border control post. Under the Government’s phased border strategy, post-import checks on commercial cats, dogs and ferrets from the EU are due to be replaced with border control post risk-based checks when sufficient capacity allows. All third-country—so non-EU—shipments are currently checked at the border control post prior to entry. That will continue. As I mentioned, APHA will continue to work collaboratively with Border Force and other operational partners to share intelligence to disrupt this illegal trade.

[Daniel Zeichner]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I will take the intervention, but first I want to say a little more that might answer the question the hon. Gentleman is about to ask. He raised the issues —as did our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant)—of the part 2 third country status. The UK has been formally listed as a part 2 third country for the purposes of the EU pet travel scheme, which means that new rules post the transition period now apply to pet movement from Great Britain to the EU and Northern Ireland. These rules are set out in the EU pet travel scheme.

We are committed to simplifying pet movements. As set out in the July ’21 Command Paper, we seek a new balance with the EU that would allow pets that meet UK standards to move more freely. DEFRA recognises the undue impact that these changes are having on many people, including pet owners and assistance dog users. DEFRA has been clear that there are no animal health or biosecurity justifications for those additional rules for travel to the EU, and we seek agreement with the EU Commission on awarding GB part 1 listed status and recognition of the UK’s tapeworm-free status. Achieving them would obviously alleviate the most onerous pet travel rules for all travellers. We see no valid animal health reasons for those not to be granted.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will give way now. I hope that I have already answered the impending question.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very grateful to the Minister. Does she agree that these extra burdens—the £150, the 10 days—make life much more difficult for many of our constituents?

[Rebecca Pow]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. That is why DEFRA is working hard on the issue. We already have one of the most rigorous pet-checking regimes, to protect our biosecurity. We have submitted a detailed technical case setting that out. We continue to engage with the EU to come up with a much more workable situation.

You will be pleased to hear, Ms Ali, that I am going to wind up my speech. I reassure hon. Members and my hon. Friends that the Government’s commitment to protecting and enhancing the welfare of animals is uppermost. I believe we have already achieved a great deal, but we want to go further, hence the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. We want to ensure that all animals are afforded the care, protection and respect that they deserve. I am proud of the work going on through the Bill and the measures that the Government have already taken. I reassure Members that officials are working hard behind the scenes. That consultation is being analysed and will be published shortly.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for introducing it. I think we all agree that we are a nation of pet lovers, and cat lovers in particular. Once the debate is over, I will be heading for the train to get back to see my two cats.

Food and Drink: UK Economy

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) not just on bringing the debate but on introducing it in a very informative way. I will not repeat the good points he made about the success of the sector. It has been a remarkably wide-ranging debate, from tenanted pubs, to Strangford, to whisky in Scotland—and who could forget the invitation to Angus, which I am sure we will all be taking up?

It has been a remarkable achievement of the sector to maintain the reliable availability of food and drink at prices that most can afford 24/7, 365 days a year. There is much to be proud of, but it has been a tough time. I am grateful to many in the supply chain who speak to me regularly, particularly the Food and Drink Federation in the context of today, but the story over the last 18 months is a mixed bag. I want to particularly focus my comments on those who work in the sector and pick up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra).

At the retail end, the violence and abuse that shopworkers face has been highlighted by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Sadly, I see it in my own city. I pay tribute to the Co-op stores in my city and particularly to PC Matthews—or EJ, as she is known—because they have made a huge difference in cracking down on some of this abuse. People should not face abuse when they are at work.

It is not just the retail sector; as we go down the chain, there is the processing sector. Far too many people are working on contract and too many are on poor wages in shared accommodation—frankly, there is a real covid risk there. Sadly, I am told by the GMB that some employers that introduced more flexible approaches during the pandemic have been pulling back from some of those. That is really dangerous for all of us. We cannot have people going to work because they cannot afford to isolate. With omicron upon us, may I ask the Minister what plans she and her colleagues have to tackle the sick pay issue once and for all? Some employers have behaved well, but others have not and we need the Government to act on that.

I am also grateful to the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union for highlighting the sad issue of low pay in the sector, which means that some are not able to afford the very products that they produce, because of their low wages. In a survey, it found that 40% had reported not being able to afford food on some occasions, which is shocking.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has been highlighting this scandal through the Right to Food campaign. The campaign has launched a study to look at the impact of food poverty within the food sector, and I commend my hon. Friend for that, but what are the Government doing? Can the Minister tell me what she is doing to tackle low pay and insecurity within the sector? What analysis has her Department done?

That leads me to the point made by a number of hon. Members about labour shortages in the sector. We all know the problems, but I ask the Minister on behalf of many: when are we going to have some clarity on the seasonal worker pilot scheme for next year? Producers really need to know. One operator told me recently that in some farms up to 35% of edible crops were wasted last year, as a direct result of these shortages. These points were raised effectively earlier in the debate.

What about ornamentals? Does the Minister really want almost 300 million daffodils wasted again next year? There are also the points made about the pig sector. The figures that I heard, yesterday, were an on-farm cull of 16,000, but we know that actually the figure is sadly likely to be much higher. How many of the pork butchers that were promised have arrived? How much has gone into private storage so far? I fear that the answer may well be none and none.

We also need to look at the wider supply chain issues. Lots of points have been made about the resilience of our food supply. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer present, made a point about shorter supply chains being necessary. We know that under the Agriculture Act 2020, the Government are bound to produce a report on food security by the end of the Session. That is within two weeks.

[Victoria Prentis]

indicated assent.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I see the Minister nodding. I wonder whether she could tip us off about when we might expect that.

We also need fairness within the supply chain. We have heard about the power of the retailers, and the imbalance of power. What we are seeing at the moment, I fear, is that although consumers may be benefiting from the price competition between retailers, they are just pushing the pressure down the supply chain harder and harder, which is not sustainable. Perhaps she could tell us something about where the Government have got to on those supply chain contracts, and on dairy contracts, the consultation on which was, of course, a while ago. She may need the opportunity to once again comment on competition laws, and suspension and relaxation, which has happened a number of times.

In the interest of time, I will not make any further points on farming and environmental land management, but we are hoping for some more information soon. Finally, I praise and thank all those in the British food and drink sector. We are fortunate to have a sector that can produce food to such good standards and to such excellent quality, and we cherish it. That is why we want a plan from the Government. We have repeatedly called on the Government to produce a plan for the sector: a plan for food, a plan to get to net zero and a plan to buy British. If the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings were here now, I would tell him, “There is a party that will do that!”, if he is dissatisfied with his own side. We want to get to a situation where people can buy our food with confidence as part of that strategy, but that strategy must also improve conditions for the workers throughout the sector who have given so much. There is plenty to celebrate, but much to be done.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Over to you, Victoria Prentis. We need to end at 6.5 pm.

UK-EU Fisheries Allocations

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As ever, Ms McVey, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, and I think we are all grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing today’s debate and to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing it so expertly. I also endorse the comments made by several speakers about the fact that this really ought to be a debate held in Government time in the main Chamber, and should take place on an annual basis.

I thank the many speakers who paid gracious tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). Much as I am pleased to be here this morning, I would rather that it were in other circumstances. Those tributes were most gracious, and the fact that he is here this morning speaks volumes about him as a person. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I will start by echoing some of my hon. Friend’s words, and paying thanks and tribute to all the fishers who go out all the time in all weathers. Agriculture is a dangerous occupation, but fishing is clearly even more dangerous, and all those people deserve our thanks. I have often turned on the radio in the morning around this time of year and heard successive Ministers talking about fishing—it is that time of year, isn’t it? Sometimes those Ministers were my friends, when Labour was in government; other times, they were people I knew, dealing with these complicated questions on the radio, often with interviewers who, I sometimes suspected, were struggling even more to understand the complexities involved. People might have imagined that those questions were a thing of the past now that we are an independent nation. However, we all know that in the real world, whether a nation is inside a bigger trading bloc or outside it, the negotiations go on, exactly as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out. There was red tape, and guess what? There is still red tape. Is that not remarkable?

Perhaps the most obvious observation is that the key thing is for a nation to ask itself how it gets on with its neighbours because, whatever world we live in, that is a key question. It is a question that Labour is now focused on: how to make the new post-Brexit world work for the UK and, in this case, particularly for the fishers and those who process fish. Whenever I come to do a debate, I often turn first to the Library briefing because it is always excellent and full. I often turn to the news items near the end because that gives a flavour of what has been going on. How has it been going? BBC News online asks, “Why is there a row over fishing rights?” The Times reports “French fishermen shut off port” and The Maritime Executive says French fishermen blockade channel ports. The Telegraph says French fishermen threaten to blockade and “Britain and the EU stand on the brink of a trade war”. The Times states “Lord Frost warns EU against ‘massive retaliation’”. I could go on. When we think about it, it has not gone that well over the last year, is it?

If that is what the press thinks, what do the fishers think? I find myself turning to the NFFO report on the “Brexit Balance Sheet”. It is pretty damning. In response to the trade and co-operation agreement deal, the NFFO says:

“The UK fishing industry was shocked at the scale of the UK’s capitulation”.

Those are strong words and ones I have heard around the room this morning. It was

“a decision made at the highest reaches of Government”

that came about

“despite the promises, commitments and assurances made during”

the campaign by some of the Members who clearly are not here this morning.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Just as he should not judge a book by its cover, neither should he just look at those headlines and think that it is all doom and gloom. He is welcome to Brixham at any time to see one of the success stories of the fishing industry. Why does he give the NFFO report and its number greater weight than the MMO report that said there was a £143 million uplift from the TCA?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am always happy to listen to all voices, but these are people who have a strong interest in the industry. The report carries on to say:

“Access to fish in UK waters—a key bargaining lever in annual fisheries negotiations—was ceded to the EU for 6 years (at least)”,

as we have already heard. We even failed to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, which is something that most coastal states take for granted.

We have heard from other Members why we got to this state, because we all remember what was happening this time last year. I am sure the Minister will remember the desperate telephone call over new year to try and explain what had been going on. We know what had been going on: it was rushed and botched. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, the fishers were betrayed on this issue and became the problem child and so on. I suspect the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) wants me to give way.

[Mr Goodwill]

Of course, we are all disappointed at the delay in becoming a truly independent coastal state. Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that, as a country that exports most of the fish that we catch, we still have access to the European markets, which is as important for many—particularly for shellfish fishermen off the Yorkshire coast—as the fisheries agreement for quota stocks?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely recognise that point. The point I am making, though, is that things have not gone well over the past year and it is entirely reasonable, a year on, for us to challenge the Minister as she goes into negotiations. To complete the point about the NFFO report, in the introduction by Barrie Deas, where the Government’s figures mention £148 million in additional benefit for the UK fishing fleet by 2026, the NFFO’s figures suggest a £300 million loss. I do not dispute that different people can cut the figures different ways. They are not simple issues. I just report what people are telling us.

In this morning’s debate, we have heard about the complexity of the issues and the range of experiences around the British Isles. It is an extraordinarily complicated industry and, frankly, I do not think the Opposition have to make the points because they have been well made. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a powerful contribution, and I am sure the Minister heard loud and clear the problems to which he alluded. Throughout this year, my hon. Friends have raised repeated concerns about the plight of small boats, particularly through the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has been relentless in criticising the hapless catch app, which was quick to be implemented in contrast to the speed at which support for small boats was not supplied. We also heard about the paper fish in the quotas. Sadly, hon. Members have made the point that the quotas are not always as they seem, and the quota swaps issues, complicated as they are, clearly are not working for our people. The shellfish sector was in the headlines at the beginning of this year and the problems continue. If it has had problems, so too has the distant water fleet.

I could not help noticing the Minister’s visit to Norway in the summer to meet the splendidly named Odd Emil Ingebrigtsen, who was Norway’s Minister of Fisheries at the time. I am glad that she went, but what were the consequences of the visit? What progress has been made? That brings me to a series of questions that are not dissimilar from some that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members, and which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer. Will she spell out what the Government’s objectives are for December’s Agriculture and Fisheries Council? Will she tell us where the Norway deal is for our distant water fleet, particularly those based out of Hull? Will she make a statement to the House on the outcome of any deal and any quotas?

In conclusion, it is absolutely clear that the Government were guilty of overpromising and underdelivering. Thankfully, the Opposition want exactly the opposite, and we want to build on developing a new, constructive relationship with our neighbours—not to get headlines, but to get the outcome that our fishers need.

Draft Eggs (England) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I thank the Minister for her full and clear introduction, as ever.

As we belatedly start to introduce checks on goods coming from the EU, the issue of where and when checks will be made will, I imagine, be an issue that will crop up for many goods. Today, however, we are talking about eggs. We are advised that class A eggs are not currently imported from outside the European Union, so in practice this applies only to eggs from the EU. However, as the Minister said, the provision could potentially be extended in future. There is, of course, the ongoing issue of Northern Ireland to consider.

I was struck by the questions raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, following which there are a number of issues that I hope the Minister can clear up. Returning to the well-worn subject of arrangements on the Northern Ireland border, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said in response to a question from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that eggs from Northern Ireland will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain, which is as one would expect. It is not clear to me entirely how many eggs are going backwards and forward anyway. I am told by experts that most countries like to produce their own eggs. I therefore imagine that most in the island of Ireland are produced and consumed there.

I commend the quarterly egg statistics—which make for fascinating reading—maintained and published by DEFRA. Looking at those, it seems as if the numbers in Northern Ireland egg packing stations—about one sixth of the UK total—tell a slightly different story. Will the Minister tell us how many eggs that are produced in Great Britain are shipped to NI and could she confirm that they will be checked at the border, as stated in DEFRA’s response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee? How much time is needed for those checks, and what is the estimated cost?

I would also be grateful if the Minister could provide some insight into how the current negotiations on the NI protocol between Lord Frost and the EU might impact on the future importation of eggs from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. I suspect she may not wish to comment on that.

Appendix 4 of the SLSC’s report shows that the Committee raised with DEFRA its concerns that the majority of respondents to DEFRA’s initial consultation were actually against the proposals in this instrument. Indeed, paragraphs 10.4 and 10.5 of the explanatory memorandum helpfully explain that over 80% of those consulted opposed the proposal and that the answer to this clear expression of interest was that

“a round table will be scheduled”.

Presumably a roundtable was scheduled to explain to them why they were wrong.

Looking at the response to the SLSC report, the roundtable seems to have been held on 24 September, where it was argued that this instrument will allow the Animal and Plant Health Agency to carry on randomly checking for both domestic and imported eggs at warehouses, distribution centres and packing centres and that if egg inspections were conducted at the border, inspectors would be unable to maintain their normal rate of inspection. That sounds basically like a cost argument to me. DEFRA helpfully says:

“It is likely that inspectors would be unable to maintain their normal rate of inspections on… imported eggs.”

In other words: “We won’t check at the border, because that requires extra resource.” However, checking at the border may help to stop potential future fraud, and that would be worth doing.

It seems to me that when the Government promise no imports of goods imported at lower standards, that is a promise based on trust, not checking. Somehow we will trust that others would not be so unsporting as to send us lower-standard goods, because we trust them not to. That sounds pretty weak, which may be why some in the industry are not entirely convinced.

The Opposition will not oppose today’s regulations, but it seems that we are opening ourselves up to a situation where other countries check our goods going into their country, but we just wave stuff through. It is an open invitation to fraud, and it is very tough on our producers, who face much tougher checks than their competitors.

Finally, we have had correspondence with a representative from the egg industry, who raised the issue of costs. Will the Minister please confirm that the costs associated with checking eggs at packing centres will not be borne by the egg industry?

Today’s debate should guarantee our high animal welfare, food safety and marketing standards, and I share the concerns of industry stakeholders that DEFRA has failed to provide sufficient reassurance that these proposals will uphold those standards.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am very happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points. However, I do not currently know the exact number of eggs that are shipped to Northern Ireland, so I am happy to write to him on that specific point. The key issue, for the purposes of the draft SI, is that the current checking arrangements for Northern Ireland will continue to apply; there will be no change, at all, to the way that that works.

As I said earlier, compared with the entire industry, the number of eggs we import is relatively small, at about 10%; we also export a certain number. The numbers fluctuate a bit but, as the hon. Gentleman said, British consumers prefer to eat locally produced eggs—I suspect that consumers across the rest of the world do, too.

In the consultation, the reason why the stakeholders initially objected to the change was that, of course, the British egg industry is very ambitious and wants to produce more eggs, so that we do not import any at all. That was very much the tenor of the conversation that the Department had with industry. I am glad to say that the roundtable, which was held to talk through concerns raised, went very well, and my officials were able to allay industry’s concerns. In summary, the read-out from the roundtable was that, while domestic producers felt that eggs should be checked at the border, egg marketing inspectors from APHA were able to explain that additional resources would be needed to do this, which might necessarily divert resources from other functions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear what the Minister says and I am reassured. However, from conversations with people in the egg industry my sense is that they are deeply concerned about the threat of lower-cost producers being able to undercut them. I am told that there is something like a 16% cost advantage from other egg producers in Europe. Should we not be concerned about that?

[Victoria Prentis]

No, we certainly should not. If we pass this SI, APHA will continue to undertake risk assessment checks, both on domestic and imported goods. Other checks happen already, such as the sanitary checks—the safety checks—that happen at the border, as I mentioned earlier. The Food Standards Agency is also able to make checks on safety at the retail or processing end—that is normally where those checks take place. British consumers, and the British egg industry, should be under no illusion at all that imported and domestic eggs will not continue to be properly checked to ensure that they come up to our rightly high standards.

During the course of the roundtable, we also explained that imported eggs will be subject to exactly the same checks as domestic eggs, and that we will not import eggs from third countries until a full assessment has been made. Truthfully, we do not feel that is likely to be necessary or, indeed, to happen.

I hope that hon. Members fully understand the need for this statutory instrument, which ensures that marketing standard checks on class A eggs continue to happen in the locations where they take place today. This SI should avoid any disruption to the level of checks that currently take place and will allow egg marketing inspectors to continue to uphold our high standards. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he feels very strongly about this issue, but I reassure him that we have tried to use the normally understood meaning of the word “specialist”.

Schedule 5 makes various amendments to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Some of the amendments are technical in nature—for example, including the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which for some reason was not included before. I really have no idea why that was the case. Schedule 5 also removes circuses, because that reference is now obsolete following the passing of other legislation, and increases the available penalties. Importantly, schedule 5 amends the 1981 Act to ensure that each zoo will have a condition on its licence that it must meet the standards specified under section 9 of the Act. Currently, local authorities must only “have regard to” the standards produced under section 9. We think this change will make the standards easier to follow and enforce. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge will not press his amendments to a Division.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

This is a short clause, but it is complicated, as the Minister said. I am grateful to her for her introduction, and she has clarified one or two points that I still want to pursue. I will start with amendments 121 and 122, which have been tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, but I also want to speak to amendments 83 and 84 and new clause 4, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), both of whom spoke on these issues on Second Reading. I am sure the Minister was listening closely, as she always does, to the Second Reading debate, in which considerable concern and interest, and some unease, was expressed by Members of different parties about some of the proposals.

Despite the Minister’s reassurances, our amendments seek to ensure that there is greater oversight of the Government’s zoo advisory body, the Zoo Expert Committee, and the process for setting future conservation standards. Amendment 83 would make a full consultation with appropriate stakeholders on any future standards changes not just a matter of best practice, but a requirement. We will probably labour this point a bit: it is not that we do not trust the Government, but who knows what future Governments will do? We think that is an important point, as others have expressed, and it should not be left to discretion; it should absolutely be a requirement.

As the Minister has set out, the Government are making promises, and although we have no reason to disbelieve them, we want the legislation strengthened. There is no statutory requirement on future Ministers to consult on further updates. The role of the Zoos Expert Committee is a dilemma, frankly, because we have had cause for concern in other areas when reports from expert committees have not necessarily always been published. That is why people are pressing for a stronger system. We think it important not only that there is a consultation, but that everything is done transparently. The Bill does not currently provide for a statutory requirement on future Ministers to involve the Zoos Expert Committee as part of any review of the conservation standards, or to formally respond to that committee’s guidance.

Amendment 83 would ensure that any advice provided by the Zoos Expert Committee, and the response by Ministers, is transparent and open to the public. I have heard what has been said about a website, but I am afraid we have seen examples of that not working—they are almost always controversial cases, quite frankly, and those are the ones that people are interested in. If that transparency is good enough for the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which is coming our way soon, it is good enough for this Bill, so we think that the amendment makes a reasonable demand. Amendment 121 puts it slightly differently but also requires the Secretary of State to consult the Zoos Expert Committee and to publish its advice.

Amendment 84 deals with the vexed issue of conservation. The Minister is right that the understanding of the term “conservation” has changed. I am grateful to both Chester Zoo and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums for their advice. Both have expressed concern about the need for the Bill to provide a clear definition of “conservation”, because they fear that future definitions may not fully capture the breadth of the work done by zoos. I am told that zoos globally contribute more than $350 million annually to species conservation programmes in the wild, making them the world’s third-largest funder of species conservation after the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Nature Conservancy.

I am also told that UK zoos contribute 10% of that global zoo total, so we are making a big contribution. Most of that funding comes from the large charitable zoos, which I am told receive no direct public subsidy, and generate the surpluses for conservation through visitor revenue. They support more than 800 projects in 105 countries, providing direct conservation action for 488 species of animals and plants. They believe it important that the Government’s definition of zoo conservation accurately reflects the wide range of work.

Amendment 84 would ensure that the Bill recognises

“a broad range of conservation activities”

and that, alongside education and research, it explicitly includes “species recovery work”, both in situ and ex situ. Although in situ species reintroduction and overseas field projects, for example, are vital to zoo conservation efforts, they alone do not fully capture the extent of the work that takes place or the impact that zoos have. To put it simply, that excellent work cannot be achieved without a lot of back-up within the zoos themselves., including the world-class care by keepers, the feed, the bedding, the veterinary attention, the facilities, the scientific development and the carefully planned and co-ordinated breeding plans. I perhaps got slightly confused by “ex situ” and “in situ”, but basically, the ex situ work is an essential component of a holistic planned approach to species recovery.

Amendment 84 would ensure a broad understanding of zoo conservation, and that the standards accurately reflect the different ways in which zoos achieve conservation impacts, helping to ensure the continuation of the vital work that zoos undertake in support of international conservation efforts. Put together, the amendments would ensure parliamentary scrutiny of future changes to conservation standards. We think that is important because, despite the Government’s decision to take the standards out of primary legislation, those standards are to become a core part of the zoo licensing and conservation requirements, so we believe that there should be democratic oversight of them.

I listened closely to what the Minister said about amendment 119 and I was reassured by what she said. It is a technical point and it depends how the draft Bill is read. We are concerned that different standards of animal welfare might be applied to “different descriptions of zoo.” The Minister made it clear that is not what is meant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

Oh good—please do.

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, please don’t, because obviously that would upset the Whip and then it would have to be changed.

Finally, we come to amendment 120, which I really hoped was going to be a final victory and was written with guidance from the British Veterinary Association. We have discussed the amendment and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border put things very well, although I wait to see whether his helpful suggestion about amending it further will be well received or not. The issue is around “specialist” and “expert”. We cannot see why the Government cannot just change that word, so, Mr Davies, we will press this amendment to a vote.

[Dr Hudson]

Again, we are coming back to this issue of specialist competency and expertise. As a new Member of Parliament, I am new to the system but I wish to put on record the frustrations with how we are drafting law. Obviously, we cannot change hundreds of years of history relating to how we do it, but it is very frustrating to have amendments from both sides of the House—from Government and Opposition—when if there were consultation with members of the Bill Committee, in a similar way that Select Committee members agree the final wording of a report, I am sure we could nail all the different issues and agree a sensible form of wording. When amendments are tabled and there has not been any discussion about them, then those amendments may pass or fail depending on the wording. If an amendment is incorrectly worded, then we cannot support it. If we could get together, consult and agree on wording, then we would pass better law.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a very sensible suggestion. I fear we are not quite in that world yet, although it is miraculous how things, as they go through, can sometimes change. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the message has been heard on this side, but we will still press the amendment to a vote. One never knows—we might even win. On that basis, I do not wish to pursue any of the other amendments.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I declare an interest as I am a member of the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group and I have Twycross zoo in my patch, in regard to which I have spent a lot of time and effort.

I was intrigued to hear my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments at the start. Would she be kind enough to expand a little further? As put across by the Opposition, there is some concern about the definition of conservation. I was pleased to hear that it will be kept broad, fluid and future proof, because I think that is important. I am also pleased to hear that there is more transparency with regards to ZEC and that opening up. That will go a long way to alleviate concerns that may be there.

It is fair to say there is a rift within the zoo community and the wider conservation community about where things should and should not be kept, and how they should be looked after, so there is wide agreement that the welfare aspect of the Bill is important. The reason there is an interest in the definition of conservation is around the question of what is deemed to be conservation. Are zoos arks? Are they exhibits? Should they have no place at all? That is one of the threats that the zoo community may be feeling.

I have no truck with zoos with low standards. They should not exist and the Bill provides legislation to drive up those standards, which is well founded. However, if the definition of conservation is too narrow and not all encompassing, there is concern for purely monetary reasons because of positions with turnover and with money being given out just to specific areas. As Twycross zoo has recently got £19.9 million in the levelling-up fund for an education, science and conservation centre, the hope is that we will have a regional and national centre of excellence training the top-level conservationists of the future. That is obviously something very good for us locally, regionally, nationally and internationally, and it needs to be recognised for the work it will contribute to saving species in the future.

I was pleased to hear that the Minister can confirm that species recovery, both in situ and ex situ, can be included—I think it was hinted at. I was also pleased that the Minister will take away the fact that such consideration must be out there; getting that information out to the broader zoo and conservation community may help relieve a lot of the angst that is felt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

The theft of a pet is devastating. We all know that pet sales increased during the pandemic, as we were all at home and felt that we would like to share our homes with various furry friends. As a consequence, the price of puppies and kittens rose, which is thought to have triggered a rise in the abhorrent crime of pet theft. In May this year, the Government launched the pet theft taskforce. It was asked to gather evidence and make representations, and I thank its members for their speedy work—they produced a report in September. I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) for chairing the taskforce and for his continued interest in this area.

In brief, the taskforce found that there is a growing feeling among the public that the current laws do not sufficiently recognise the difference between pets and inanimate objects. The taskforce therefore recommended the creation of a new offence of pet abduction, which acknowledges that pets form bonds with their owners and that their welfare can be adversely affected when they are removed from their primary carer. To start with, the new offence will apply to dogs—that is a recommendation from the taskforce. The reason is that seven of 10 animal thefts are thefts of dogs, and most of the evidence on the effect on animals is concentrated on dogs at the moment. However—you have heard me talk about cattism before, Mr Davies—we need to continue to gather evidence on other species, so we are taking a power to extend the offence to other common pet species in the future. The new offence has penalties that mirror those in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Well, here is a surprise: pet theft through the back door. We have been calling for it for ages, and we are absolutely supportive of it, but what a way to do it on such a significant issue. The amendment was tabled on Friday, after the evidence session, and there is no Library briefing. Of course, the amendment, as drafted, is not actually about pet theft; it is about dog theft. It may reasonably be asked why it does not apply to cats. I understand the additional power. The Minister denied cattism the other day, but I feel that the charge will continue to be levelled.

This is such last-minute stuff. I notice the Department managed to get its press briefing out, although it muddled pet theft and dog theft throughout. That is my gripe with the amendment: this is a really important issue that has been added to the Bill very late in the day, which means that we do not have the opportunity to scrutinise it in the way that we would have liked. We had relevant witnesses at the evidence session last week, and we did not ask them about it. I could not help noticing that, unusually, the Minister’s speech was handwritten. Goodness me! This is so typical of the Government at the moment. What a mess.

There is a problem with this. If we do it in a rush, we will get it wrong. We have seen it before with dogs, so can we repeat the same mistake again? There are a number of unanswered questions, particularly on the concept of lawful control and complicated questions of ownership. One can immediately see that the connected person test could easily be problematic. There are many multi-person households in this country, and there are millions of people living together who are not in civil partnerships. Many are reconstituted or blended families. Perhaps Government Members have not noticed what the modern world is like—or perhaps they have. In a domestic row, for example, one person goes off with the dog or cat—they consider it theirs—and the other gets the police involved for a claim of pet theft, which carries a five-year prison sentence. The connected person test really needs to be looked at properly, not just brought to a Bill Committee late in the day. I am sure that it will be subject to further scrutiny elsewhere, but this is no way to do it.

New clause 6 states that the Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (1) if there is evidence that

“removing an animal of that species from a person with whom it has formed a bond may adversely affect its wellbeing.”

How is that test to be assessed? Who is the judge? Does a snake get sad when it is parted from its keeper? I do not know, but we ought to find a way of finding out before we pass this legislation. Maybe this should have been done in the right sequence, starting with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. But, as ever with this Government, it is all about a rush to get a headline—it could have been drafted by the Prime Minister.

To be helpful, I direct the Minister’s attention to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, to which Labour tabled amendments last November to deal with pet theft. Again, amendments were tabled on Report, in July this year, and not just by the Labour Front Bench but by a cross-party group of esteemed parliamentarians, including many senior Government Members. The Government opposed all those amendments.

I find myself in some difficulty this morning, because although we absolutely want the legislation on the statute book, we do not want rushed legislation that leads to unintended consequences. I have some sympathy with the Minister, as I suspect that she is embarrassed about it, but that is the problem we have. We will not oppose the new clause, but we think that the provisions need to be looked at much more carefully. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the same kind of situation as with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

[The Chair]

Don’t slip into prime ministerial sentience! I call Dr Neil Hudson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause is a standard provision that simply provides for the short title of the Bill once it becomes an Act at Royal Assent. The short title of this Bill will be the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Animal Welfare Act 2006: minor amendments

‘(1) The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 31(1) (time limits for prosecutions) after “under” insert “or by virtue of”.

(3) In section 51 (inspectors)—

(a) in subsection (5) after “under” insert “or by virtue of”;

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

“(7) In this section, a reference to the purposes of this Act includes the purposes of provision made under the Act.”’—(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006 so that section 31 (time limits for prosecutions) applies to offences under regulations under that Act (as well as to offences under that Act) and section 51 (inspectors) applies in relation to provisions of regulations under that Act (as well as in relation to provisions of that Act).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Concurrent functions in Wales

‘(1) Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 9(8)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to reserved authorities)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (vi);

(b) at the end of paragraph (vii) insert “; or the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.”

(i) the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.”

(3) In paragraph 11(6)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to Ministers of the Crown)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (vi);

(b) at the end of paragraph (vii) insert “; or the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.””

(i) the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.”’—(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause amends Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 so as to disapply certain restrictions in that Schedule in relation to functions conferred by or under the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Regulations

“(1) This section applies to regulations under any provision of this Act except section 51.

(2) A power to make regulations includes power to make—

(a) different provision for different purposes;

(b) different provision for different areas;

(c) consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(3) Regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers are to be made by statutory instrument.

(4) For regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).

(5) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)—

(a) regulations under section 3(1) or (3)(b),

(b) regulations under section 22,

(c) regulations under Part 2,

(d) regulations under Part 3 other than regulations made by virtue of section 46(2A)(c) (power to prescribe fee for making application), or

(e) regulations under section 50 that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation,

unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) The following regulations made by the Scottish Ministers are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010)—

(a) regulations under Part 3 other than regulations made by virtue of section 46(2A)(c);

(b) regulations under section 50 that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation.

(8) Any other regulations made by the Scottish Ministers are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of that Act).

(9) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)—

(a) regulations under section 3(1) or (3)(b),

(b) regulations under section 22,

(c) regulations under Part 3 other than regulations made by virtue of section 46(2A)(c), or

(d) regulations under section 50 that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation,

unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.

(10) Any other statutory instrument made by the Welsh Ministers containing regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.

(11) In this section “primary legislation” has the meaning given by section 50.’—(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause makes provision about regulations under the Bill (except regulations under clause 51).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Taking of dog without lawful authority etc

“(1) A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the person takes or detains a dog in England—

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

(b) so as to keep it from the lawful control of a person who is entitled to have lawful control of it.

(2) No offence is committed if the person taking or detaining the dog is connected with any of the following—

(a) any person entitled to have lawful control of it;

(b) where it is removed from the lawful control of a person, that person.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum summary term for either-way offences or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).

(4) In this section—

“connected person”: a person is connected with another person if—

(a) they are married to each other,

(b) they are civil partners of each other,

(c) one is the parent of the other, or

(d) they are siblings (whether of the full blood or the half blood);

“detaining”: references to a person detaining a dog include the person—

(a) inducing it to remain with the person or anyone else, or

(b) causing it to be detained;

“maximum summary term for either-way offences”, with reference to imprisonment for an offence, means—

(a) if the offence is committed before the time when paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 comes into force, 6 months;

(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 12 months;

“taking”: references to a person taking a dog include the person—

(a) causing or inducing it to accompany the person or anyone else, or

(b) causing it to be taken.” —(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause, which will be added to Part 3, creates an offence, committed by taking or detaining a dog in certain circumstances. The offence applies in England.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Power to extend section (Taking of dog without lawful authority etc)

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section (Taking of dog without lawful authority etc) so that it applies not only to dogs but also to one or more other species of animal.

(2) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in respect of a species only if the Secretary of State considers—

(a) that animals of that species are commonly kept as pets, and

(b) that there is evidence that—

(i) animals of that species are capable of forming bonds with people who keep them, and

(ii) removing an animal of that species from a person with whom it has formed a bond may adversely affect its wellbeing.

(3) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” —(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause, which will be added to Part 3, confers a power to extend the new offence relating to the taking or detaining of a dog so as to apply in relation to other species.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Prohibition of Sow farrowing stalls

“In Schedule 8 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 omit sub-paragraph 6(2).”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would the end the use of sow farrowing crates.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

We move on to what could be called the second half of the Committee—Labour’s animal welfare Bill. I suspect that there will be a division on new clause 7, which is about pigs. Schedule 8 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 allows female pigs to be kept in small metal crates for the period beginning seven days before the predicted day of their farrowing and ending when the weaning of the pigs is complete—a process that lasts around four weeks. This clause would put an end to the use of those sow farrowing crates.

Compassion in World Farming tells us that every year, over 200,000 sows are subjected to this procedure, the purpose of which is to try to reduce the risk of the sow lying on and crushing her new-born piglets. We acknowledge that that is clearly a problem for farmers. However, as a result of their seeking to achieve that aim, sows are forced to spend weeks in stalls, unable to turn around. Alongside the crate in the pen is a creep area for the sow’s piglets. The piglets are able to reach the sow to suckle, but she is unable to clean and interact with them.

Farrowing crates are also a major concern because they prevent sows from building their nests. Even if nest-building material is provided—sadly, that does not always happen—sows do not have room to build them. Not allowing sows to behave naturally can make them frustrated and stressed, and the sow is more likely to savage the piglets in farrowing crate systems. I do not think there is much dispute anywhere about the desire to find a way forward on this issue.

Alternatives to farrowing crates, many of them designed by British farmers and engineers, are already commercially available in the UK. We should support British ingenuity and pig welfare by requiring the use of these higher-welfare systems. Labour has long been committed to ending the cage age and banning sow farrowing crates, and many others from across the political spectrum are committed to the cause—including, it would seem, the Prime Minister, who claimed in the Chamber that as a result of Brexit, we would be now able to introduce such a ban. The issue was very close to the heart of Sir David Amess, who earlier this year brought forward a private Member’s Bill, the Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill, that sought to ban the use of farrowing crates.

However, I am also mindful of the challenges facing pig producers, particularly at the moment. I have spoken about this frequently in recent months, and have urged the Government to give swifter assistance. As we speak, the culling of healthy pigs continues on farms, because despite the welcome announcements a few weeks ago, neither the temporary visa scheme nor the private storage scheme has yet come into effect. Sadly, it may be mid-December before the 800 skilled pork butchers arrive, and in reality, help may not come before the new year, so the situation remains very serious.

We will press the new clause to a vote, and are signalling our intention to bring in a ban when in government, but I reassure the industry that we will work closely with it to make sure that a ban is introduced in a way that does not damage the industry. We all want higher standards. This goes to the heart of the trade debate. There is no point imposing higher animal welfare standards here if the suffering, and the industry, is merely exported elsewhere. The Government have repeatedly told us that we should trust them on not allowing lower-standard food products to be imported. Frankly, we do not, but if we take them at their word, the amendment should not create a problem. I suspect many Government Back Benchers are not entirely persuaded either.

I note that the Government’s action plan for animal welfare says they

“are currently considering the case for introducing further reforms, on areas such as the use of farrowing crates for pigs”.

Here is their opportunity. It is time to move on and end the suffering caused by farrowing crates.

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman, with whom I remember discussing this issue at some length during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, will know that we are very much of one mind on this issue. My difficulty is that the new clause would cause an immediate ban.

The Government’s action plan on animal welfare said that we are considering the case for further reforms in this area. Our stated aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary. We want any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets, but an immediate ban on the use of farrowing crates for sows without full consideration of the implications for animal welfare and the pig sector would have a significant impact on the industry. We spoke to Dr Zoe Davies, chief executive of the National Pig Association, earlier this week. She said:

“To suggest an immediate ban”,

as the hon. Gentleman suggests,

“on the use of farrowing crates would be the final straw for the majority of indoor producers and would trigger a mass exodus from the pig sector, thus exporting production to countries with lower welfare standards. Far better to work with the sector on a longer term transition, which we have already begun.”

Some 60% of UK sows are kept indoors and use farrowing crates, so moving overnight entirely to free-farrowing systems would require a fundamental change for pig producers, and significant investment. I am keen to ensure we have a realistic phasing-out period that is sustainable for the industry, so that we can achieve the welfare goals shared by Members from across the House. I do not consider this Bill to be the appropriate delivery mechanism, so I cannot support the new clause, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister is absolutely right: we sat here two years ago and had exactly the same conversation. The question is: when? That is the problem. I do not disagree with Zoe. I will speak to her about this in a few days’ time. I have made it absolutely clear that we would not make this change without working with the industry to ensure that the dangers the Minister mentioned, of which we are all aware, do not come to pass. This animal welfare Bill is an opportunity to take a stand. That is why we will put the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a second time

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

This new clause returns us to part 2 of the Bill, on dogs attacking and worrying livestock. As I said on Tuesday, we want to address the issue of compensation for farmers who are victims of livestock worrying. As we noted then, livestock worrying has a significant financial impact: in 2020, the total costs were around £1.3 million, while data from NFU Mutual indicates that in the first quarter of this year, the cost of dog attacks on livestock rose by more than 50%. That insurer said that its total claims for January to March of this year were estimated at £686,000—up from £453,000 for the same period last year.

As we discussed on Tuesday, contributing factors may well be increased dog ownership and, since the first coronavirus lockdown, more people accessing the countryside with a lack of understanding of how to behave there. That is why organisations including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Farmers Union and the Countryside Alliance supported the requirement for dogs to be on leads when around livestock. We have had that debate, and the Committee chose not to go down that route, but that does not mean that we cannot use our deliberations as an opportunity to look at whether there are ways to offer support to livestock owners. I listened closely to the moving words from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the appropriate measures to compensate livestock owners for cases of livestock worrying. It would also require the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation based on the findings of the review within 12 months of the date of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

This is not a simple issue, but given that there are rights of way, and that we all want more people to enjoy access to the countryside, it is reasonable, when those various rights collide, to at least consider the consequences for those who live in the countryside and whose living is made by raising livestock. Is there a public responsibility to help in those situations? The need to find the right balance calls for a proper review.

[Victoria Prentis]

We absolutely understand how distressing and financially damaging livestock worrying can be for farmers. The legislation makes reforms to provide police with more powers to tackle dog attacks on livestock, so that we can identify and, we hope, prevent repeat offences. That should, in turn, lead to fewer instances of livestock worrying, but we will monitor that closely.

However, we appreciate the importance of not leaving farmers out of pocket when they fall victim to livestock worrying attacks. We agree that suitable and effective compensation mechanisms are key. There are various ways that farmers can recoup their losses, including through out-of-court settlements, civil compensation claims and insurance claims. Insurance is often claimed via the NFU, which is, as we know, the UK’s leading rural insurer. The NFU estimates that the cost of dog attacks on farm animals was around £1.3 million in 2020, and the average value of an NFU claim in this area was £1,329. Most livestock worrying incidents are resolved in out-of-court settlements through the community resolution process. That is the police’s preferred route; it allows the victim to be compensated swiftly without escalation, and relies on an agreement between the victim and the suspect.

We are happy to consider how well existing mechanisms—other than insurance via the NFU and other providers—work. We will work closely with the industry and the police to ensure that that happens. By modernising the legislation and improving the enforcement mechanisms, we aim to reduce livestock attacks in the future. We hope that, through improved awareness, with dogs being kept away from livestock and on leads where appropriate, there will be less need for compensation. I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

In the light of the Minister’s response, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Regulation of the keeping of hunting dogs

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make regulations providing for licensing of the keeping of one or more dogs used for the purposes of hunting.

(2) It shall be an offence to keep a dog which is used for hunting without a licence.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “hunting” includes, but is not limited to—

(a) hunting any animal; and

(b) trail hunting or other hunt simulation.”.—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations for licensing of the keeping of one or more dogs used for the purposes of hunting.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Hunting dog welfare: review and consultation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the welfare conditions of dogs used for hunting.

(2) In conducting the review the Secretary of State must—

(a) consider the welfare conditions of dogs used for hunting;

(b) consult the public and such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on the welfare of dogs used for hunting.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review, which must set out recommendations for action.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the welfare conditions of dogs used for hunting.

New clause 12—Ban on the use of a dog below ground in the course of stalking or flushing out—

“The use of a dog below ground in the course of stalking or flushing out is prohibited.”.

New clause 13—Removal of exemption of hounds under the Road Traffic Act—

“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 27 (Control of dogs on roads), in subsection (4) omit paragraph (b).”.

[Daniel Zeichner]

You might not like this one so much, Mr Davies—or some might not. New clauses 10, 11 and 12 are about the welfare of hunting dogs. I am grateful to the League Against Cruel Sports for its advice on the new clauses.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations within 12 months of the passing of the Bill that would require individuals who keep one or more hunting dogs to obtain a licence, and it would make it an offence to be in possession of hunting dogs without a licence. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the welfare of dogs used for hunting. At the core of these issues is a concern about the welfare of hunting dogs and that the absence of a robust licencing system has resulted in some hounds experiencing poor welfare conditions.

Unlike dog boarding kennels, which are commercial and therefore licensed, hunt kennels are not licensed and are regulated by the code of practice for the welfare of hounds in hunt kennels. The code sets out that euthanasia is not an offence so long as it is done in an “appropriate and humane manner”. It says that, for adult hounds over the age of 10 weeks, a humane killer should be used, and that hounds of all ages may be put down by a veterinary surgeon with an overdose of Euthatal. The issue is that hunt kennels are not independently inspected, and so there is no independent monitoring of hound welfare and the euthanasia of hounds. As a result, hound welfare concerns are unlikely to come to light, and when they do, reports of how the dogs are treated sometimes fall well below expected standards.

Last month, ITV published an exposé of the killing of hounds by the Beaufort hunt, which included videos of hounds being dragged outside and shot, including one hound that was shot twice, minutes apart, before it died. It is believed that the shooter was not a trained veterinary professional. This clearly does not constitute appropriate and humane euthanasia. I watched the footage, and I suggest others do so, although it is upsetting. A number of those commenting in the ITV piece, including a Conservative MP, urged regulation. That is what we propose.

In 2015, the Daily Mirror published a report on the treatment of hunting dogs, including the testimony of a former hunter who said that the whipping of dogs was commonplace and that hounds are disposed of when they are perceived to have failed in any way. In the past, when the debate over the future of hunting was raging, I visited the West Norfolk Foxhounds to speak to people directly. My strongest memory of that visit was of the hounds themselves—big, strong dogs, totally unsuitable for rehoming. When I asked what became of them, the answer was honest and clear: “We shoot them.” Some will say that that is just the way of it; that is a reality of rural life. I do not think that is good enough in 2021, and my sense is that most people living in rural areas do not think so either.

It is our view that such weak regulations and the lack of monitoring of hunting kennels leave hounds open to poor welfare conditions. Given that we license dog boarding kennels, I do not see why the same approach is not taken to hunt kennels. Are we saying that somehow the welfare of hunting dogs is not important?

I would like to make it clear that I am not saying that all hunts necessarily treat hounds in that way, but the lack of monitoring makes it difficult to know how they are treated. Given that the Bill is an animal welfare measure, I believe that we should be seriously concerned about the limited understanding of how hounds are treated and the lack of a licensing system to protect their welfare. New clauses 10 and 11 would rectify that.

New clause 12 would ban what is known in the hunting world as terrier work. That terminology describes a hunting activity whereby terriers are introduced into a hole in the ground to flush out or force a wild mammal to escape. If the wild mammal does not escape from the hole immediately, those in charge of the dog will dig down to access it—a process that can take hours, I am told. If the wild mammal—usually a fox, but sometimes a badger—does not subsequently bolt from the hole, there can be an underground battle. That is not only cruel to the wild animal being flushed out, but to the dogs, who risk being forced into a dangerous confrontation, which can result in severe injuries or death.

I am afraid that there is also, in our view, the real risk that the practice is used as a cover for illegal hunting with dogs. Although hunting with dogs is illegal, we are told that those who work with terriers still sometimes accompany hunts under the guise of trail hunting. There is of course little reason for that since no live wild mammals should be being hunted and there should be no need for support to flush out a wild mammal. Recently, in a notorious, high-profile case, Mark Hankinson of the Masters of Foxhounds Association was found guilty of encouraging and assisting people to evade the ban on foxhunting. The prosecution was the result of leaked footage of webinars hosted by the Hunting Office in August 2020, during which, among other incriminating comments, Mr Hankinson said that terrier work is “our soft underbelly”.

The League Against Cruel Sports reports that, in addition to its role in foxhunting, terrier work continues to occur as a stand-alone recreational pastime for individuals and gangs of people across the country who enjoy using their terriers to attack foxes and badgers. It stated that evidence it has gathered suggests that putting dogs underground to chase and fight foxes can lead to some of the worst cruelty cases associated with hunting. Given the harm that terrier work can cause to dogs, the new clause banning the practice is long overdue.

New clause 13 would remove the exemption for hunting dogs from section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, under which local authorities may specify “designated” roads where dogs must be kept on leads. Sadly, every season there are incidents of hounds causing chaos by running across roads when trail hunting. During the March 2019-20 hunting seasons, the League Against Cruel Sports received 128 reports of hunts causing havoc on roads. Eight involved foxes being chased across roads by hounds that were supposedly trail hunting. The league also received reports of 10 hounds involved in road traffic collisions. Five of them were killed.

Removing the exemption would mean that a hunt had to abide by the same rules as any other dog owners on designated roads. Again, that should not pose a challenge to legal hunts. If trail hunts are operated properly, they can be organised in a manner whereby there is no possibility of hounds ending up on the road. The route of any trails laid should be properly planned, well away from such hazards. In cases of exempt hunting, hunts should have sufficient control over hounds to prevent them from unexpectedly marauding across and along roads. It should be added that not all roads are designated, so hunts will still be allowed to cross certain roads if the council allows it.

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government are committed to improving the welfare of all dogs. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 puts obligations on all animal keepers to meet the full range of welfare needs. It is backed up by the statutory code of practice, to which we referred extensively on Tuesday, for the welfare of dogs.

The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 raised the maximum penalty for cruelty to five years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Local authorities have powers under the 2006 Act to act where a dog is suspected to be suffering. The local authority can enter the land and take control of the animals. As we know, local authorities often work very closely with the RSPCA.

The Committee will remember that dog licensing was abolished in 1988. I remember buying a licence for our springer spaniel at the post office as a child—it cost 37p —but apparently only half of all owners bought one. We did not find that dog licensing ensured the welfare of dogs or restricted who was able to keep them. We would need sufficient evidence of welfare concerns to treat one type of dog differently from another.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the proposed exemption to the Road Traffic Act 1988 requirement for dogs to be on a lead when on a designated road is available where it can be proved that a dog was, at the material time, under proper control —we are back to that debate. We have not received evidence of animal welfare concerns—although I did hear what the hon. Member for Cambridge said earlier—relating to this particular exemption or to the mirroring exemption for sheepdogs working on a designated road. For those reasons, I ask that the new clauses be withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Minister for her response. I suspect that we will not find agreement on this. I do not think that there is any need to rehearse the arguments at length, but the Minister’s licensing argument is weak, frankly. On that basis, we will not pursue all the new clauses, but I will press new clause 10, on the basic welfare of hunting dogs, to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

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

New Clause 19 would require that the Secretary of State conducts a review of the keeping of exotic pets in England, including examining the need for prohibition, licencing or registration for certain exotic animals. Such a review cannot come quickly enough. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reports that it is treating an increasing number of exotic pets each year. In 2020 alone it received 6,119 reports relating to exotic pets, which in total involved 22,865 animals. Because there is a lack of licencing or registration requirements for exotic animals, we do not have an accurate estimate of how many are present in the UK. However, given these lax regulations, their increased prevalence in the UK is a cause for concern.

Exotic animals are not cats or dogs; they are wild animals with often highly complex natural history and incompletely understood welfare needs. Caring for these animals requires a high level of expertise, which, sadly, is not possessed by all exotic pet owners. As a result, exotic animals kept in domestic settings too often experience pain and suffering. Many species have not evolved to survive in the UK and so require artificial light and heat to keep them healthy, but the necessary information and equipment is often variable in quality or unavailable to domestic owners. Diets are often poorly understood, with animals fed the wrong types of food, leading to malnutrition. Enclosures can be too small and do not allow animals to move around and explore, or express other normal behaviours. Some species need to be kept on their own, or with others of their own kind, but, again, this does not always happen, leading to behavioural problems.

The collection of live animals from the wild for the exotic pet trade has led to serious, and in some cases catastrophic, population declines in some species, in addition to the suffering that animals are put through. We feel it is a missed opportunity not to get the ball rolling with the Bill on a set of reforms that would significantly reduce the suffering of thousands of kept animals across the UK. I suspect the Minister will say that there are already provisions to regulate the keeping of exotic animals as pets in the Bill, in the form of the primate licensing system, as hinted at earlier in the discussion, and that there are measures that will allow the system to be expanded to other exotic animals at a later date. We have already touched on this in earlier debates.

New clause 19 would complement that approach, and I commend it to the Minister. It would allow a sensible and reasonable debate about which exotic pets could reasonably by kept with a licence, unlike primates, and which should not be kept as pets at all. We have helpfully added a list that could be considered, based on conversations with the organisations that have to deal with these dilemmas on a daily basis. It is not right that when we have the opportunity to do so, we leave welfare organisations to deal with the problems and dodge our responsibilities. The Government should grasp the nettle.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The welfare of exotic pets held in private residences is already protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a kept animal or to fail to provide for its needs. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is currently undertaking a review of exotic pets, and it published an interim report in September this year. The RSPCA and the Born Free Foundation have also recently published a report on this topic.

The Government would be interested in considering a review of exotic pets, but we do not want to duplicate the work that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is doing at the moment. We have had its interim report and we want to wait for the full report. We will look thoroughly at that work when deciding what further assessments are needed. We already have the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and, as the hon. Member for Cambridge alluded to, the provisions in this Bill, so we will have the appropriate regulatory framework when the review concludes. Any future review will take into account all of the evidence, and further regulation might be needed. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which was pretty much as I anticipated. I do not understand why we always have to go so slowly on everything. I know she thinks she is going at pace—that is the current term—but it seems to us that we could go more quickly. However, I have heard what she says, which confirms what I said earlier in the debate: basically, a general licensing system is being developed. I think we have it the wrong way round, but we will not pursue it any further today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

May I thank those Members who are wearing masks? It is very kind of them.

New Clause 20

Review of Dangerous Dogs Act

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

(2) In conducting the review the Secretary of State must—

(a) review the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991;

(b) take into consideration the recommendations of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee’s 2018 report ‘Controlling dangerous dogs’;

(c) examine the factors behind canine aggression, the determinants of risk and whether the canine breeds prohibited under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 pose an inherently greater threat than other breeds; and

(d) consult the public and such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months from the date on which the review concludes, publish a statement on the future of canine policy.”—(Olivia Blake.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I wanted to draw attention to my interest in this new clause, because when I was doing A-level politics, way back when, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was seen as a piece of legislation that had not worked very well. That was in the early to mid-1990s—I am showing my age now. I have paid close attention to it, and the reason it did not work very well was because it did not include cross breeds, which was where all the trouble first started.

Earlier this year, I was able to visit a dogs’ home called K9 Crusaders, on the outskirts of Truro in my constituency. The amazing owner, Sue Smith, looks after typed dogs once they have been taken from their families. I learned a lot about how dogs are often seized from families in the middle of the night, which is quite distressing for the families. I met a dog named Eric, a pure-bred American pit bull—believed to be Cornwall’s very first. He was an absolute beauty—an absolutely gorgeous dog. I was also on the other side of the bars from lots of Jack Russells, crosses and all sorts of other scary dogs, for want of a better phrase.

I am certain that the legislation needs huge reform. I welcome the research that is coming in December. I have huge sympathy for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and all of her comments. I hope that we can do something in the future, as we advance, but I do not think this Bill is the place to do it. However, I am pleased to hear that the Minister is thinking about it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I wish briefly to make the point that we all agree that something needs to be done. We have had debates about it in Westminster Hall and so on, but if we do not do it through this process, it will be very hard to get a legislative slot, which is frequently the explanation given to us. My worry is that there will not be legislative slots for some time to allow this to be dealt with. That is why the new clause is relevant.

Through the extensive discussions we have already had in Committee, a pretty good system has been established for dealing with dogs under livestock worrying. That could quite easily be applied to other circumstances. The Bill goes a long way to dealing with a range of issues to do with dogs. It is a missed opportunity not to finish the piece.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

We absolutely share the hon. Lady’s desire for all cats to be microchipped. My own cat, a former Purr Minister, is himself microchipped. The Government committed in our manifesto, and reaffirmed in our action plan for animal welfare, our intention to introduce compulsory cat microchipping. Around 75% of cats are microchipped, compared with around 90% of dogs.

Our consultation on microchipping ended earlier this year and we received 33,000 responses, which we have been analysing. We will be publishing a summary of the consultation responses and our response to the consultation, by which I mean our plans for the future, within the next couple of weeks—certainly by the end of the year. I am very pleased to confirm that there was overwhelming support for the principle of compulsory cat microchipping.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Given that we all agree, and that this is a consultation where it is overwhelmingly clear what people want, why do the Government not just do it?

[Victoria Prentis]

Well, may I carry on? Colleagues may be aware that we have also carried out a post-implementation review of the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015, which we also intend to publish before the end of the year. The review highlights key difficulties—I think Members across the House are aware of them—with the current microchipping regime, including the current operation of the databases, where improvements can definitely be made. We propose to take a little bit longer to get this right, to ensure that the problems that have beset the multiple databases for dogs do not reoccur.

Our intention is to make a new set of regulations next year that incorporate both compulsory cat microchipping and changes to the current problems in the dog microchipping regimes. These regulations will of course be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so it will be possible for Parliament to be involved. In these circumstances and with those assurances, I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23

Local abattoir networks

“The Secretary of State must ensure a network of local abattoirs exists to provide the services required to support the UK’s diverse livestock farming sector and to deliver livestock welfare benefits through minimising distance to slaughter.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

We have touched on this issue already. Many are concerned about it, with the notable exception of the Secretary of State, who sparked incredulity across the sector earlier this year with comments suggesting that all is fine in the world of abattoirs. Opposition Members do not think that the lack of local abattoirs is fine, and we want to find ways to address the problem, which is what new clause 23 is about. I will focus specifically on the animal welfare benefits that building up such a network would achieve.

Through the Bill, the Government are rightly trying to end the export of certain livestock for slaughter. This practice can have seriously negative impacts on livestock as a result of extensive journey times, as we have discussed. However, we do not think that the problem will be resolved simply by banning overseas exports. In the UK, there has been a rapid decline in the number of local abattoirs. A report by National Craft Butchers stated that there are only 62 local slaughterhouses left, and prospects for the future are fairly bleak. Seven in 10 abattoir owners were aged over 51, with 11% still working beyond the normal retirement age. More than half had no plan for someone younger to take over. That decline is down to a host of reasons, including staff shortages, vet shortages, centralisation of supply chains and, inevitably, regulatory changes and bureaucracy.

However, the consequence of the lack of a local network of abattoirs is that animals are often transported over long distances for slaughter, which poses much the same welfare concerns as shipping animals overseas, as animals still spend long periods being transported. I appreciate that the Government are consulting on these issues, but I think I am correct in saying that that is largely about improving transport. That is fine, but it does not alter the fact that long distances remain long distances. As I said, some of this is inevitably linked to significant changes in the way supply chains operate and to consolidation within sectors; the old days of local markets have largely gone, and while vertical integration may have benefits, there are, as ever, wider consequences that are less beneficial.

In September, the EFRA Committee published a report on moving animals across borders, saying:

“The consolidation of abattoir services means that the spread of services is not uniform across the UK, so many animals have to travel long journeys prior to slaughter. This undermines the ambition of the Government’s consultation on ‘Improvements to animal welfare in transport’ to reduce unnecessarily long journey times”.

I have spoken about this before. It is quite clear that the lack of local slaughterhouses also means that smaller farmers are unable to keep certain types of animals, due to the welfare concerns associated with transporting them over long distances for slaughter, which in turn reduces the likelihood of the return to mixed farming, which many would like.

Put simply, the market may be delivering what works for some retailers, but it is not delivering the wider public goods that we were discussing in this very Committee room almost two years ago in the Agriculture Bill Committee. We warned about these problems then, and today we give the Government the opportunity to do something about them.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Cambridge. I am glad that he referred to the EFRA Committee report. I am a member of that Committee. Based on our findings on the movement of animals across borders, one of our key recommendations was that the UK local abattoir network needed supporting and bolstering, and we recommended that the Government look at that. If we improve the local abattoir network it will actually mitigate a lot of the animal welfare issues related to long-distance transport, because distances will be shorter and animals will be reared locally and slaughtered locally and the food will be purchased and eaten locally—something that we are all pushing for. I know that Ministers agree with me that that is a positive thing that we should try to move towards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government acknowledge the importance of local abattoirs to improving animal welfare through shorter journey times. We are committed to working with the industry to ensure that the UK maintains its high-quality slaughtering facilities. We need to find innovative solutions to address funding issues for small abattoirs.

I am pleased to report that the rural development programme is supporting a mobile abattoir project. The project is currently being trialled at two sites. One is at Fir Farm in Gloucestershire, which I had the pleasure of visiting with the chairman of the EFRA Committee and Lord Benyon earlier this summer; the other is at M.C. Kelly Farm in Devon. It was a very interesting pilot and I would be happy to discuss it with Members outside the Committee; it has thrown up issues that we will have to work through and resolve—that is the purpose of a pilot of course. We really do believe that this project will act as a model for future mobile abattoir sites.

We at DEFRA also chair the small abattoirs working group, which brings together industry representatives. We have initiated a series of smaller sub-groups to go into detailed discussions on how to reduce the regulatory burdens on smaller abattoirs. So far issues discussed include the new livestock information programme, the potential for streamlining the administrative and regulatory burden on small abattoirs and ways of ensuring greater co-ordination across Government agencies and abattoirs. I am looking at how a new group—for which I have two excellent chairs in mind—can oversee all this work and drive through the changes that we need in this area. I will continue to update Members as we progress through this work. Given those circumstances, I would ask that we do not vote on new clause 23.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I think we are on the same page on this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Rearing of non-native game birds: review and consultation

“(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) undertake a review of the welfare impacts of the rearing and keeping of non-native gamebirds,

(b) examine the use of cages in the rearing and keeping of non-native gamebirds, and

(c) consult on regulation of rearing and keeping of non-native gamebirds.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of responses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b).

(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months from the day on which the consultation under subsection (2) closes, publish a statement of future policy on the rearing and keeping of non-native game birds.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the welfare impacts of the rearing and keeping of non-native gamebirds.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

You will be glad to hear, Mr Davies, that this is our final new clause. I return to an issue that has long been a focus of Labour’s work on animal welfare as part of ending the cage age. New clause 27 seeks to establish a review of the rearing of non-native game birds, with a particular focus on the welfare of the birds and the use of cages.

I am advised that around 50 million pheasants and partridges are mass produced in the UK every year to be used for sporting purposes. I am grateful to the Labour Animal Welfare Society for commissioning its recent report from Professor Stephen Harris—it makes for fairly grim reading. Animal Aid estimates that tens of thousands of partridges and pheasants are confined in cages in England. It argues that the birds inside these cages suffer from feather loss, scalping and injuries inflicted by their stressed cage mates. It also reports that birds may have masks and other devices fitted to try to stop them inflicting injuries, and that large numbers of breeding birds are confined for most of their lives in so-called raised laying cages, which are left outside and exposed to the elements.

Such practices clearly pose significant welfare concerns for the game birds involved. The current code of practice for the welfare of game birds reared for sporting purposes is not legally binding. I am told that the code was due to be reviewed in 2016, but apparently that did not take place. The Minister has indicated in responses to parliamentary questions, however, that the Government are examining the use of cages for the breeding of partridges and pheasants—a lot of examining is going on in the Department. I am in no doubt that every member of the Committee wants to ensure that we end the suffering of kept animals. It really is time to end the cage age.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is true that a lot of examining of evidence is going on, but that cannot be portrayed as a bad thing. I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for science-led policy making. We want action as well. That is why I said slightly tongue in cheek earlier that we get criticised when the hon. Member for Cambridge feels we are going too quickly, but then we get criticised when he feels we are going too slowly.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister should hand over to us.

[Victoria Prentis]

Well, I believe in democracy—I do not know about you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I know you do, Mr Davies. You are quite right—I do not know about the hon. Member for Cambridge.

As we are coming to the end of these proceedings—I hope, pleasurable though they have been—it is right that we accept that, yes, there is a lot to do in the area of animal welfare, but, yes, a lot is being done. We should take this opportunity to step back and to think of the poor people working in the animal welfare team in DEFRA, who are doing all this work, as well as those in the Public Gallery from the Bill team and those offline who drafted the Bill. Yes, animal welfare legislation is difficult. It requires evidence and it requires us to work out what would help and where, and what can be done in other ways through guidance or whatever.

Turning to the new clause, we are already reviewing how to improve game bird welfare, including examining the evidence on the use of cages for breeding pheasants and partridges. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, we have a statutory code, in section 6 of which are set out the standards, including that enriched cages are a minimum. Breaches of the code may be used in a prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is right that we review the situation periodically, and the plan is to do just that. We already have the power to make regulations in this area when we have the scientific evidence to inform future policy. I therefore ask that the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister, and delighted to get her cross at last—it is hard to make her cross. I hear what she said but, equally, I hope she heard what I said. We are moving to a different age, a different world, and while I absolutely want it to be evidence-based, there is a feeling in many parts of this country that we ought to move more quickly on these issues. In the interests of getting this done, we will not press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 82, title, line 2, at end insert “; and for connected purposes.”

The amendment updates the long title of the Bill.

I thank you, Mr Davies, all Members who have taken part in the Committee, and the Clerks’ team and others who have worked so hard to get us to this stage of this important legislation.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On a point of order, Mr Davies. I echo those thanks. I also thank Government and Opposition Members. It has been a constructive and helpful discussion, conducted in good spirits. I, too, thank the Clerks, who often have the impossible task of translating our ideas into appropriate and acceptable parliamentary language. I thank all the organisations we have heard from, the witnesses and my team—particularly George Williams, who has had to do all this pretty much on his own.

[The Chair]

That is not a point of order, but it was a point of thanks.

Amendment 82 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.