Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. The clause indicates the intention that the Secretary of State will give guidance to local authorities in respect of their functions under this part of the Bill. With that guidance, local authorities will be better able to fulfil their functions in a consistent way. Where keepers are unable to provide for primates’ welfare needs, local authorities can be confident that Government guidance can advise them how best to improve the situation for primates in their area.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I may have inadvertently given my speech on this clause before lunch. I feel no need to test anyone on whether they noticed, nor any need to repeat it, other than to say that we feel that the Government really ought to do provide this guidance, and it ought to be a “must” rather than a “may”.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Information
Amendments made: 20, in clause 21, page 11, line 16, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 21, in clause 21, page 11, line 17, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 22, in clause 21, page 11, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 23, in clause 21, page 11, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 24, in clause 21, page 11, line 27, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The information required under the clause will enable the Government to build a national view of how different local authorities use their powers under the Bill. It will also provide information on the number of primates being kept under licence. It will help to ensure that the legislation is implemented and enforced effectively and consistently.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Power to extend Part 1
Amendment made: 25, in clause 22, page 11, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Victoria Prentis
New clause 3 brings provisions relating to the parliamentary procedures that must be used when making regulations under parts 1, 2 and 3 into one clause that will be inserted into part 4. At the appropriate times, I will move that clauses 23, 38 and 49 should not stand part of the Bill. Amendment 26 makes minor changes, all of which are consequential on the removal of clauses 23, 38 and 49 and the introduction of new clause 3.
Daniel Zeichner
I find this set of amendments baffling. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why it was necessary to bring forward these amendments to the Government’s own Bill and what that means, not least because clause 22 seems to give the Government permission to extend the licensing system to any other kind of wild animal. I am not sure why they want that power. It is important that that is explained. As I argued earlier, the fact that everything will be done by regulation leads us to wonder what is planned and how it might be challenged in future. An explanation would be welcome.
Members of the Committee may have read the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It is quite helpful on this Bill. I am struck by the fact that these amendments are subsequent to that memorandum. Is there a revised memorandum, and when might we see it?
Victoria Prentis
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that he may have got ahead of himself again in talking about clause 22. With your permission, Mr Davies, I will deal with clause 22 stand part later. New clause 3 and amendment 26 merely bring the Bill into line with itself, as amended. Clauses 23, 38 and 49 will be removed, so we have made insertions to make that operable. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the power to introduce regulations to regulate the keeping of other wild animals. Is that right?
Victoria Prentis
On the clauses that we are now discussing, we have carefully considered the parliamentary procedures. All powers to make regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee are happy with that.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. To go back to points I made earlier, we seem to be designing a licensing system for a relatively small number of cases and then, at the end of the discussion, saying, “Ah, yes. This can also be used in wider circumstances.” That seems to be the wrong way round, and I think we will have the same discussion a bit further down the line on the extensive changes to the regulations applying to dogs. Although I do not necessarily have any objection to that, it is a curious way of proceeding. To some extent, it would have altered the discussion on Second Reading or more widely if people had known that the Government were setting up a new system, which is fine, but this started off being about primates.
Although we will not oppose the clause, I observe that it seems, from my conversations with organisations in the world outside, that they are not entirely clear what the provision is about. As one always says in these circumstances, I have no doubt that Ministers are well intentioned, but not all their successors may be. There is a considerable power to set up a new system for a whole range of animals well beyond primates.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 disagreed to.
Clause 24
Meaning of “keep”
Amendment made: 30, in clause 24, page 12, line 28, after “England” insert “and Wales”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause defines the meaning of the word “keep” in part 1. It is necessary to ensure that the provisions apply to the right people. A person does not “keep” a primate if they are in temporary possession of a primate in order to prevent it from causing damage, in order to transport it on behalf of somebody else, or when providing it with vet treatment. The clause also confirms that a person who ceases to be in possession of a primate while it is in England or Wales will continue to be treated as the keeper until another person takes possession of the primate.
Daniel Zeichner
I repeat what I said earlier: we do not think that people should be passing, keeping or transferring these creatures. We just think they should not be kept.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
General interpretation
Amendments made: 31, in clause 25, page 12, line 31, at end insert—
““appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 32, in clause 25, page 13, line 1, after “authority”” insert “, in relation to England,”.
This amendment limits the existing definition of “local authority” to England, in consequence of the application of Part 1 to Wales by Amendment 3.
Amendment 33, in clause 25, page 13, line 3, after “council” insert “in England”,
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.
Amendment 34, in clause 25, page 13, line 7, at end insert—
““local authority”, in relation to Wales, means a county council or county borough council in Wales;”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales and provides for a definition of “local authority” for Wales.
Amendment 35, in clause 25, page 13, line 21, at end insert—
“(2) Where any premises are partly in the area of one local authority and partly in the area of another local authority, the premises are treated for the purposes of this Part as being in the area of the local authority in which the major part of the premises is situated.”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment provides that where premises are partly in one local authority’s area and partly in another one’s, they are treated as being in the area of the local authority where the major part of the premises is situated.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides that a person who owns or is in charge of a dog will be guilty of an offence if the dog attacks or worries livestock on any agricultural land or a road, path or verge thereof. The clause explains under what circumstances a person does not commit an offence even if a dog attacks or worries livestock. An owner will not commit an offence if they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person without their consent—for example, if the dog had been stolen. The penalty for the offence is a fine up to level 3 on the standard scale.
Daniel Zeichner
We have moved beyond primates. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Exactly. We are into a new part of this curious Bill. I start by welcoming the Government’s decision to update the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which I had the pleasure of reading over lunch. It is extraordinary how much more succinct the legislation was in those days. It did it all in three pages—and, apparently, for thruppence. The Act has been on the statute book for a long time, and although it has been updated periodically, it clearly needs bringing into the modern period. We are all aware of the horrific impact that livestock worrying can have and the concern it creates for livestock owners across England and Wales.
Equally, we all welcome the increased access to the countryside that there has been in recent years and that many of our citizens have made good use of, particularly in the past couple of years. We also recognise the economic impact that those people bring to the rural economy. That is a positive. However, if more people are coming into such areas and walking in the countryside with their dogs, and if they are not well informed about the need to behave responsibly—and, sadly, some do behave irresponsibly—there is always the risk that the owners will fail to take good care of their dogs when they are close to livestock. This has clearly had an harmful impact on a number of communities. When the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare looked into livestock worrying, I am told that it estimated that about 15,000 sheep had been killed by dogs in 2016. In 2019, NFU Mutual stated that livestock worrying cost the sector £1.2 million. The National Sheep Association’s annual survey on livestock worrying in 2020 found that 95% of its respondents had experienced livestock worrying on their farm, with the average cost being more than £1,000. As you would expect me to observe, Mr Davies, at a time when farmers are open to being undercut through the trade deals being cut by the Government, every single penny counts.
Livestock worrying also leaves dogs open to harm. SheepWatch UK has told us that in 2016 at least 49 dogs were shot and killed for chasing or killing sheep. These are complicated issues, and we know just how much distress can be caused to a huge range of people—the owners of the livestock, those who witness such events, and the emergency services who have to turn up and deal with the problems. It causes great pain and distress and, sadly, often death to the attacked animals. It also puts the life and health of the dog and the owner in danger, as horses and cattle, for example, are quite capable of causing harm not only to a dog that is attacking them, but to the people with them. I am sure that we will discuss that later.
I welcome the Government’s decision to take action in this area, but we believe that there is scope to improve the measures, and we have a number of amendments, which we will come to this afternoon, that would do that. A final point on this introductory clause to part 2: we are slightly disappointed that there no mechanism for compensating victims of livestock worrying. A later amendment of ours may address that issue. On that basis, I am quite happy with the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Seizure and detention of dogs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause targets reoffending—cases where either the same dogs are found attacking livestock repeatedly, or where an owner has several dogs that worry livestock. It is important to bear in mind that about two thirds of livestock worrying incidents happen when an owner is not with their dog, and it has escaped or run away from them. Under the clause, the dog can be detained until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses. The police will be able to seize and detain a dog if they have reasonable grounds to believe that it has attacked or worried livestock, or may make further attacks on livestock.
Daniel Zeichner
We have come to a series of clauses that get into the detail of how we address this issue in the new world. We have no objection to much of the detail, but as I said earlier, we seem to be designing new systems for dealing with dogs—and their owners, in some cases; we will look at that further in other clauses. I wonder a bit about how the measures will work and overlap with existing legislation. There are frequent debates in Parliament about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, for instance. I worry that we are designing a new system that starts from livestock worrying, but that could cover many other aspects of how dogs behave, and we could be duplicating measures, or creating a system that will be extrapolated from to cover other circumstances. Obviously, livestock worrying is an important issue in itself, but a whole range of things follow from it that it may be relevant to discuss and consider in the round in another way. However, when it comes to how one might deal with livestock worrying, there is nothing in the clause that we object to, and we are happy to proceed with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Collection of samples and impressions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause introduces powers to improve the ability of the police to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock. In creating the Bill, we worked closely with the police, and the provisions have very much been co-designed with them, so that they have the tools that they need in the modern world to enforce the legislation. This clause enables a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog, livestock, or, sadly, the body of a livestock animal if it might be evidence of an offence committed under clause 26. The police say that that is a very welcome development that will really assist in prosecuting this offence.
Daniel Zeichner
I am afraid I will be making the same point consistently on these clauses. I am glad to hear that the measures were developed in consultation with the police, but I suspect that the powers could also be used in other circumstances. That is my ongoing concern about the way we are proceeding, although as far as we can see these are sensible proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 29 enables a justice of the peace to authorise the police—again, this has been asked for—to enter and search premises in connection with offences where a dog is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. That includes the power to take a sample or impression from the dog.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Control order upon conviction under section 26
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 31 introduces a power for the court to order that a dog be destroyed after a person has been convicted of an offence under clause 26, if the court is satisfied that there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again. The offender and the owner, if different, have the right to appeal against a destruction order to the Crown court.
Daniel Zeichner
We are working here with a series of proposals to deal with these very difficult cases. No one wants to see a dog destroyed.
My question is about whether any work has been done to consider how many control orders the Government anticipate being used under these proposals and how many destruction orders might follow. When we come to discuss the orders in future debates, in Westminster Hall or wherever, people may be rightly concerned that the orders have led to too many dogs being destroyed unnecessarily. Possibly it will be the other way round: perhaps the orders will not have been used strongly enough to deter people from behaving irresponsibly—if that is the purpose of this legislation, which I hope it is.
Victoria Prentis
Destruction orders are, of course, already available to the courts in relation to dogs that are dangerous and not kept under proper control, including in some cases—through other legislation that is already enforced—when a dog has worried livestock. It is important to remember that we are designing these changes with proportionality very much in mind. The ancillary orders being brought under this legislation would be available to a court only post-conviction. The courts will of course need to consider proportionality when making any control, disqualification or destruction orders.
The Bill gives additional powers to the police—particularly in the collection of samples or DNA, for example. That will help them prosecute these serious crimes.
Daniel Zeichner
I apologise for my lack of detailed knowledge about the complex interrelationship between existing laws and the new proposals. I suppose what I am trying to get at is the problem that the Government are seeking to solve through this new legislation given that, from my limited understanding, there is already legislation that could be used to achieve something that looks broadly similar.
Victoria Prentis
As the hon. Gentleman has said, legislation has been in place since 1953. It was amended substantially in 1981 and is operable at this point. The new legislation, following our close work with the police, works on ways to make things easier and on modern tools and technologies, such as DNA sampling, to ensure that the police can prosecute the offences. As we have seen, the police will have that power, having had the authorisation of a JP to enter and search a premises in order to take a sample from or, where necessary, seize a dog.
This part of the Bill is designed to make existing powers more operable—easier and better to prosecute, giving the police extra tools to use in the prosecution of their duties. Yes, that is true of many of the powers, including the power to destroy a dog where necessary, although rehoming is also very much on the cards in many cases. Destruction, where that is decided to be necessary, however, is already an option. Such options remain in place, but this part of the Bill will help the police go about the course of their duties.
Daniel Zeichner
That is a helpful explanation, but only up to a point. I am left concluding that the Government seem not to be taking away the existing legislation and necessarily improving it, but adding additional legislation, which creates potential confusion. I understand the need to collect samples or use new technologies—absolutely right—but I am not clear why the destruction orders in particular need to be added to with this extra legislation in the Bill. I am not objecting; please do not—
Victoria Prentis
I might be able to help. I am trying to find the right clause, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that one of the clauses repeals the 1953 Act. Much of the wording is the same, but the Bill will replace the 1953 Act. The legislation has been put into this Bill. I hope that is clear. While I am on my feet, the other thing I should have said earlier is that we have extended the meaning of “livestock” in the Bill to include species that were not kept routinely in 1953, but now are, such as alpacas.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful. It was clause 41—I am sure we are not expected to commit these things to memory. I was aware of that, but I am still not entirely clear whether all the existing legislation stems from the 1953 Act. In this case, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to pass judgment on that, but I suspect that it may not be, so my continuing concern is that when we look at other things, such as the Dangerous Dogs Acts 1989 and 1991, we will find overlapping and duplication that it might have been a good idea to sort out in general. As a general proposition, the clause provides a framework for dealing with livestock worrying, and we support that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Disqualification order upon conviction under section 26 or breach of control order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause allows the courts to make a disqualification order if a person is convicted of an offence of a dog attacking or worrying livestock, or of breaching a control order imposed by the courts under clause 30. A disqualification order may disqualify the offender from owning dogs, keeping dogs, or both. A person that breaches such an order commits an offence.
Daniel Zeichner
This is becoming a fascinating exchange. What is being done here is the putting in place of a range of measures, whether that is control orders, disqualification orders or destruction orders. A structure—though not necessarily a new one—is being created to deal with that set of issues. Again, I can see nothing wrong with the structure, but how it will interact with others bothers me.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause makes provision for the seizure and disposal—we hope by rehoming, where possible—of dogs in connection with disqualification orders introduced in clause 32. The clause also clarifies the right of appeal in relation to orders made in respect of dogs kept by a person to whom a disqualification order applies, whether or not that person is the owner.
When a court makes a disqualification order, if the person to whom the order applies owns or keeps a dog, the court may order that the dog can be taken away from them. If the owner is not the offender, they may appeal to the Crown court against the order made for the disposal of their dog.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Termination of disqualification order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
And they are Welsh—yes, indeed. From Pembrokeshire, not from the Gower.
The clause sets out how part 2 binds the Crown. The Crown should be bound by clauses 26 to 41 on livestock worrying in due respect for the duty to keep dogs under proper control and to mitigate the risk of harming the welfare of livestock. In the interests of national security, powers of entry in this part may be restricted in relation to Crown premises and are restricted in relation to Her Majesty’s private estates.
Daniel Zeichner
I found the clause slightly puzzling. I am not entirely sure what it means, as usual. Maybe the Minister will be able to elucidate. I am not sure whether it is referring to land owned by the Crown, although of course Crown premises apply to extraordinary places—I believe some Cambridge colleges are considered to be Crown premises. I am not sure—I could get myself in trouble here, couldn’t I?
Victoria Prentis
Crown premises are defined as
“premises held, or used, by or on behalf of the Crown.”
Daniel Zeichner
There is a serious point here, which is that there seem to be some exceptions being made that relate to certain land, possibly even to certain animals. I am not entirely sure why that is in place. Can the Minister explain?
The Chair
There are two types of corgi. I know one in Pembrokeshire and one in Carmarthenshire.
Victoria Prentis
You are of course right, Mr Davies.
This part of the Bill is trying to bind the Crown—to ensure the Bill applies to the Crown. As I said in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way, the Crown is not bound by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but this Bill will apply to the Crown, as set out, with the exemption of national security, which I highlighted earlier. I hope that assists the hon. Gentleman.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. That is reassuring. I am thinking about my old college, King’s, and the cows grazing outside it. I certainly would not want to see them being troubled by dogs. Our understanding is that this clause is fine.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I ask that clause 38 does not stand part of the Bill. New clause 3, in my name, will bring the parliamentary procedures for all regulation-making powers in the Bill into one place.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 38 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 39
Meaning of “worrying livestock”
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 39, page 23, line 9, leave out
“or a pack of hounds”.
This amendment would remove the exemption for working packs of hounds from provisions covering livestock worrying.
We now move on to some of the definitions. As we have already heard, some of the wording has been lifted from the 1953 Act. There are probably some in the Government who wish we were still living in 1953. Looking at the events of last night, some of them still are living in 1953 in my view, but the world has moved on and our amendment reflects that fact.
I know that hunting with dogs is a controversial issue. It is something that I and colleagues on the Opposition Benches have sought to stop over many years. We are pleased that many on the Government Benches have come to that conclusion too. The Conservative manifesto in 2019 was quite clear:
“We will make no changes to the Hunting Act.”
“Good,” we say, but we would like to see that strengthened and the wordings, which have come from legislation from a different era, should reflect the new realities we now live in. The inclusion of hunting dogs in the list in clause 39 is part of that reference back to a different world.
With trail hunting, which is clearly now the only form of acceptable hunting, there is absolutely no need for the trail to be taken close to livestock. If that is happening, we have to ask ourselves why. It should not be happening, so we do not think this exemption is necessary and we would like the phrase taken out. We will press this amendment to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman is right. We have carried over the existing language from the 1953 Act relating to assistance and working dogs. I listened to what he and colleagues said on Second Reading about the wording of this section generally, and I am certainly prepared to look at it. I think we need to look again at the language. It might, for example, be simpler to make a general exemption for working dogs while they are being worked, which is the situation in the Scottish legislation that was passed relatively recently. I also believe that “assistance dogs” is the modern terminology for guide dogs, although I would need to look at that further. Of course, assistance dogs, when they are being used, are usually—although perhaps not always—on the lead in any event. I feel that further work needs to be done on the wording, and I am happy to consider that before Third Reading. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. I think that is a sensible compromise, and I am very tempted by her offer, but on something as totemic as this I am afraid that we still have to press the amendment to a vote. What we have before us is what we have before us, and we do not think it should be in the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 39, page 23, line 12, at beginning insert
“where keeping a dog on a lead of 1.8 metres or less would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog,”.
This amendment would broaden the definition of “at large” dogs, by requiring non-exempt dogs in fields with relevant livestock present to be on a lead to be deemed under control unless keeping the dog on a lead poses a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.
During the evidence sessions on the Bill, much of the debate on this topic came down to whether a dog should be on a lead or not, and we heard many people give their view on that question. As we understand it, the position in the Bill is that it is acceptable for a dog to be in a field with livestock without a lead as long as the owner is aware of its actions and reasonably confident that the dog will return to the person on command. We heard a number of people discussing that, and I think many of us feel that that is not always likely to be the situation. Certainly, the majority of wildlife organisations feel that it is time to make a change here. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross, the Canine and Feline Sector Group and many more have come out in support of a provision that would require dogs to be on leads when in a field that contains livestock.
Ultimately, dogs on leads are not in a position to run off from their owners and attack livestock, so, in my view, keeping them on a lead protects farm animals. That seems fairly straightforward to me. I appreciate that there may be more complexity, but that is the basic proposition. Given the serious financial and mental hardship that livestock worrying has been causing farmers, the need for someone to keep their dog on a lead does not seem to me to be a major sacrifice.
This was probably the issue that came up most in the evidence sessions. So far as I recall, most witnesses wanted dogs to be on a lead, and we agree. We recognise that near cattle, there is a risk to human life should the person with the dog not be able to release it swiftly. However, by my reading—I am willing to be corrected—clause 39(4) defines the relevant livestock for those purposes as
“poultry, enclosed gamebirds or sheep.”
The memo to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is helpful, referring on page 6 to the relevant livestock:
“It covers animals that will respond to being scared by a dog by running and clumping together, which can result in these animals getting trampled and smothered, sometimes leading to fatalities.”
While keeping the dog on a lead may not stop that altogether, I cannot help thinking that it would help.
When preparing for the Bill, Baroness Hayman—who worked on Labour’s 2019 animal welfare manifesto, and who is a guiding light for us—told me that requiring dogs to be kept on leads could, in some instances, result in harm to the dog owner. Most notably, if a dog on a lead attacks a herd of cows, they may decide to protect themselves by attacking the dog. When a dog is off the lead, it can run away fast enough to avoid danger.
I think that the Government have solved the problem. Amendment 89 strikes the right balance between the two issues. It requires dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead in fields where the relevant livestock are present, except in instances where doing so would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mr Davies. I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge.
Last week, we heard quite a bit of convincing evidence on the need to curtail and clarify the definitions in this regard. Mr Rob Taylor from the police force explained that although the Bill, as worded, might not necessarily cause a problem for the prosecution or investigation of such crimes under the Bill, such clarifications might help public understanding—so that people know, when walking in the countryside where there are livestock in the fields, that they need to keep their dog on a lead.
Furthermore, we heard from both the National Farmers Union and Dr Hazel Wright of the Farmers Union of Wales that such clarifications would perhaps embolden farmers to look at their signage and keep it current. Dr Wright mentioned that, as the law stands, farmers do not always feel encouraged or, indeed, incentivised to keep signage up to date, especially when it pertains to whether livestock are present in a particular field. Her argument was very convincing: if we were to clarify and strengthen the law so that it is clear when a dog needs to be kept on a lead, farmers would react positively and make the effort to keep their signage current and up to date. That would benefit those wishing to enjoy the countryside and be in the interests of farmers.
Representing a rural constituency, I have sadly had to see many photographs of the consequences of a dog attack. If we were able to clarify the law in this regard, it would not only greatly benefit farmers, but improve public understanding. Ultimately, that is the only real way to tackle and reduce instances of dog attacks. I again place on record my support for amendment 89.
Victoria Prentis
Diolch yn fawr. The debate has been useful and thoughtful, and I thank the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Ceredigion for their contributions. I am afraid that we will not accept the amendment, but I have no doubt that the debate will continue in order to find the way to get the balance right.
To avoid committing the “at large” offence, a dog walker would need to be aware of their dog’s actions and ensure it stays in sight. The person must be confident that their dog will come back promptly on command. It is not enough for the dog walker to merely think that their dog will come back when called. There are dogs who come back when called—not ones that have ever been members of my family, but I do know of such dogs—but for the rest of us, I would refer us very firmly to the recently refreshed countryside code. That document, which advises dog owners on how to walk their dogs responsibly, is worth a google when Members are out of Committee.
That document is supported by a public awareness campaign, which we tried to ramp up during lockdown because we found that there were many new dog owners who needed to be told very firmly that unless their dog was really under control, it needed to be on a lead. In the majority of cases, of course, if a person’s dog is not under control, they would be caught under the chasing offences in the Bill that we have just discussed, so it is very rare that this particular “at large” offence will be needed. I also remind the Committee once more that two thirds of livestock worrying attacks are by unaccompanied dogs, who are clearly not on leads because they do not have an owner with them. Their owners would be caught by the “at large” offence, but we do not think it is sensible and proportionate to catch responsible dog owners whose dogs are not on a lead and are not at risk of worrying livestock.
We will continue to work to raise public awareness. The countryside code is quite clear that owners should keep their dog under effective control,
“always keep your dog on a lead or in sight”,
“be confident your dog will return on command”,
and, on open access land and at the coast, owners must put their dog on a lead during periods of the year that are effectively lambing season. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I thought that the evidence we were given was pretty overwhelming. I think the concern that a number of people have expressed to us about the potential danger with cattle has been dealt with by the Government themselves in their definition of relevant livestock. I was grateful for the hon. Member for Ceredigion’s expertise and knowledge, and his point about the signage—which was strongly made in the evidence session—was well made.
I suggest to the Minister that people of my generation, and possibly hers, grew up with many of the promotions about the countryside code and so on. It was drummed into people, but I am not convinced that younger generations have got that message in quite the same way. Sometimes, when I see accounts of some offences by younger people, I am struck by the fact that what would seem obvious to me does not seem obvious to them. One of the most difficult things for a person to do is to put themselves in other people’s shoes. Particularly during lockdown, people went out with dogs for the first time, and we know that on a whole range of issues—not just livestock worrying—people behaved in ways that were challenging to many of the authorities.
Ben Lake
In support of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, one of the most surprising aspects of lockdown was how few people understood that they needed to close gates, which can cause a whole host of issues, both for the farmer and for the local communities that find a herd of cows or a flock of sheep going down the road. Those of us who are well versed in the countryside perhaps have a higher sensitivity to things such as the countryside code, but the younger generation and also, perhaps, those visiting or enjoying the countryside for the first time would respond with a very bemused expression if the countryside code was ever raised with them.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Listening to his comments, I realise that I am in danger of stigmatising younger people. I do not think it is their fault at all. It is partly because we have moved away from some of the public health and public information campaigns that we used to have.
Victoria Prentis
I absolutely understand the tenor of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Precisely for that reason, I refer him to the new and refreshed countryside code that was put out by Natural England during the last pandemic period. It is genuinely done in a way that is accessible and fresh for a new audience, so I politely suggest that members of the Committee have a good look at it and promote it wherever possible.
Daniel Zeichner
I gently reflect that, in the modern information age, that is sometimes more challenging for those of us who grew up on a diet of three channels on black and white TV. I am sorry to give away my age. However, you could not get away from a lot of the public information messages. In the modern world, there is far more. It is just my sense that there are a lot of people who have come into the countryside—and that is good; we want people to come and understand—but they do not necessarily understand. The message has to be simple and very clear.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
We are reaching a degree of consensus about this, in terms of the importance of education. Like the hon. Member for Ceredigion, I represent a rural constituency and we have had a lot of access to the countryside during the pandemic.
I take on board the Minister’s comments about the new countryside code. We have a spirit of agreement across the Committee and we encourage the Government, the Department for Education and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advocate the countryside code going into schools. That way, it becomes part of the education process for the next generation so that people appreciate the countryside, appreciate how and where food is produced and how to be respectful of that countryside that we all enjoy. We are in agreement and we just need to get the message out there, into schools and into the education system.
Daniel Zeichner
Everyone would agree with all that, but that is for the future. We are dealing with a generation now. It is not just a generational issue, but groups of people are going into the countryside who are either not cognisant of those recommendations, or just not behaving very well, frankly. I am afraid there are people who do not. That is why we think a simple measure like this one would help alleviate the problems that people in the countryside face. We think that the amendment is important and quite straightforward, and on that basis, we will put it to a vote.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
I declare my interest as I did before: I live on a working family farm. Some people might be surprised to learn that Leigh is a county constituency and it has large rural parts. The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, in which it sits, is also rural.
I have seen the aftermath of a dog attack on sheep. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, it is grim. I have immense sympathy on the issue, but believe the amendment as worded may prove to be a blunt instrument. However, I hope that, by the time we take the Bill to the next stage, the Minister will have some reassurance for those of us who have firm concerns on this issue and believe that dogs should be on a lead around sheep, poultry and other animals that would be at risk if they were let off the leash, given the terrible consequences that can happen when dogs become out of control in those circumstances.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who set out well why we think the amendment is necessary. I want to pick up on something the Minister said. The confidence people have around being in control of their dogs is interesting and has definitely taken hold of some internet memes. Dare I say the word “Fenton”? I wanted to have more understanding of that element. I take the point that two thirds of dogs are unattended. However, the amendment is important because in that third of cases in which they are with their owner, should we not push for as much control as possible over an animal in the presence of the relevant livestock?
Victoria Prentis
The clause defines exactly what constitutes worrying livestock and sets out the exemptions.
Daniel Zeichner
Without re-rehearsing the previous discussion, we would have liked the clause to be strengthened, but our amendment has been rejected, so let us go forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. I am suspending the Committee for six minutes for a comfort break. We will have a new batch of clauses to go through when we return.
Victoria Prentis
Government amendments 37 to 42 make minor and technical drafting changes to the definition of “livestock” that applies in part 2 of the Bill. The definition is intended to cover the types of animals that are kept in agricultural settings and may be vulnerable to attacks from dogs.
I do not believe that amendments 87 and 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, are necessary. The definition of “relevant livestock” in clause 42 is drafted to cover all species that might be exported for slaughter or fattening. I have tabled Government amendments 40 and 41 to clarify that definition further.
We carried out a wide-ranging consultation on banning live exports and received no evidence at all that a ban on poultry was necessary. There are no exports of poultry for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU. Poultry exports are either for breeding or other purposes not covered by the ban, such as exhibition. There have been no such exports of poultry for several years.
There are significant exports from Great Britain to the EU of day-old chicks, however, which are transported for breeding. Those movements do not generate major welfare concerns. The chicks are transported in high-welfare conditions, with a yolk sac or the equivalent gel for them to receive nourishment during the course of their journey. We have looked at this matter extensively and do not have welfare worries about the transportation of day-old chicks.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says, and we appreciate that there are no exports at the moment, but we do not quite see why the Government would not want to cover the export of adult poultry or give themselves the potential to change things in the future, which amendment 88 would allow them to do.
Looking back at our discussions on previous clauses, it is quite clear that the Government want—sensibly, in my view—to future-proof the legislation and give themselves and future Governments the opportunity to amend legislation. In fact, the delegated powers memorandum repeatedly makes the point that one of the problems with past legislation is that it has not been able to keep up with changing circumstances. In the modern world, given the uncertainties around our trading relationships, it is really hard to know how trading patterns will develop.
It is curious that we would not want to include adult poultry, which are just as capable as other animals of suffering poor health and welfare caused by long-distance transportation. I have been advised that a 2017 paper by Wageningen University & Research studied the transportation of live poultry for slaughter. It found that:
“During the transport, birds with broken bones suffer from pain, are not able to stand up and reach water supply, are stepped upon by other birds, and are prone to die”.
Clearly, that is the transport of adult poultry rather than export, but we cannot necessarily conclude that there will be no such trade in future. We have tabled amendment 88 because we cannot see why the Government would not want to include adult poultry. The Minister says that is not needed, but I cannot see why we would not include it when we have the opportunity.
In the future, science may well develop in such a way to show that a number of other species suffer from these problems in transport. Amendment 87 would give the Government the opportunity to future-proof legislation in a way I have suggested. However, these are essentially probing amendments and we will not push them to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
I think I have made my point, which is that there are, in fact, no poultry exports. In many ways it would be lovely if the Government could take all powers on to themselves for evermore, but I fear when we overreach in legislation. The fact that there have been no poultry exports for several years makes me feel that we should not take powers when we do not need them.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Amendments made: 38, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—
““enclosed wild boar” means any wild boar so long as they are being kept on land enclosed by a barrier intended to prevent their escape;”
This amendment and Amendment 41 provide that paragraph (g) of the definition of “livestock” covers only wild boar that are enclosed.
Amendment 39, in clause 40, page 23, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) cattle and other bovine animals,”
This amendment simplifies paragraph (a) of the definition of “livestock”, and ensures that it includes steers.
Amendment 40, in clause 40, page 23, line 40, leave out from “horses” to end of line and insert “and other equine animals”
This amendment simplifies paragraph (b) of the definition of “livestock”.
Amendment 41, in clause 40, page 24, line 5, after “or” insert “enclosed”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment 42, in clause 40, page 24, line 8, leave out paragraph (j) and insert—
“(j) enclosed deer;”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment and related Amendment 37 are drafting changes.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 42 is essential for ending unnecessary journeys of livestock and horses for slaughter and fattening, and for improving the welfare of those animals. The clause also removes provisions from the Animal Health Act 1981 in relation to the export of horses. The provisions were originally intended to prevent the export from Great Britain of low-value horses and ponies for slaughter on the continent.
Daniel Zeichner
I think we all welcome the end of exports of livestock for slaughter and fattening for slaughter. It has clearly rightly exercised many of our fellow citizens over many years. The numbers have of course declined, but there are still too many. This is an excellent opportunity to do something and we strongly support this part of the Bill. Excessive journey times in the shipment of live animals cause significant welfare harms, including the deprivation of food and water, lack of rest, extremes of temperature and humidity, handling by humans, exposure to novel environments, overcrowding, insufficient headroom and noise. There is still sadly the danger of animals being exported to countries where they are slaughtered in situations with standards that are significantly lower than the standards that apply in the UK. Consequently, the Government’s decision to bring this provision forward is welcome.
We thought that there should have been some additional provisions, and we have already had that discussion. There is more to be done and we are slightly worried— this has been pointed out by the British Veterinary Association—that the focus on exports has perhaps missed the point that the real issue is the length of the journey. I know that the Government are bringing forward measures for consultation to look at that, but that gives me the opportunity to point out—I suspect the Government would strongly agree—that there is a dearth of local abattoirs in this country. Animals are regularly required to travel longer distances to slaughter than many of us would like. That can cause significant harm.
We very much hope that the Minister will look at how best we can tackle that problem by re-establishing a local network of slaughterhouses in this country. On my summer tour around the country, which I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for helping me to secure, I was struck by the number of times that this point was raised. Many farmers across the country would like to find a way of returning to mixed farming, but the lack of a local abattoir is a major disincentive to that. I had exactly this conversation with a former colleague of the hon. Member for Keighley who made the point strongly to me. I suspect that many others have had exactly the same conversation. It is not an easy problem to solve, but it is pretty clear that it will need some sort of Government intervention. We would certainly do that, and I encourage the Government to do so in the meantime.
On that basis, we are delighted to support the prohibition of the export of livestock for slaughter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Power to make provision in connection with the enforcement of section 42
Amendment made: 46, in clause 43, page 27, line 6, leave out “or a” and insert “, summary sheriff or”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment adds a reference to a summary sheriff, in relation to warrants issued in Scotland.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 43 provides us with the ability to introduce regulations to implement and enforce the ban on the export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. Powers of entry, inspection, search, seizure and/or detention will enable us fully to investigate any potential breaches.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Powers to amend or revoke retained direct EU legislation
Olivia Blake
I thought I had just made history with my first amendment. The Minister has obviously heard from across the House how important the issue is and that it warrants further consideration. I am disappointed that we did not win that vote.
Daniel Zeichner
Having moved some hundreds of amendments and never gotten that close, I am extremely jealous. Would my hon. Friend agree that the vote we have seen this afternoon reflects that there are many others in the House who will come to a similar conclusion, and that it would be sensible for the Government to move sooner rather than later on their position?
Olivia Blake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On Second Reading we heard many concerns from colleagues across the House. I ask the Minister to look again as quickly as possible to come up with a conclusion. That is all I have to say on the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Powers relating to importation of certain dogs, cats and ferrets
Daniel Zeichner
I was tempted to push for a vote just now, but we can continue our discussion.
There is plenty to discuss, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam for moving the amendment and then speaking to the group so forcefully and powerfully. However, I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who speaks on the basis of huge knowledge. I think that what he is saying—he said it on Second Reading, as did others from across the House—is that there is acknowledgement of the widespread public interest in and concern about these issues. While I can understand from a kind of technical point of view why the Government might want to do this thing through regulation, the politics of it are very clear: people expect this to be done now. We are giving the Government the opportunity to do it now through these amendments. I have lost count of the number of Government Members who raised these issues, so the Government ought to be able to see what is coming. It is a question of how to deal with this matter in as graceful a manner as possible because, frankly, I do not think there is any dispute about it.
When we consider some of these practices, many of us find them extraordinary. Why would anyone declaw a cat? I do not think that anyone here could possibly imagine why anyone would do that.
One of the issues that we will come back to in some of the later debates is that there has been a lot of emphasis on puppy smuggling—rightly so. However, there is a slight sense on the part of organisations representing cats that there is a danger that those who seek to gain a commercial benefit out of these awful practices will just shift to other practices. I know there is some debate about how likely that is. Nevertheless, we should be mindful of the fact that many of our constituents are looking at this Committee closely and will want to know why we are not being as robust as we could be to guard against all these eventualities.
I do not have the expertise on this issue that some other members of the Committee do, but when I listen to the accounts and to the arguments being put, I find it hard to imagine why we would not want to introduce all the things we are discussing into the Bill as speedily as possible.
We will pursue this matter relentlessly, through every opportunity open to us, because we think that is where the majority of feeling in the House is, so the Government would, as I say, be sensible to move as swiftly as possible. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, because I cannot see any reason not to do this thing as swiftly as we can.
Victoria Prentis
Neatly done, Mr Davies.
I agree—indeed, it is clear—that there is a great deal of consensus across the House on our manifesto commitment to crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies. Where we differ slightly is how to bring that crackdown about. I want to reassure all Members that I am absolutely committed to bringing in further restrictions in regulations.
One of the reasons we are using regulations is to enable Government to act in a way that is relatively nimble. What we have found is that after we restricted the import of puppies, the criminals started to import pregnant bitches instead.
What we need to do is to remain one step ahead of the criminals. We feel that the best and speediest way to do that is through secondary legislation. There is absolutely nothing half-hearted about our determination to crack down on illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies. I am determined to do that in a fair way, but as quickly as we possibly can.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says, and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do not understand how it can be quicker to do this through secondary legislation, nor do I understand why the two are mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to do both; I encourage her to do so.
Victoria Prentis
We are taking the steps we are taking today, if the Committee votes for them, in the Bill, which we hope will soon become an Act. We have not taken the foot off the accelerator for organising the regulations.
Before we bring forward regulations, we consult with those involved in the sector, to make sure that the regulations hit the spot, in so far as we can. In August of this year, we launched our consultation to seek views on the new restrictions that we are proposing, which are very much in line with the views expressed by hon. Members across the House. The proposals include raising the minimum age that dogs can be imported from 15 weeks to six months, for all the reasons that have been given. It is a lot easier for a Border Control checker to see if a dog is six months old or still a puppy. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned the cuteness factor. I do not think they lose the cuteness factor, but on the commercial market, puppies areó more saleable than adult dogs. That is absolutely the Government’s intention.
We also stated our proposal to prohibit the commercial importation and non-commercial movement of heavily pregnant dogs, specifically those over 42 days pregnant, into Great Britain. We needed to get that right. I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said in last week’s sitting and what I have heard him say before—I do not mean that critically—about the difficulty of checking gestation periods. We have to get this right and make sure that it is operable, easy for checkers to check and will deter criminals.
Daniel Zeichner
I am sorry to labour the point. Of course consultation is always a great thing, but I think the Minister has made it quite clear what she believes needs to be done. I am trying to imagine what kind of consultation response it would take to undo all this weight of evidence from so many experts. I cannot see that happening. I am genuinely baffled as to why there is a problem here.
Victoria Prentis
It is true that my Department places a great weight on consultation—indeed, it has to, under the rules set out in various pieces of legislation. I do not think we were wrong to do so in this particular case. There are difficult issues here, the bitch’s stage of pregnancy being one of them. I was just coming on to proposals to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears and tails. We all agree that these practices are abhorrent, but we have to make sure that we are not inadvertently making a problem—for example, for dogs that are already owned or rescue dogs that have been rescued from inappropriate ownership. It is important that we consult and get it right, but Members should not take that as any indication that we are going slowly. We really are not.
The evidence that we have seen to date, not least that which was gathered in the consultation, suggests that the import of young, heavily pregnant or mutilated animals is mainly an issue for dogs. We are therefore initially focusing our efforts on dogs, and we consulted on dogs this year. However, I reassure members of the Committee who feel we are being cattist in this matter, that there is an enabling power in clause 46 that allows us to expand the regulations to improve the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets in future, should we gather evidence that that is necessary.
The consultation closed on 16 October. We are currently analysing the responses and will publish a summary in due course. I hope hon. Members feel reassured by our proposals, which make it clear how seriously we take the welfare issues with this trade. It is important that we consider the views of the public and interested groups before we make a final decision on new restrictions, although I would hope that the text of what we agreed on gives a fairly clear indication of the direction of travel of the Government. We need to ensure that the measures we introduce are necessary and proportionate and that there are no unintended consequences.
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (First sitting)
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Prentis
Q
Paula Boyden: Not within a specific enclosure. Obviously, we have things like common land, and that is a different element; that is where we do have to rely on dog owners to be vigilant and to ensure, as best they can, that there are no livestock there before they let their dog off the lead. However, if I was in a field of sheep, why would I have my dog off the lead? Even with the best-trained dog in the world, can you 100% say that that dog will not go if a lamb runs away?
It must be proportionate. We do not want to be the fun police; we do not want to stop dogs having off-lead exercise because it is really important for their enrichment, but it must be proportionate. Aside from the financial impact, a dog worrying livestock is traumatic for the farmer. No farmer will want to shoot a dog, but that is the sort of resolution that will happen in those sorts of situations. We want to avoid that, both for the farming community and for our dog owners too.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
Going to the RSPCA first, this is a slightly odd Bill, in the sense that it is a collection of bits and pieces. While being careful to remain within the scope of the Bill, it is perfectly possible to imagine that there are other things that could have been included. Could you reflect on that first? What would your priorities be if you were drawing up this Bill from scratch?
David Bowles: Yes, it is a bit of a potpourri, you are right, but the RSPCA is not against that, so long as we can get improvements to animal welfare. The Government came in with something like nine or 10 animal welfare commitments, and we are delighted that they are moving on those commitments, whether it is the sentience Bill, this Bill, or the Animals Abroad Bill.
The RSPCA are glad to see the issues that are in there, and the main issue for us is ensuring that it is done properly; you only get one chance at this. I have mentioned primates, and I totally agree with Paula on the livestock worrying side of things. We need to make it as easy as possible for enforcement people. Having statements like “at large” is not an easy thing for an enforcement person to go out with and then work out.
The Scottish Government also passed legislation on this only this year. Unfortunately, their Act is not that helpful for us, because it also does not define “at large”. I think that will be a problem for enforcement agents. We should always look to write legislation that will be easy to enforce. Unfortunately, this Parliament—not this particular Parliament, but Parliament in general—has a track record of passing legislation that maybe has not done what it was supposed to do.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
David Bowles: It is very likely. Let us say that 3,000 to 5,000 primates are being kept. Some people keep them because they are exotic and very easy to get—all you need to do is go on the internet, google “buy me a tamarin” and hand over between £1,500 and £2,000, and you can get one. They do not come with any instructions. If you wanted to buy a washing machine, the person selling it would tell you, “You need to put it on this cycle”, but tamarins do not come with instructions. Is it any wonder that people do not know that they need UV lighting and a specific diet, or that they are social primates and therefore need company? Putting one in a birdcage on its own will obviously not meet its welfare needs.
A variety of people buy primates. Although some people get them because they know how to keep them, I fear the vast majority do not know how to do that, and therefore we run into welfare problems. Unfortunately, because the RSPCA is only tipped off by the public, we see only the tip of the iceberg—we know only what the public tell us. As I said, we have unfortunately seen an increase in the number of complaints on primates being kept. In many instances, when we look into those people, the primates are not being kept properly and have welfare problems, and sometimes the person will have to be prosecuted for not keeping them according to their welfare needs.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
David Bowles: Let us be realistic. There is only a finite number of places where we could put primates that have been confiscated—whether it is Wild Futures or Monkey World, who you are hearing evidence from after me—and they are full. We have to try and manage that problem, which is why, as I said to the Minister earlier, we need a soft landing.
The RSPCA is really worried that if there are licence requirements coming in after two years, there will be a cliff edge: people will keep their primates until the end of the two-year period and then abandon them, whether by turning up to an RSPCA centre or letting them loose—who knows. That really worries us, and that is why we have recommended a ban on the use of primates, rather than a licensing system, but with grandfather rights and a soft landing; as those primates die, they are taken out of the system.
Unfortunately, the primate legislation as written means that if you get licensed, you are still allowed to trade and breed those primates, so you are not going to reduce the primate population. If we want to improve the population of primates kept by private owners, we need to reduce it. Unfortunately, the Bill does not do that. I go back to the issue that the person inspecting and licensing is not an expert; they will not know what they are looking at. If you get licensed by the local authority and your licence lasts for six years, you can then breed your primate and make money from it. Those animals can be sold for a couple of thousand pounds, which is not an insubstantial amount of money. That is the worry for us.
Daniel Zeichner
I will try not to hog the witnesses, but may I ask two more questions?
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Paula Boyden: I completely agree. It is a huge worry to think that a dog could potentially be held indefinitely while proceedings go forward. There has to be a means of either expediting those investigations—I appreciate that that is easier said than done; we know that there is huge pressure on the judicial service and police forces—or, if it is appropriate, doing what the Scottish Government have just done, which is introduce a means to be able to move case animals on and rehome them. We see that with livestock worrying; as you rightly mentioned, we see it with section 1 dogs as well. We really need to address it so that we do not have dogs languishing in kennels, because that is not welfare-friendly either.
The whole reason the Scottish Government have introduced this measure is because of delays with animal welfare prosecutions. There was a case I am aware of in Scotland where the dog was kept in kennels for four years, because the defendant would not sign the dog over. We are compromising their welfare. The risk is that, with cases potentially going up to Crown court, they could take even longer. We need to look at that and work out how we can manage it so that we are not keeping dogs incarcerated for great lengths of time.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
David Bowles: The “A” in RSPCA is animals. I do not differentiate between dogs and cats—they are as good as each other, and have as many welfare needs as each other. We have to recognise that there are different markets for dogs and cats. The market for dogs tends to be much more breed-specific; cats tend to be moggies. The way they are brought to market is very different. There is no big trade in cats. There is some evidence that there may be a trade that is starting to rise in breed-specific cats, and that could be mimicking what is happening to dogs, but because the market is very different, I do not think that if we crack down on dogs, people will go on to cats to make money. Frankly, it is a different market and there is a completely different system for how people get their cats. It is also a different system in terms of what breeds they are looking for compared with what dog breeds they are looking for.
Dr Hudson
Q
Can you give us some evidence to help us in terms of tightening up the Bill through putting in numbers, such as six months of age; reintroducing health checks; the rabies titre test; and specifying mutilations such as cropped ears? The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about declawed cats as well. Can you give us specific asks? For example, how heavily pregnant should it be—is it in the last 30% to 50% of gestation? What can we do to tighten up the Bill to make the provisions clearer to the outside world?
Paula Boyden: You mentioned the minimum age of entry. The proposal is six months. We would really like to see that science, as there is a potential to start looking at older dogs. The reason I say that is because of the disease risk from those dogs, which I appreciate is not part of the scope today. We have 12 years of serology data on the rabies vaccination and the rabies titre test from the 12 years prior to the change in 2012. We know that the animals that are least likely to respond to the rabies vaccination are young dogs—young, naive animals—those under a year of age, I would say, particularly with large breeds. The wait period would bring the time period in line with the incubation of the disease—most cases of rabies will present between three and 12 weeks post infection. That measure starts to give us a good framework, should we want to expand that at a later date.
On pregnancy, David mentioned third-party sales. It is not a bad piece of legislation, but I go back to a previous comment—we need to take a holistic view. This is all about the supply of and demand for dogs. Illegal importation is one side, but the domestic legislation around breeding and sale is also important. We have to tie them together. Since that legislation on third-party sales came in, we have seen a significant increase in pregnant mums coming in. This time of year, we are seeing a surge because they are all coming in for the Christmas market, because it completely circumvents the ban on third-party sales.
As a minimum, we ought to be reducing the gestation period to a maximum of 30% —a maximum of one half to two-thirds pregnant. We had originally said 50% of pregnancy, and the reason for that was that the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 protects unborn offspring at 50%, but having spoken to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I understand that you can use ultrasound and the kidneys appear at about 42 days, so that could be quite a good indicator. The challenge with ageing at the moment is that it is very subjective. You are looking at the body weight, the size, of the puppy, but you are also looking at the eruption of the teeth—the adult teeth—which again is going to be variable. So having something that is a little bit more specific would be great, and if it were reduced to 42 days, it would mean that—well, certainly looking at the figures that we have, over 70% of the pregnant mums that were seized would have been illegally imported, compared with a smaller proportion. It is very, very difficult to say that a bitch is 50 days’ pregnant versus 54 days’ pregnant or whatever. The issue is having that specificity.
The journeys that these mums undertake are horrific—that is the only way I can describe them. They do not have enough room. There is no temperature regulation. Quite often, they are not fed, because if they are not fed, there is very little coming out the other end. They are given very little water. They have no breaks. That is not a way to treat a heavily pregnant animal of whatever species we are talking about. So the aim should be to reduce that and, as I mentioned, to absolutely ban the commercial importation of pregnant mums as well.
Sitting alongside that is the issue of mutilations. We very much support the ban on importing dogs that are mutilated—docked and cropped, and you mentioned cats that have been declawed. The one thing that does not happen at the moment is visual checks on importation. The checks are undertaken by the carriers, which we feel is wrong. That should actually be done by either an independent or a Government agency, so that there is no conflict there. But it should at least involve a visual check. We have demonstrated that on a number of occasions when we have actually imported a toy dog and nobody looked in the crate to see that it was a toy dog. We need that to see what the position is: “Does this actually match up? Does this animal actually need a physical examination?” We are not saying that we need to be hands on with every animal, but having a physical check is really quite critical in this respect.
In terms of mutilations, as I have mentioned, it is really important that we ban not only the importation but the sale of those dogs and cats so that they cannot be passed on, but we would very much welcome a very tight exemption so that, as a rehoming organisation, we could rehome them rather than the dogs being confined to our care for the rest of their lives. That is exactly what we have with section 1 dogs at the moment, because we cannot rehome them.
There is another thing sitting alongside this. We have spoken about the checks at the ports. I have two comments. One is that the risk with raising the minimum age of entry to six months is that we may see a shift from what we have at the moment, which is illegal importation, whereby the puppies are declared and have a passport but the information is wrong, to true smuggling, whereby they are hidden. We need to be mindful of that and look at how we can address it.
The other thing that we need alongside this, aside from the enforcement, is penalties, because the penalties just are not there. We have had approximately 2,000 puppies come into our care since we have been working with Animal and Plant Health Agency colleagues at Dover. Out of those, there have been three prosecutions and not one custodial sentence. If I use the analogy of cigarette smuggling, the maximum sentence there is seven years, whereas the maximum sentence for this is a year. I find it quite strange that if I were caught smuggling cigarettes, the last thing that would happen is that I would be given my cigarettes back, yet that is what has happened to the importers—they can claim their puppies back. One thing that we have seen through lockdown, because of the increased demand and increased prices, is more and more puppies being reclaimed through quarantine, because there is still a profit to be made. That is fundamentally wrong. At the moment, there is no deterrent to trying to circumvent whatever rules we put in place.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Judge: Yes, we have, but it would be great to have a requirement set down somewhere that that will always happen when they are being developed rather than when they go out for wider consultation.
ZEC gives advice to the Government, and that advice is great, but there is no transparency about that at the moment. There is no requirement for it to publish its advice. We would like to see the advice around the standards brought into line with the new animal sentience committee, and it being given the ability to publish its advice, so there would be greater transparency, which would make the standards process more robust.
On moving conservation into the standards, we very much support the highest conservation requirements for zoos and aquariums. We believe that all modern zoos should provide impactful conservation, so we support that, but we would like assurances around consultation, transparency and accountability of the standards as they are reviewed.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
However, I listened very closely to your evidence, and you both said, “a number of”. A number can be anything from one to quite a few. I am not at all clear how many people we are talking about who are, in your words, in a position to keep primates to zoo standards. I would really welcome a stab from both of you at how many people we are actually talking about. That goes back to my question to the RSPCA: who are they? They are clearly not the kind of people we are trying to clamp down on, who are keeping primates in totally inappropriate conditions. How many can do it properly?
Dr Cronin: In our experience over the years, I can only comment on the numbers and proportions I have seen. Specialist keepers who have reached out to us or that I am aware of are probably one in 30. It is a very small fraternity of people—the personal hobbyists, if you will—who are prepared to spend the amount of money, time and effort needed to keep these animals properly. It is not straightforward; you have to invest a lot of time and effort into it and have back-up resources for going on holiday, or anything like that. So the number of specialist keepers is very small.
What has happened in the last decade is that social media has driven the trade in keeping exotic pets—primates in particular—in households to increase someone’s social media standing and the like. It has got out of control, and I think everybody agrees that that is the frontline that needs to be tackled first. Then, perhaps, additional legislation to deal with any outstanding issues surrounding those specialist keepers might be a follow-on. However, I think we all agree that the frontline triage is to stop the over-the-counter trade of primates being sold in birdcages to be kept in sitting rooms in solitary confinement. I do not think anybody has a problem with that being the primary focus.
Dr Judge: It is very difficult to put a number on it. We only have a handful of what we call our accredited associates, who are people who keep primates to that zoo standard in a private setting. There are also a number of sanctuaries that do not have a zoo licence because they do not allow visitors, which is what would tip them over into needing a zoo licence. At the moment, it is unclear how those sanctuaries would be affected by a ban. Presumably, with the licensing procedure, they would be able to carry on.
Those people are genuinely very passionate about their primates. The ones we deal with are very keen to be involved in conservation and breeding programmes; they are also people who will take animals that other people cannot properly house, and so on. They form a vital part of the safekeeping of primates in the UK. We do not know how many there are at the moment, but it is unlikely to be a massive number.
Dr Cronin: May I add one short comment? There is also an issue with pet shops and people taking advantage of loopholes in legislation by keeping primates in the pet shop, but not offering them for sale. Do those animals fall under the pet shop licence, or are they now in need of a dangerous wild animals licence, or the specialist keepers’ licence we are talking about? The whole issue surrounding pet shops needs to be tightened up. Also, as was mentioned earlier, there are all the farm parks that currently fall in between legislation. Are they zoos or not if they have a parrot and a marmoset? It is in those situations that animals are being neglected and falling short of legislation.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Judge: There has to be a reasonable period over which this is going to be implemented. If there are welfare issues, obviously, that should be paramount and there should be rehoming and the ability for that. The difficulty will be the capacity for rehoming. I know that Monkey World, for example, is at capacity—if not possibly over capacity—a lot of the time because of the rehoming that it does. While zoos will assist wherever they can, the actual capacity within zoos is restricted because it is not easy to take a pet monkey and put it into an established social group of primates kept in a zoo situation. Zoos have long-term management plans for all those animals, and they have a carrying capacity. The worst examples need to be rehomed as quickly as possible, but having a system whereby people are checked and then there is a longer period—I think it is two years at the moment—to get those into better premises could be useful. However, it all has to come down to the welfare issue.
Dr Cronin: There is a further twist in the tail there too and it falls back to the ZEC committee and the zoo’s licensing. A lot of the animals have come via captive-bred animals from zoos. When we are talking about breeding primates for so-called conservation purposes—and sometimes it is not actually so—so-called surplus animals are created that are then rehomed at various rescue centres or sanctuaries that may or may not be licensed, or they find themselves into the pet trade. That is where I suppose my worlds are colliding. There needs to be tighter legislation in the ZEC committee, in my opinion, to limit and control the breeding of species that are not conservation priorities and to ensure that those animals—that the zoos are obligated to care for what they breed. That is just a moral principle that we live by at Monkey World: anything that is born at the park I am obligated to care for for its lifetime, unless I can find a home of better quality than we provide already. That is something that needs to be fully embraced throughout the zoos up and down the country.
Dr Judge: In good, modern zoos, sending animals into the pet trade would never happen. It is against our sanctions. However, not all zoos are BIAZA zoos and the ones that do not adhere to those higher standards are the problem. It is those lower levels that we need to bring up to match the other standards. Within good zoos and aquariums, and the whole of BIAZA zoos and aquariums, breeding is very carefully planned and it can be done at a European level for conservation breeding, but they have to know what they are going to do with those animals when they breed them.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Girling: I genuinely believe that they will for a number of different reasons. The standards, as I am sure the Committee knows, have been altered to ensure that grey areas—ideas of best practice, so-called “shoulds” or “coulds”, suggestions that this is the best way to manage an animal—have been pretty much removed wholesale from the standards and replaced with “musts”. Consequently, it has inevitably resulted in an increase in standards throughout this document. I am confident that this new set of standards will improve the welfare of captive animals, including primates, and I certainly welcome the extension of welfare standards for primates from the zoo standards to all primates kept in captivity, just to echo what both Alison and Jo have said. Yes, I believe these standards will result in that and that may well result in some issues for some current zoo-licensed premises. They will have to improve their game or there may be the ultimate sanction of the local authority removing their licence if they do not come up to the new welfare standards.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Girling: It depends on the individual collection. They become the responsibility of the local authority in the first instance, because when the local authority removes the licence, it becomes responsible for the welfare and care of the animals. It then absolutely becomes a potential issue to rehome those animals to other zoological collections. As Alison has already acknowledged, many collections—zoos, sanctuaries and so on—are already at capacity.
We would expect that the standards will take some time to implement once they have been agreed, so there will be a lead-in period in which it would be plainly obvious to collections that the standards are improving. We sincerely hope that this will give everybody time to improve their game and to improve the welfare for their animals should it have fallen short of the new standards. Inevitably, yes, it may well result in animals needing to be rehomed, as Alison indicated.
Daniel Zeichner
I am not sure whether I feel more sorry for the animals or the local authorities. I will leave it at that.
The Chair
We have just under 25 minutes. I will tell the Committee which Members have caught my eye so that we make the best use of time: I have Luke Evans first, then Olivia Blake, James Grundy and Dr Neil Hudson.
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
Minette Batters: No, and it would be interesting to hear from the police on that. We feel that there need to be stronger controls. While I have the opportunity, the same applies for hare coursing. It is still far too easy to commit a crime with a dog without a severe penalty. We have a severe penalty on hare coursing with vehicles, but at the moment that cost falls to the police. We need to see that being tightened up.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Minette Batters: With the loss of livestock at the scale that we are seeing at the moment, no, there is not. It is perfectly avoidable. The real challenge is that once a dog has attacked and killed a sheep, it will do it again. We have to have zero tolerance to stop that happening in the first place, otherwise it will continue to happen.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Minette Batters: Well, with the climate we have here, air throughput is absolutely essential to ensure that animals are travelling comfortably. However, in banning live animal exports and opening up our market to a much greater level of raw ingredients, I think that there is a very strong case to be made on competitiveness. We are seeing rising standards of animal welfare and animal transport and the banning of live animal exports, but we are not seeing any recommendations to impose any of those laws on other countries. That is quite a major challenge as we move forwards. We all want to see higher levels of animal welfare, but, above all else, we want things to be fair.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Peter Stevenson: Until it finally becomes law, the key issue is still bringing an end to the export of animals for slaughter. As I said, calf exports in effect ended at the end of 2019, when Scotland decided to no longer export them. However, that trade could resume. We are seeing young animals—between two and five weeks—exported from the UK all the way down to Spain, and then, in certain cases, after a period of fattening, re-exported from Spain for slaughter in Lebanon and Libya. Let us try to finally get that through and make it an Act of Parliament.
Although it is not in the Bill, I am aware that DEFRA has been consulting about changes for journeys in the UK, on shorter journey times, more space, more headroom and greater care about making sure animals are not overheating during journeys. All that is welcome. I know that the farmers had a number of concerns about DEFRA’s proposals; DEFRA’s response to the consultation struck a reasonable balance between welfare concerns and farmer’s concerns. I know that DEFRA is still talking to stakeholders about that. So yes, I think even within the UK we should be having shorter journeys. We have always campaigned for a maximum journey time of eight hours for slaughter and fattening. DEFRA says, and I know this from supermarkets too, in practice most journeys to slaughter are below eight hours.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Peter Stevenson: There is a potential loophole, but it is not really possible to assess how much the loophole will, in practice, exist. The Bill exports from England, Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland; because of the protocol, it would not legally be able to include Northern Ireland. There is a danger here, which I am hoping is theoretical rather than actual, that people in England, Wales and Scotland could send animals to Northern Ireland that then go on to the Republic and on to the continent. In practice, it does not sound that likely; the only ferry service to Northern Ireland from Scotland, which is the route that has been traditionally been used from Cairnryan to Larne, is operated by P&O and they have a very clear written policy of not taking animals for slaughter or fattening. A colleague of mine checked with Stena Sealink, which also operates from Cairnryan to Belfast, and they said that they are not licenced to take animals, and they seem to have no desire to get involved in that trade.
I am hoping that we will not see animals going from GB to Northern Ireland, and then on to the continent. However, there certainly is a danger of that. In the regulation-making powers that are given by the Bill on live exports, DEFRA could consider including some sort of requirement that, for people who are taking animals from GB to Northern Ireland, there is some way of certifying that those animals are genuinely destined for Norther Ireland and not bound for re-export to the Republic and the continent.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Peter Stevenson: A bit like breeding animals, there has not been evidence of real problems with poultry over the years in the way that there has been with the export of sheep and calves. As far as I am aware, all the poultry being exported are day-old chicks; they have a yolk sac that for a certain amount of time is providing them with energy and liquid. Under current EU law, as long as the transport is finished by the time they are 72 hours old, they can be transported for 24 hours. I think DEFRA proposed to let that law remain in place.
When we look at the science, I think the figures could possibly be revisited; perhaps 24 hours is a bit long—perhaps 16 hours would have a better effect for the health and welfare of these tiny chicks. There is an argument for saying that those journeys should be completed within 48 hours of hatching—not 72. I think there should be some revisiting there, but we are not saying that the export of these day-old chicks should be brought to an end.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Taylor: Absolutely. As I said previously, I think bridges were crumbling between the police and farming communities, going back 20 years. Since 2013, I have seen a huge upsurge in the way in which the police deal with rural and farming communities. I highlight the fact that there are over 25 rural crime teams, which are expanding week on week. In Wales alone, we have over 40 dedicated rural officers, and I am dealing with them, along with four sergeants, as the all Wales crime co-ordinator. The resources are definitely there. On the 125 cases in North Wales, I can speak with authority as the previous team manager. Every single case is dealt with professionally and thoroughly from cradle to grave by a dedicated rural crime officer, and that is the same for Dyfed-Powys Police, Gwent Police and South Wales Police, who are currently coming on board. The same applies to a number of teams that exist throughout England as well.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Taylor: I firmly believe that it will lead to the outcomes that we are hoping for. Having dedicated officers makes us more efficient in how we deal with things. For example, if you go back 15 years, I was a young police constable in North Wales, dealing one day with a shoplifter and the next expected to go to a farm to deal with a livestock attack involving 10 or 15 sheep. I did not have a clue what I was doing—that was the case before dedicated teams came in.
I give North Wales as an example, but North Yorkshire has exactly the same kind of team, based on ours. I worked with them to start up that team a number of years ago, so I can speak with authority for them as well. They are experienced officers who will go to a farm, know exactly what the issues are, deal with them efficiently and quickly, and take everything on board. The new law makes it easier for officers to deal with the problem. In the olden days, you could not get DNA to prove an offence, so you had to try, try and try, and spend lots of time trying to prove the offence. The new law gives us the power to do that more efficiently by using dedicated officers. I am an absolute firm believer that this law will give us the power to do what we need to do, and do it better.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Rob Quest: We get some of the same problems that you have with puppies—false paperwork, fake vaccine certificates and so on—with rescue dogs as well.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: We would support three. It is probably easier for the enforcers if there is just a blanket of three, but we understand that there are also issues if you limit it too much. When families are travelling, they may have more than three. We understand from the data that it is very unlikely that individual families would have more than three animals, but if more than one family were travelling they may have three. Overall, we think that three is a good number.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: Yes, we would support cats being treated in the same way as dogs, and the same rules applying to cats as to dogs. From an enforcement point of view, again that makes life easier. Families may have dogs and cats, and to have different rules confuses things, so we would support treating cats the same way. There is evidence that the number of cats being imported has increased. Certainly, through Heathrow airport our cat seizures have gone up over the last two years.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: We agree wholeheartedly with banning the import of cropped and docked dogs. My experience at Heathrow airport is of a big increase in the number of dogs coming in from the USA with cropped ears. As part of our remit, we also know that there has been an increase in breeds such as the Dobermann coming from Europe with cropped ears. We would fully support a ban on the import of those.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: We have a concern about dogs coming in through the ports and on the train, because the requirement of the checkers is just to check the microchip numbers. They do not get them out of the containers. If they are flown in through an airport—as I say, we get cropped dogs coming in from the US—they will generally be released into a kennel, and it is very easy to see that they have cropped ears, but we have a concern that they are not inspected fully by the pet checkers, which are usually the ferry company or the train company, when they come in on that route. That is something that we highlighted in our response.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: You need to have a visual check; otherwise, you will not know whether the animals have been cropped and docked.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: If they do a visual check, it is easy to tell that a dog has had its ears cropped. It could be a requirement to do visual checks, or the whole checking process could be handed over to officials, but that comes with another pile of issues.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Rob Quest: Resources would be the main one, and the priorities of officials at ports. If the checkers could be properly resourced and part of the official enforcement authority, that would be a good result, but we understand that issues of resources go along with that.
James Daly
Q
Rob Quest: Yes, the Canine and Feline Sector Group is made up of a wide range of organisations, such as Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, which you have already heard from, and the British Veterinary Association.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Webb: Clearly, the Bill is trying to strike a sensible balance. We share the concern of some others that some of the definitions currently in the Bill perhaps muddy those waters a little. There is no need for some kind of blanket ban on off-lead walking. At the same time, however, if people have a reasonable suspicion that there is going to be livestock in the area, it is absolutely essential that they keep their dog on a lead. From our perspective, this is about people’s livelihoods. Dogs should not be walked off-lead in areas where there will be livestock present.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Webb: We welcome the seizure powers in the Bill, because if people are bringing animals in for a less than reputable purpose, ultimately there is no reason why those people should have those animals back. However, there are still a few areas that we feel need ironing out. In particular, with the move towards border control posts, which I believe are due to be operational from January, what happens if someone, either innocently or otherwise, takes their dog to the wrong place? One assumes that there will be adequate kennelling facilities at the designated border control post for animal movements, but what happens elsewhere? Our concern is that people might be given the dog back and told to return whence they came, thus exposing the dog to a hazardous journey. On how the imports system will continue to operate, we think the Bill makes some pretty sensible proposals. We hope that in some areas greater clarity will come out during Committee stage and in further scrutiny.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I think that we are good at identifying problems, but solutions are sometimes more difficult.
Mike Webb: If I may propose a solution on the imports idea, it seems to me that there is a great opportunity for partnership working here. Obviously, border control posts, the police or Border Force, will only want to keep kennelled animals for a period of time. It seems to me that what they will require is partners to move those animals to thereafter. There is a strong and very dedicated network of rescue centres around the country, so we would encourage Border Force, for example, to get to know their local rescue centre, which might have kennelling space that they are able to help them with.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Webb: In a perfect world we would have one easy-to-access database, but we do not live in that perfect world and we are unlikely to. Ultimately, these are commercial entities and it would be very expensive and complicated to get back to a position of there being only one microchipping database for dogs, and that is before it becomes compulsory for cats, which we expect in the coming months. It is really essential that there is one simple, easy-to-access place that vets can visit to find out which database is holding the information on the chip they scanned, rather than having to go through, I think, 13 currently compliant databases—plus however many non-compliant databases. If there was one simple portal with the capacity to access the different databases that vets need, that would surely save them a whole lot of time.
The Chair
I am sure he will ask some more, Minister. We now go to the hon. Member for Cambridge.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: We have a very detailed annexe to our briefing, which we have sent you, so I refer you to that on specific wording changes. We are particularly worried about single-kept primates—how changes to the number of primates you might be holding could lead to primates being on their own, which has serious welfare implications for such a social taxon. If a licensing scheme is implemented, rather than a complete ban, then we want that to be as tight as possible, with very high standards, so that keeping primates really is the exception rather than the rule. That would involve experienced keepers, who would be part of international breeding programmes, for example, so the standards were at least as per zoos, if not higher. We know that local authorities will need support and resourcing to enforce this, and we can absolutely support vets, in terms of instructing them around the training that they require, and acting in their areas of competency.
There are a few asks on the detail. We feel that the licence length is far too long at six years, and want that brought down to four years, with inspections every couple of years. We also want a reduction in the rectification time from two years to six months, because two years is a very long time for welfare issues in primates.
A key concern around this part of the Bill is that it could be applied to other wild animals, and if that goes in there, there needs to be a caveat: species-specific needs should be considered and relevant stakeholders engaged before it can be applied to other species. It could work well with primates if we can get a few changes in there, but we do not think it is appropriate for it to apply to other species at this point.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: We would prefer a ban, unless the licensing standards are extremely high, so that licensing really is only for the occasional individual with legitimate reasons, where we can adequately ensure the welfare of those animals.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: We do feel that dogs should be on a lead. We do not want to discourage people from walking their dogs in the countryside. We know the welfare benefits for the dogs, as well as for their owners and their mental health, but we think it is appropriate to have dogs on leads when they are around livestock.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: I think we would have to engage with our stakeholders in more detail to see exactly what that looks like, but it is about ensuring that the welfare needs of animals can be met throughout the journey—a lot of injuries and welfare compromises happen around loading and unloading—and around being fit to transport in the first place. We want to ensure that anyone in charge of those animals at any point along their export knows how to meet their welfare needs. They need adequate veterinary-led training in that.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: I think it how it is applied depends on the country. There are a number of different tests for different diseases, but we would want to see those put on an import certificate that came with a dog that had been declared to be free of certain diseases via testing, and we would want to see adequate results from approved laboratories. That is the way it works for other diseases and other species, when it comes to imports and exports.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: Yes. We have a number of additional asks. For example, we would like the reintroduction of tick and tapeworm treatments for cats as well as dogs, and a reduction in the amount of time before animals—dogs and cats—come in for the tapeworm treatments. As a general rule, we think that the diseases are slightly different, depending on the species and the country, but ideally pre-import testing would apply to both groups.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Justine Shotton: Absolutely. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which is our regulator, uses the term “specialist” to refer to vets who have achieved the highest academic level of qualification, which is a diplomate status in a certain field. When they have achieved that level, they can be called “specialist,” so it is a particular term in a professional context.
For example, I am a zoo vet. I have worked in a zoo for seven years and I look after primates on a daily basis, but I am not a specialist. I could be considered an expert in primate care, I suppose, and I should be considered one of the people whom it would be appropriate to have look after primates and ensure that their welfare needs are met, but I am not a specialist. That is why we would like that wording changed.
Dr Hudson
Q
Justine Shotton: That is to protect not only those animals, but animals in the UK. Certain parasites can be detrimental and harmful to human health, so we want to ensure they are eliminated before those animals come in. The timeframe is important in terms of the elimination. There are also some nasty tick-borne diseases. This would protect not only our pets but public health, and the timeframe is important because of the lifecycle of those animals and the timeframe in which they breed infection.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Mike Flynn: I am absolutely delighted that you have worked with the devolved Administrations. If certain parts of the Bill are not UK-wide, that will open up loopholes for everyone. Take cropping dogs’ ears, for instance: if it is not banned in Scotland, they would import them into Scotland and transport them down to England. It really has to be UK-wide.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Flynn: On the importation of dogs and the import and export of livestock for further farming, I think you are on the right track. I have spoken to people in the Scottish Government and they are happy with that—I believe a consent motion has already been laid before the Scottish Parliament. As I said in my previous answer, if there is one part of the UK that is exempt, it will open up loopholes and encourage people, especially in the puppy trade, to exploit that loophole.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Mike Flynn: That is way above my pay grade, I am afraid. That will bring many problems, but it is something that the UK Government and the Administrations will have to work through.
Victoria Prentis
Q
Dr Wright: Yes; they are huge and longstanding. The Bill is well overdue in that regard. We have repeat attacks and offences on farms. A National Sheep Association survey said that one farm had been hit up to 100 times in one year. The financial and emotional consequences of that are huge. Surveys from North Wales police, which was the first police service to record the data, gave estimates of about 300 or 400 attacks in about three and a half years, which is one every three days. That is just in north Wales. In a system that has low profitability and low margins, those kinds of attacks are make or break for some businesses, especially those that have built up their breeding stock over long periods. They have managed to build businesses up from scratch. Some of them are having problems with succession, for example. It is a massive issue, which I cannot be overestimated in the current climate.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Wright: Everything that I say from now on is caveated with the fact that the Bill is incredibly welcomed and is good news. However, I do not think it goes far enough to define under close control or proper control. We need to have a situation where dogs are on a lead in fields near or adjacent to livestock. I notice that the Bill says that if somebody believes their dog will return “reliably and promptly” then it is under close control, but I honestly do not believe that anyone can be confident that that would be the case when their dog is in a field near livestock. Dogs are natural predators—it is in their genetic make-up. I feel that the Bill needs to go one step further and ensure that dogs are kept on a lead.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Wright: No, I do not, actually. Because there are repeat offences, I feel that the seriousness of this in the past has not reached the critical level to be a deterrent for people. If we want it to be a deterrent and we want it to work, the fines have to be serious. They have to relate to the amount of financial devastation that there has been on farms. We are talking about tens of thousands of pounds of losses on some farms—and those losses are just financial, and do not include the other indirect losses with breeding stock, and so on. We have to take it seriously, and the fines should be increased.
Ben Lake
Q
Dr Wright: The length of “1.8 metres or less” seems reasonable. I cannot see a problem with that in and of itself. As you say, the Bill says “under proper control”, which is an arbitrary statement. It depends on the confidence of the dog walker, which may or may not be real-life situation confidence. I think that many people assume that their dog would come back when, actually, in that situation, it would not. It is a lack of understanding. I know I am reiterating what I said before, but it is so important for our membership to get this part right. I do not have a problem with the 1.8 metres, but I think dogs have to be on a lead when near or adjacent to livestock.
Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsFriday 29th October 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 View all Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on bringing forward the Bill. His passion for animal welfare is well known and admired across the House. I also associate myself with all the comments about Sir David Amess. It is absolutely right that he would have been here contributing today. We are so sorry not to have him here with us.
This is very clearly a Government Bill—it was referenced in the Government’s action plan for animal welfare—so I will treat it as such. Some of my comments will be directed as much at the Minister and the Department as at the hon. Member for Romford.
To some extent, this is a puzzling Bill. It is really about penalty notices as much as it is about animals. To see that, one just has to read the long title of the Bill, which is to
“Make provision for and in connection with the giving of penalty notices for certain offences relating to animals and animal products.”
That says to me—I am not a lawyer, but it says it to my legal friends with whom I am consulting—that this is as much about the legal system as it is about animals. I disagree with some of the comments by Government Members. I do not think it is particularly well-drafted. When I first read the Bill my worry was that there was a danger that some of the offences in Labour’s groundbreaking Animal Welfare Act 2006—Labour Members are very, very proud of the 2006 Act—were at risk of being downgraded to the level of a parking ticket.
I listened very closely to the hon. Member for Romford’s speech and I am reassured. I see what he is trying to do. I have also spoken to the Minister and she has reassured me that that is not the aim of the exercise. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) to her place. As I said to her colleague the other day, the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team is flattered that the Government have felt the need to bring in reinforcements. I wish her well in her role, which is a fantastic job to be doing. I believe her reassurance, which is why we will not be opposing the Bill. I know how Fridays work. It has happened to me before. We know how to do it, but we are not going to.
To be fair, this is not just about the hon. Member’s reassurances or the Minister’s reassurances. In their briefings, both the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home expressed support for the use of fixed-penalty notices to tackle low-level breaches of animal welfare law. That is the crunch of the question that I asked myself about the Bill: how we are sure that it is about low-level breaches.
I am not sure the Government entirely helped themselves in the way the explanatory notes set out the context for the Bill. Anyone coming to them afresh would read through them and not be entirely sure, without the benefit of the hon. Member for Romford’s speech, that they had understood it. I would have thought the starting point would have been the action plan for animal welfare, which sets out the context. In fact, the explanatory notes immediately attack CAP cross-compliance. I just say to Conservative Members: get over it. Labour Members have gotten over it. We are looking ahead. We do not have to keep looking back and replaying the arguments of the past.
If Conservative Members are congratulating themselves on how animal friendly they are, I suggest they visit their local pig farms, if they have them in their part of the country. I went a few weeks ago, and what I saw was very sad. They are overstocked, and the tail biting and aggressive behaviour, and so on, is awful for the animals—it is also pretty awful for the people working with them. I ask hon. Members to reflect, as that is perhaps one of the unforeseen consequences of recent changes. We have to find a solution, because there is nothing animal friendly about 6,000 pigs being culled on farms, with possibly more to come.
There is an attempt to link the Bill with CAP cross-compliance, which we all know has had problems—no one is saying it was a particularly successful system, although these things are not as easy as they might look. We might reflect on that. The way the Bill is framed, those cross-compliance issues have to be related to animals. Having read the explanatory notes, that is not entirely clear.
These are the kinds of things we will be exploring in Committee, because there is a concern about the lack of clarity. The positive spin is that this Bill is an extra tool in the toolbox to aid compliance, which is absolutely fine. If the Bill were to replace the penalties for quite serious offences with the equivalent of a parking ticket, that is not fine. Leaving the choice on where that line is drawn to officials and Ministers through obscure secondary legislation is also not fine.
Although animal welfare organisations support the Bill, their concerns can be discerned in some of the briefings. Battersea says the “beyond all reasonable doubt” criterion that an enforcement authority has to satisfy before issuing a fixed penalty notice could have unforeseen consequences for offences that currently require lower levels of proof. It rightly says that the guidance will be critical to ensuring that there is some uniformity of practice. I welcome the reporting proposals, but the reporting needs to be uniform so it is clear to enforcers when fixed penalty notices are the appropriate tool to use.
Similarly, the RSPCA says
“more discussion will be needed when secondary legislation is laid on which areas will be prioritised and what offences will be covered.”
In my view that is too late. There needs to be more clarity in the Bill, and the Minister has indicated that she appreciates that and that it will be considered in Committee. Indeed, she might wish to consider whether the entire system needs some oversight and whether there is a role for an animal welfare commissioner, as Labour has suggested.
It is perhaps worth asking some basic questions about why the current system does not work, or about the extent to which it does or does not work. Where is the empirical evidence? Has the research been done? If so, can we see it? How many prosecutions have been brought under the various legislation? How many were successful, and what was the effect? How much recidivism has there been?
A cynic might wonder whether this Bill should actually be called the “complete failure of the Tory criminal justice system, (attempt to clear the backlog)” Bill. Although some might see that as unfair, it is the Opposition’s job to ask questions, and we will. If we do not get the answers, we will draw our own conclusions.
We all want the legislation we pass in this place to work, and Sir David and I had exactly this discussion in the Chamber some months ago on his attempt to address the long-standing, vexed issue of tethered horses. He made the good point that if Acts of Parliament are not properly enforced, we find ourselves having the same debate 17 or 20 years later. It is crucial that we get it right.
I am happy to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I am not entirely convinced but, provided proper safeguards are introduced in Committee—I am sure I have her word on that—we can go forward together.
Oral Answers to Questions
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Prentis
I believe I am meeting my hon. Friend to discuss stilton and other important cheeses this afternoon.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The national food strategy is a weighty tome, but Henry Dimbleby, who the Government commissioned to write it, is not a happy man. Last week, following the New Zealand trade deal, he told the Soil Association conference that,
“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.”
I suspect that virtually everyone in the Chamber agrees with that—the Opposition certainly do. Can the Minister tell us her view and the Government’s view?
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that my view and the Government’s view are entirely aligned. Henry Dimbleby’s report was a useful step in the development of the Government’s food strategy and we are grateful to him for the enormous amount of work that he put into it. As I said earlier, we will respond as a Government probably in the middle of January, which will be six months after the report was published. That is what we always said the timescale would be. There is a lot of work to do and it is a really important piece of work. It is genuinely a once-in-a-generation chance to try to put our food strategy on the right track for the future. I cannot give Members any spoilers now.
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsMonday 25th October 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill 2021-22 View all Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
May I start by echoing all the warm tributes to Sir David Amess? My office in 1 Parliament Street is very close to his. We often spoke in the lift and came over to vote together. We had different political views, but what a lovely fellow. Like everyone, I miss him very, very much. If anyone is running a book on the Westminster dog of the year competition, close it now, given the number of promises for Vivienne—although we politicians know that promises do not count for anything, so get out and vote!
We are all animal lovers here—no one doubts that—and we all care, but sometimes actions speak louder than words. I was slightly disappointed not to hear anything from the Secretary of State earlier about the animal welfare crisis unfolding on this Government’s watch, for which I think they bear some responsibility. I am, of course, talking about the crisis in the pig sector, which the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) spoke about so eloquently. It is absolutely right to celebrate the end of live exports in the Bill, which we strongly support—we are not opposing the Bill tonight—but it is worth noting that there have been as many pigs culled in the fields in the last few weeks as, sadly, live animals exported for slaughter in the last year. I fear there will be more to come. In answer to a written parliamentary question, the Government recently admitted that they do not keep a tally. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why not. These are kept animals—dumped animals, effectively. They do not feature in the Bill, but, like many other things, they probably could and should have.
Once again, the Government are doing things in the wrong order. Just as the Environment Bill should have come before the Agriculture Act 2020, just so we have a rather eclectic collection of bits and pieces on animals in this Bill, when the key legislation that we should have started with, the Animal Sentience (Welfare) Bill, is in the other place. If anyone wants to see some really traditional Conservative views on that, I suggest they read some of the speeches made on that—not a lot of time for animal welfare there. We on the Labour Benches take a very different view. There is so much that needs to be done that Labour will do: better conditions for piglets; an end to the cage age; and an animal welfare commissioner to make sure it all happens. That is for the future, but tonight is a start, and we will work with that.
Let me start with primates. The Government have made big promises to end primates being kept as pets, but as we have heard from Members from across the House, that is not what is happening. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and Government Members, made that point. The licensing system proposed in the Bill allows the continued breeding and selling of primates, meaning that primates can be kept as pets in perpetuity. That needs to stop, and I think there are others across the House who agree with that position. If the Government are introducing a licensing system, it must be one that improves primate conditions and ends the domestic breeding and sale of primates, so we can gradually see it phased out. We think the position should be much clearer. I suspect there will be an interesting debate on the issue in Committee. We also think the Government have been too vague about the welfare conditions connected to the licence. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when the standards will be published, what they will contain and who will be involved in drafting them.
The Government have deployed one of their favourite tactics: palming off costly responsibilities to local councils. We all know how councils have suffered over the last decade, and they will need additional support. Perhaps the Minister can explain how councils will operate a costly and complex system without any additional support.
We have had a good discussion on livestock worrying, and I suspect there is strong agreement on it across the House. However, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has criticised provisions in the Bill that state that a dog must be “at large” for its behaviour to fall under the definition of livestock worrying. It says that that is
“too broad and contains loopholes”.
We rather agree. We think a dog should be on a lead when near livestock, and we do not believe there should be an exemption for packs of hounds.
We all welcome the ban on live exports, but the exportation of livestock for slaughter has always posed significant welfare concerns. Prolonged periods of transportation expose animals to food and water deprivation, overcrowding and lack of rest, and exporting animals has always opened them to the risk that they will be slaughtered in conditions that fall below UK standards. However, the Bill ignores the obvious truth that long journeys in the UK to slaughterhouses also harm animal welfare—a point made by those on the Government Benches and by the Animal Welfare Committee.
In the UK, the number of local abattoirs has been significantly reduced, meaning that many farmers have little choice but to send livestock long distances for slaughter. Everyone will be aware of the strong campaign that has been waged on this matter, which is frequently raised with me by farmers who would like to return to a mixed farming model, but are reluctant to subject animals to such long journeys. There was some incredulity at the comments earlier this year by the Secretary of State, who seemed to suggest that that was not a problem. Can the Minister commit to working to re-establish local networks of slaughterhouses, to end the suffering of animals undertaking extensive journeys inside the UK?
During the pandemic, we have all heard about the rising demand for pets, and many have spoken tonight about the horrible, illegal trading of puppies and smuggling of animals. While we welcome the provisions in the Bill, we do not think they go quite far enough, and we heard many hon. Members talk about that. I hope the Government will listen to calls from the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and others to reduce the number of pets permitted to travel across our border in a non-commercial vehicle from the suggested five to three. We heard powerful case made by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). We think it would be much better to make that change sooner rather than later, and I am sure the matter will be discussed intensively in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham also talked about the provisions restricting the importation of animals on welfare grounds, such as by raising the minimum age of imported animals and banning the importation of heavily pregnant animals and animals subjected to illegal mutilation. Those provisions are not in the Bill but will be put in secondary legislation. Many hon. Members who spoke would like the Minister to explain why it is being done that way. I was struck by the number of Government Members raising concerns on zoos. I suspect that will also be something we will want to look at much more closely in Committee.
In conclusion, this seems to us a slightly odd Bill, perhaps more limited than it needed to be, but useful, and one that could certainly have been better. We will not oppose it, but given that there is so much more to do, I can guarantee that we will look to improve it in Committee. We look forward to challenging the Government to explain why they do not want to do what it appears so many hon. Members on their own side would like them to.
Draft Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place—elevated no less—and also surrounded by lots of hon. Friends. It is wonderful to see so many people here. I also understand that an additional Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister has been added to the team. I take it that that is no doubt a response to the ferocious onslaught from the Opposition Benches over many years. Although it may not be clear who is doing what yet, I hope that the Minister retains her responsibility for cats—I am sure that she will—and organics.
We have discussed this issue many times, and at first sight the proposed SI is thoroughly innocuous. I should start by reassuring everyone that, looking at the numbers present, the Opposition will not press the motion to a Division—[Interruption.] Well, we are not used to winning. At first sight, the proposals are reasonable, and the desire to streamline the UK’s organic regulatory framework is clearly laudable, but I want to raise some issues, not least those raised by the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It does excellent work, and its in-depth examination of the instrument is exemplary. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing between the Committee and the Department as the Committee wrote seeking answers—those answers were quite hard to find hidden as they were in appendix 1—and those questions are worth putting on the record today.
The Lords Scrutiny Committee made the strong point that the SI will result in the loss of parliamentary oversight. Perhaps that is a minor issue for some, but I think it is rather important. As the Minister has outlined, in the explanatory memorandum DEFRA justified the decision to change the process to an administrative one by arguing that the current process can be very time-consuming and take up to a year. That rather prompts the question why it has to take that time to get an SI through. The Scrutiny Committee certainly did not find that a particularly convincing argument. It does not have to take a year to do things—in the last week or two we have noticed how legislation can be rammed through Parliament very quickly when the will is there. It should not take us a year to consider SIs, and nor is that a good enough reason to withdraw parliamentary oversight from this process.
The Lords Scrutiny Committee was also not convinced by the Department’s argument that changes to recognition were uncontroversial administrative amendments that do not require scrutiny. The Committee argued that such changes are exactly the sort of things that should be considered. I may be old-fashioned, but I think that parliamentary scrutiny matters: they are important big changes in our trading relationships with the rest of the world. The Committee argued that SIs are frequently used to make much less significant changes, such as updates to lists of recognised countries or bodies, and it argued that parliamentary oversight is desirable.
In the exchange of questions and answers with DEFRA, the department said that there would be sufficient transparency because the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. We have all heard that argument and we know how well that works in practice. Frankly, we need something better than that. The Committee did not find DEFRA’s response wholly convincing, and it is right. It said that that response was simply a statement of the constitutional norm and was not a suitable replacement for parliamentary oversight of individual decisions in a specific policy area. It also raised the ongoing questions about the impact on Northern Ireland. That is hardly a surprise, given that that continues to be an unresolved issue that the Government bat away as unfortunate collateral damage.
In its response to the Scrutiny Committee, DEFRA stated that EU law will continue to apply directly in Northern Ireland under the protocol, and any changes in recognition by the EU in relation to organic standards will be made by the European Commission via legislative amendments. As a result, in cases of divergence of recognition between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, organic goods that are imported to Great Britain from a third country that does not have mutual recognition with the EU for organic goods could not be moved to Northern Ireland. That is a familiar argument that we seem to keep on replaying, and one might well conclude that it is absurd that the Government are proposing a system in which certain organic foods imported into Great Britain could be barred from another part of our country, namely Northern Ireland.
Does the Minister have any comments on the concerns raised by the Lords Scrutiny Committee? Despite all that and the deficiencies identified, it is important to recognise the views of the stakeholders involved. She has rightly said that they are concerned about the length of time it takes to make changes, particularly when we are dealing with many new situations with many third countries as a result of fragmentation.
I have had the opportunity to talk to some of the organic certifiers. They have asked me to point out that that there is a need for scrutiny, but they would like that to be conducted by an independent group made up of organic interest groups, enforcement bodies, representatives from the devolved nations and organic control bodies to provide oversight of the proposed changes and to the organic regulatory framework more generally. They argue that the such a body would help to provide the necessary safeguards and give guidance to Ministers to help them to engage with the detailed provisions of UK and third-party organic regulations while upholding the principles underlying those standards and serving the interests of the general public and stakeholders in the organic sector. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s views on that suggestion. There seems to be a plethora of potential committees that could established in this field. I am told that DEFRA has previously promised that it would establish an expert group similar to the EU’s expert group for technical production, but the organic sector has heard nothing further on the plans for its establishment. Again, I would seek the Ministers views on that.
In the annex to the TCA, there is also reference to a “Working Group on Organic Products”, which has yet to be formally established. Despite indications that the first meeting would be held in the summer, I am told that DEFRA has taken the decision to postpone the meeting until November at the earliest. When will the Minister’s Department finally come good on its promises and set up all those groups?
In summary, can the Minister guarantee that the SI is not just another example of the Government trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny? When the Minister replies, could she say a little about the future of organics in the UK? The EU has set a bold course—25% by 2030. Where will we be in 2030 on organics? I have to say that unless there is a significant change of course, my fear is that we will be way behind. We need to do better. The SI fiddles with the lists, but we need some ambition and some action, and I am afraid that that is too sorely lacking.
Victoria Prentis
I spent many happy years serving Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and—
Back British Farming Day
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing the debate and for a passionate and honest account. It will probably not be any help to her for me to say that it was a devasting critique of the Government’s position—a critique we heard from a number of others. I am grateful for the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) for his kind words, and for unveiling the truth of the plan, which is the two-tier system that we all worry about.
It is a pleasure to speak on Back British Farming Day. We all thank the NFU for organising across the country, and in Westminster, and for putting the issues that farmers face at the top of the political agenda. As many Members have already said, today is an opportunity to celebrate all the incredible work done by farmers, farm workers and all those in the processing sectors who produce the best quality food in the world. We thank the key workers for all the work they did, and continue to do, to keep everyone fed during covid; the whole sector can be proud that fresh and affordable food continues to reach people across the country. Previous generations would have marvelled at that, and it should never be taken for granted.
This is why we are so committed to standing behind our farmers and food producers, with Labour’s campaign to buy, make and sell more across the UK. Today, as part of the plan, we are calling for public bodies to buy more British food all year round. Under a Labour Government, public bodies will be tasked with giving more contracts to British firms, and we will legislate to require them to report on how much they are buying from domestic sources with the taxpayer’s money. This is a genuinely ambitious plan to make sure the public sector helps support our British farmers. Frankly, it goes much further towards providing sufficient support to our food producers than the efforts of the current Government, who wheel out hollow gimmicks, such as the Cabinet Office switching from Dutch to English bacon for a couple of weeks during British Food Fortnight. We can do so much better than that. Our plan will assist the economy to recover from the pandemic, and help our British farmers and food producers, who need and deserve our support both now and in the years ahead.
Labour is committed to supporting food producers, whereas the actions of the current Government mean that, on Back British Farming Day, farmers are actually facing a perfect storm of uncertainty, dodgy trade deals, imminent cuts to support and, as we have heard, crippling labour shortages. It is not backing British farming to cut trade deals that undercut farmer’s livelihoods by leaving them vulnerable to overseas agricultural imports produced to lower standards—as was so well explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
Daniel Zeichner
No, I will not give way because I want to give the Minister plenty of time to answer these difficult questions.
We have heard a number of Conservative Members attempt to big up the Government’s shaky position on trade. I think that in their heart of hearts they know that no one trusts the Prime Minister on this. They know full well that the Australian trade deal has sold out British farming, just as it sold out the climate talks, and just as any future trade deals they make are likely to.
Daniel Zeichner
No, I am not going to. When the outlines of a possible deal were announced, it was Labour who stood firm with farmers and demanded that the Government did not compromise on our high environmental, animal welfare and food standards. That is what backing British farming really looks like.
Sold out on trade deals, and also sold out on basic support; it is not backing British farming to slash farm support and pretend that environmental payments will somehow fill the gap. This is just as we predicted in our lengthy debates on the Agriculture Bill, as some Members have already mentioned. With the clock ticking, the new payments are still in the process of being designed, tested and piloted, way behind schedule. We predicted that it would be hard—none of this stuff is easy.
The Minister and I have discussed this on many occasions, and she challenged me to go and see for myself. So, I did. I went on a summer tour to Yorkshire, to Northumbria, to Exmoor; I met those who were doing the trials, and I found brilliant, inspiring and lovely people working really hard. The lessons were clear; it is complicated. It is a good thing to do—I support ELM and the principle of rewarding farmers for environmental improvements—but these schemes are too complicated and inflexible.
The sustainable farming incentive was a panicky fix that might plug some of the gap for some, but in so doing, I was told on the ground, it also risks undermining ELM in some cases. The life support that has kept Britain farming for many decades is now on a timed exit. It will expire, and I feel it will take a good many British farmers with it. That is what I heard, not just from those pilots but from the other areas I visited—from farmers in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and the midlands at the Great Yorkshire Show.
It is not just me saying this; it is farmers saying it. An excellent report published today by the National Audit Office shows that DEFRA has lost the trust of the farming industry, citing the low take-up of the new schemes. I exhort Members to look at an excellent paper produced by DEFRA last week, the “Farmer Opinion Tracker”. The very first figure, for the number who
“understand Defra’s vision for farming”,
shows that it was just 10% in 2019. Well, guess what? After two years of Government effort, it is now 5%. If it was not so serious, it would be funny. There is more in that report: 40% of farmers are
“not at all confident that their relationship with Defra and Defra agencies will develop positively in the future.”
So, there is not a lot of confidence.
These cuts in support will have profound consequences for rural areas. We calculate that rural England stands to lose more than £255 million this year as a result of the cut, putting as many as 9,500 jobs at risk, and that is in just one year, with a 5% cut. By 2024, it will be 50%. It is huge: not backing British farming—slashing British farming.
Then, to complete the hat trick, there are the labour shortages. We have heard a lot about that. It is not backing British farming to take out the pool of workers who not just farming, but the whole food system has depended on for years without a proper plan to achieve that transition. It is not just me saying that; listen to every voice across every sector. We know the problems, which are well documented: people not being able to get to Nando’s; the milkshakes at McDonald’s. We have heard about the crop pickers and the meat factory workers, as well as the lorry drivers, and about the huge pressure on vets.
I have to say, I am astonished that I have not heard anything from the Government Benches about what is happening on pig farms and poultry farms. It is Labour, it seems to me, now speaking for them, because the birds and pigs are packed up on—
Daniel Zeichner
There will be many more here after the next election from rural areas, and we will be supporting those people, because those birds and pigs on those farms are packed up, at risk of being destroyed if they cannot be kept in good welfare conditions.
The British Poultry Council warns that the labour crisis will lead to less British food being produced. The National Pig Association reckons that there are backlogs resulting in 85,000 extra pigs on farms across the UK, increasing by 15,000 a week. I spoke yesterday to the renowned Yorkshire pig farmer Richard Lister, who told me that people are on the brink of destroying animals on farms. People are understandably very distressed—to pick up the mental health issues raised by the hon. Member for Stafford. He says that this is one of the worst times he has ever known and he fears, as do many, that what we are actually doing is exporting our pig industry. It is really, really serious.
There is much more to be said, but time is short, so let me finish with some direct questions to the Minister, which I am sure she can answer. First question: where on earth is the trade and agriculture commission? It was used as bait to get the Bill through. Where is it? On food security, when will we get the first assessment, as discussed when we took the Agriculture Act 2020 through? It is due soon, surely. It was promised; when will it be with us?
Is someone from Government actually going to respond to Henry Dimbleby’s review? It was a huge piece of work, taking two years. It was called “The Plan”, in marked juxtaposition to lack of a plan from DEFRA. What is DEFRA’s plan? Will the Minister perhaps explain to us why the Prime Minister could not find time to talk to Henry Dimbleby? That was a really hard-worked report, with a range of people involved in presenting it, including the president of the National Farmers Union, Minette Batters. It tackles the key issues of the time, environmental degradation and the problems in our food system with obesity. Is it really of so little significance that the Prime Minister did not have time to talk to Henry Dimbleby?
In conclusion, given this catalogue of failure, it sticks in the craw when we see Government Members supporting the wheatsheaf, when British farming faces so many problems as a direct consequence of their own Government’s actions. It is not everybody: I know that many on the Government Benches have felt unease. Some were brave enough to stand up for farmers over the trade issues, but frankly it needed many more. The contrast is stark. Labour backs British farming, today and every day of the year. Unlike DEFRA, the Department that forgot rural affairs, we are committed to ensuring that rural issues are properly addressed, and there will be much more from us on that over the coming weeks. We back British farming, and we wear the wheatsheaf with pride.
Environment Test From Patch Testing (First sitting)
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Just to give the batting averages, we have taken half an hour for two new clauses. At this rate, we will be here until 4.30 pm this afternoon. Speed is of the essence.
New Clause 29
Report on climate and ecology
“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than six months after the day of which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the adequacy of environmental legislation and policy for meeting the climate and ecology challenges faced by the United Kingdom and the world.
(2) That report must include specific assessments relating to—
(a) water quality, availability and abundance;
(b) biodiversity, including, but not limited to, the restoration and regeneration of biodiverse habitats, natural and human modified ecosystems, and their respective soils;
(c) the expansion and enhancement of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems to safeguard their carbon-sink capacity and resilience to global heating; and
(d) resource efficiency, waste reduction and the promotion of the circular economy.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to go beyond setting one target (as in Section 1(2)) to within 6 months, assess, develop plans and outline adequacy of each target. “Circular Economy” is included as the Prime Minister agreed this concept in September 2020 at UN Leaders Pledge for Nature
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me yet again. We are such regular correspondents that I am half expecting a Christmas card any time soon. She wrote on the debate we had on new clauses 25 and 27. It is a very detailed reply and it does give some reassurance, but I have to say that it shows why we should have had a discussion about those clauses in an evidence session, rather than have them inserted late in the day. I suspect there will be other lawyers who will take a different view on some of these matters, but I am sure that can be pursued as we go through the later stages of the Bill.
On new clause 29, I very much echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We believe that new clauses 29 and 28 together would strengthen the Bill. New clause 29 would give additional bite; it can stand on its own, so there is still time for the Minister to redeem herself. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, we take issue with the lack of overall clarity in the Bill. It needs a clearer thread running through.
The new clause, which would require the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill becoming law to report on the adequacy of current environmental law and policy in meeting the climate and ecological challenges the UK faces, would be tremendously helpful, not least because—as we saw yesterday—it seems the Government do one thing one day, and completely different things another day. They fail to face the challenges when they make big policy announcements. The new clause would make it much tougher for the Government to crawl out of their obligations.
We think the report should specifically be required to address issues of water, biodiversity, the capacity of natural and agroecosystems to mitigate global warming, resource efficiency, waste reduction and the promotion of the circular economy. That should be helpful to Government. As my hon. Friend said, we support the Prime Minister’s signing up to the UN leaders’ pledge for nature, and this includes the circular economy in our thinking.
We have taken a number of these ideas from the climate and ecological emergency Bill, which we believe is right to place emphasis on the importance of expanding and enhancing natural ecosystems and agroecosystems to safeguard their capacity as carbon sinks, as well as on the need to restore biodiverse habits and their soils. Out there in the world, which is sadly not following proceedings on the Bill as closely as some of us would hope, there is an appetite for this more ambitious approach.
After the Secretary of State has made the report, we would then very much hope that he or she would act on it and ensure that the environmental targets and environmental improvement plans were appropriately ambitious and would set out not just one long-term target in each area as required in clause 1, but set and outline the adequacy of those targets and lay out adequate plans to address each of those major issues within six months.
If it is an emergency, it needs addressing urgently. We do not believe the Bill does that at the moment. New clause 29 would help.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Much of the Bill is concerned with English-only environmental issues, as I have mentioned in the past, because environment is a devolved area under the Scotland Act 1998 and legislative consent motions have been agreed.
In connection to new clauses 29 and 29, I point out for those who are keen to hear what is happening in Scotland that the Scottish Government are developing their own environmental strategy. “The Environmental Strategy for Scotland: vision and outcomes” was published earlier this year. As the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform indicated just yesterday at her appearance in front of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, she will soon be publishing a monitoring framework for the strategy, which will bring together existing statutory targets, elements of the national performance framework and indicators from other strategies. That is after considerable consultation with stakeholders.
The strategy has attracted a broad range of cross-party support. The Cabinet Secretary just yesterday suggested working with Opposition Members to design amendments that will set out an obligation on Ministers to continue the work on an environmental strategy. It is an example of cross-party working that I think this place would do rather well to emulate. The Scottish Government and Parliament are leading the way in many environmental areas. I encourage Members from this place to lift their eyes from here and look to some of the great progress in this area that is being made in the devolved nations of the UK. I think it really would be worth their while.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for moving this new clause. He is always very passionate about what he says. I am pleased that my letter was able to give a bit of clarity on the subjects he raised in the Committee.
I reassure the Committee that the new clause is not needed. It will not surprise anyone to hear me say that. There are already measures in the Bill to help assess the adequacy of environmental legislation. Under clause 26, the OEP will proactively assess how our environmental laws work in practice and advise the Government on the most effective and efficient way of implementing those laws.
The OEP’s reports must be published and laid before Parliament and the Government are required to respond to the OEP and publish that response, which must also be laid before Parliament. Given that climate and ecology challenges are key environmental issues affecting us, we would expect that the OEP would want to address such matters in its clause 26 reports. That is basically its raison d’être and the raison d’être of the Bill. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is seeing what is in there, which covers what he is asking for. We also report annually on our progress in improving the environment through the 25-year environment plan.
The Bill as drafted already introduces a number of reporting requirements in the areas specified. Clause 94, for example, requires designated public authorities, including local planning authorities, to produce five-yearly biodiversity reports. The reports will provide transparency and accountability, and help local authorities to share best practice. Over time, they will become a very valuable source of data to support nature’s recovery. Clause 75 concerns improving water companies’ water resources management plans. This planning occurs every five years, taking into account the next 25-year period. Companies must review their plans annually.
The reporting requirements introduced by the Bill will complement the Government’s existing and proposed reporting and monitoring of the natural environment. There is only so much reporting people can cope with. I honestly think more reporting would cause people to groan under the weight of it all. What we want is action, and that is what this Bill is going to set in motion, which is why we need to get through it.
Last month, the Government published their response to the 2020 recommendations from the Committee on Climate Change. The response sets out the Government’s intention to publish a comprehensive net zero strategy in the lead up to COP26.
The strategy will set out the Government’s vision for transitioning to net zero and reducing emissions across the economy. We have already set out our plans for a nationwide natural capital and ecosystem assessment. That is a big data-gathering census and a new large-scale surveying initiative, which will provide us with the all-important data to drive better decision making. That is something I have absolutely wished for as the Minister, as has the whole Department. It will be crucial in our future—we have talked about data before, and it is absolutely essential to know what we have now, what we will have tomorrow and what we would potentially like in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her comments. We obviously work closely with the devolved Administrations, and we will be sharing a lot of the measures in the Bill. We always like to learn best practice from others—I mentioned that in the main Chamber only this morning, when the hon. Member for Putney and I spoke about air quality.
Although I welcome the intent behind the proposed new clause, I do not believe it is necessary, for the reasons I have outlined. Wide-ranging reporting assessment measures are already in place in the Bill and will be able to drive the sort of action that I think the hon. Member for Cambridge is after. I honestly do not believe we need the new clause, so I ask him to withdraw it.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful, as ever, but disappointed by the Minister’s response. I do not think we need to divide the Committee, but I doubt whether even the Office for Environmental Protection will be established in the next months. Let us hope that it will go more quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Smoking related waste
“(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations introduce a producer responsibility scheme in England to tackle smoking related waste.
(2) The scheme will compel those tobacco companies operating in England, as defined in the regulations and subject to annual review, to provide financial support to the scheme based on a market share basis.
(3) The scheme will ensure that those tobacco companies will have no operational or other involvement in the scheme other than to provide financial support in accordance with guidance from the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Department of Health and Social Care.
(4) The regulations will set a target for a reduction in smoking related waste by 2030.
(5) The regulations will set out an appropriate vehicle to deliver the scheme including governance and criteria for funding related initiatives.
(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report of the scheme and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”—(Ruth Jones.)
The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government creates a producer responsibility scheme for smoking related waste. No such scheme exists at present and the clear up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other Directives.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is really quite clear, and I suspect that colleagues on both sides of the Committee know what is coming, but I want to speak to it for a moment. It is designed to ensure that the Government create a producer responsibility scheme for smoking-related waste. No such scheme exists at present, and the clear-up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other directives.
I remind colleagues that it was this Government who clarified, back in February 2020, that tobacco packaging is covered by the current producer responsibility regulations, which require companies to recycle a proportion of the packaging waste that they place on the market. In their resources and waste strategy, the Government committed to look into and consult on the extended producer responsibility, or EPR, for five new waste streams by 2025, as well as to consult on two of them by 2022. The five priority waste streams are: textiles, fishing gear, certain products in construction and demolition, bulky waste, and vehicle tyres—the Minister has already alluded to that several times during our debates. They are important areas for the challenges facing us as we look to tackle the climate emergency.
The producer responsibility powers in the Bill enable the Government to set up an EPR scheme for cigarette litter. I urge the Minister to do so, and I look forward to a positive response from her on that specific point. I am concerned that, up until now, Ministers have not identified cigarette litter as a priority area for EPR, so I would like some further clarity on the detail and the likely timescale for any progress. I am sure that the Committee does not need to be reminded—I will do so anyway—that cigarette butts are estimated to account for 5% of ocean plastic, which is a big deal. We need to act, and we need to act now.
I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out a clear action plan and timetable when addressing the issues raised by the new clause. There is a crossover with the other responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians and lawmakers, because it is clear that smoking has a public health impact. Having been an NHS physiotherapist for more than 30 years before being elected to this place, I know a fair bit about the lungs and the danger that smoking causes. New clause 30 will help the wider battle against smoking and help promote a healthier world for all of us. As such, and with the determination needed to tackle the climate emergency, I wish to divide the Committee.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to address a glaring problem with the current biodiversity net gain provisions, which we discussed earlier in the proceedings. Currently, the Bill does not extend the requirement for biodiversity net gain to major infrastructure developments delivered through the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. We fear that that exemption will result in habitat loss on a large scale due to the size of those major infrastructure developments and could potentially lead to the destruction of irreplaceable habitats, increased fragmentation of remaining habitats and the local extinction of endangered species.
We have a very controversial example at the moment in High Speed 2—a major infrastructure project that does not have biodiversity net gain and that has put at risk 108 ancient woodland sites, 33 sites of scientific interest and 693 local wildlife sites. I appreciate that HS2 was not delivered through the NSIP regime, but it is comparable with future major infrastructure projects that would be delivered in that way. It is disappointing that HS2 has not gone with the trend of recent times and moved away and gone beyond no net loss, despite frequent calls for it to do so. Will the Minister comment on why no net gain is necessary in her view?
In their response to the net gain consultation, in which the Government outlined their intention that nationally significant infrastructure would not be subject to the requirement, despite the fact that there was considerable support from many respondents, the Government said that they will
“continue to work on exploring potential net gain approaches for these types of developments”.
What alternative net gain approaches have been considered for NSIPs? I understand that the Government have commissioned a study into the costs and benefits of bringing the large infrastructure projects into the scope of mandatory biodiversity net gain. What are the findings from that study, and is the Minister able to share them with the Committee?
I have one final plea for the Minister to find redemption in this whole process. As I have said many times—she has quoted it many times—we started with the 25-year environment plan, but we now find ourselves with the “Planning for the future” planning White Paper. Will she write to me on this issue—another item in our endless list of correspondence—and explain how the planning White Paper proposals will impact on net gain? This is one last chance for redemption. I live in hope.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for his tempting words and for the new clause, which would extend the biodiversity net gain objective and the biodiversity gain plan requirement to include nationally significant infrastructure projects.
I recognise the good intentions behind wanting to apply the mandatory biodiversity net gain objective to such projects. The Government are clear in the 25-year environment plan that our commitment to seeking to embed a principle of environmental net gain for development applies to infrastructure as well as housing. In line with that commitment, we are exploring how a biodiversity net gain approach for major infrastructure projects could best be delivered and how policy or legislation could be used to support that.
There are a number of ways in which a form of the biodiversity net gain requirement could be implemented for nationally significant infrastructure projects, but it is very important, as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, to take the time to work with stakeholders to develop an appropriate approach. Many stakeholders are really keen to discuss the matter.
Introducing a new legal requirement for such projects now could lead to significant delay and increased costs for projects in the pipeline, hampering our ability to build back better in future generations. I am sure the hon. Member appreciates the need to get lots of the projects going, not least because of the link with jobs and levelling up across the nation. Risks of delays and costs to major infrastructure for a premature and inappropriate mandatory requirement could result in delays to the delivery of environmentally beneficial projects, such as those living renewable energy generation and waste facilities.
The hon. Member is trying to draw me on the planning White Paper. All I will say is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We are at absolute pains to work with that Department, but also to ensure that the environmental protections remain there. It is going to be a green future, as the Prime Minister himself has said many times—in fact, I heard him say it again yesterday—so I can give assurances on that.
Nationally significant infrastructure projects are often distinct from other types of development in terms of scale and complexity. They have to be planned for over a number of years, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and many are in that design pipeline. We need to be very careful about doing what he is asking for now.
It is therefore important that any strengthening of biodiversity net gain requirements for the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime is done at the right time and in the right way, particularly if any mandatory net gain requirement is introduced. We do not want to be limited to the proposed approach to Town and Country Planning Act 1990 development when considering how to introduce any objective to other classes of development. As I have said, there are a number of ways in which biodiversity net gain for those big projects could be implemented through legislation or policy in future, for example through the national policy statement, sponsor-driven objectives or changes to planning legislation.
As I have said, the Government have set out a clear ambition to deliver infrastructure, but greener and faster. I support the intention behind the proposed new clause, but to ensure that we consider the best way to introduce any requirement for biodiversity net gain for major infrastructure, we need to consult on further details, which we will in due course. It is really important that we take that time to get this right. I would like to think that the hon. Gentleman will agree on that and will withdraw his new clause. I hope that we can continue to engage constructively on this issue when we do formally consult.
Daniel Zeichner
I admire the Minister’s relentless optimism, which she has managed to maintain throughout the Committee’s proceedings, and I congratulate her on that. I almost misheard her at one point: when she said that DEFRA had been “at absolute pains” with MHCLG, I thought she said that they “are absolute pains”. There may be some truth in that.
I am not surprised to hear that, yet again, the Minister is unable to support our new clause, but we will not divide the Committee. I will just say finally that the Minister’s jacket is enough to brighten any dull winter day, and I thank her for her optimism. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Breed Specific Legislation
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for not just leading this important debate, but setting out the issues so clearly and fully. I suspect we may have read the same briefing notes, so he might recognise some of my statistics.
It is essential to our democracy that we here in Westminster make sure we are debating the issues that really matter to people. I thank the 118,641 people who signed the petition, including 127 from my constituency—not quite as many as from Carshalton. When I was a member of the Petitions Committee, I always enjoyed leading debates on issues such as this, not least because I am told that they are some of the most-watched debates in Parliament—they are often in the top 10 each year. I reflect that at the time I was doing that, I had absolutely no inkling that I might be recalled to the Front Bench at some point. I have therefore reread some of those debates with some trepidation, in case I said things within my brief that I might later regret. I issue that warning to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, but I am sure that members of the Petitions Committee are always suitably mindful, because we never know what the future holds.
The dangerous dogs legislation is, of course, routinely cited as an example of Parliament acting in haste in response to events.
Daniel Zeichner
As I was saying, the Dangerous Dogs Act is frequently cited as a piece of legislation whereby Parliament acted in haste in relation to events—events I remember well, although I suspect that they may have been before the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was with us. It was a long time ago. If there is any repenting, it has certainly been leisurely, and that is the force of the petition.
We need to get on with updating and revising the law. I am sorry that there are not more Members involved in the debate, but I do not think it is a reflection on the seriousness or importance of the issue. There are some pretty significant things happening in the main Chamber, and the announcements affect every citizen in the country, so it is not surprising that Members are focused on that today.
The issue of dangerous dogs is very sensitive. Labour thinks that we should start by making safety our top priority, but without unnecessarily punishing responsible dog owners or doing unnecessary harm to dogs that are not necessarily a risk. In our view and that of many people, the breed-specific legislation that we are discussing has fallen well short of what it was supposed to do. The time has come for reform, and we need DEFRA to lead the way.
I will start with the issue of safety. Whether it is about postal workers suffering from bites or dog walkers feeling intimidated by other dogs, let us not underplay the problem. I am very happy with dogs now, but as a child I was not. I remember my fear, day after day, when I was doing my paper round. A black Labrador would suddenly appear, give chase and jump up at me. It was not a real danger, but I have to say that it blighted every morning for me for years. Some children are not happy in that situation, which should be respected, just as I still respect dogs when I am out canvassing, quite frankly. They are our best friends, but there is a risk. That is what we as legislators have to find a way to help manage.
Looking at the evidence, the Dangerous Dogs Act is not quite fit for purpose, and it is time to have a further look. It was a swift and possibly panicky response to some particularly tragic events 30 years ago and to a very strong public reaction at the time, so we can see why Parliament acted quickly. Whether it acted entirely accurately, however, is now for us to judge. I will make a minor political point: we note that it was a Conservative Government at the time, and we feel the legislation was a touch reactive. We would like the Government to be a bit more proactive now, and we hope we can do better.
As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington outlined earlier, section 1 introduced the approach known as breed-specific legislation. I, too, will have a go at pronouncing the four types of dogs to which it applied: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Fila Brasileiro and the Dogo Argentino. Of course, the aim was to limit the number of those dogs and hopefully, in turn, to improve safety by reducing the number of bites. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has outlined, however, that is not the way it has turned out.
It is sometimes slightly dangerous to take just a few statistics and assume cause and effect, but the fact that there has not been a reduction in the number of dog bites raises questions about the effectiveness of the legislation. Between March 2005 and February 2015, the number of hospital admissions in England due to dog bites increased by 76%, from 4,110 to 7,273. In 2020, the figure reached 8,875. We are told by people who are able to calculate such things that, between 2009 and 2018, the healthcare costs for dog bites totalled £174,188,443. That is very precise, but it is fair to say it is a considerable sum. There is no robust scientific evidence to suggest that the banned dog breeds are more likely to be involved in instances of dog bitings or fatalities than any other breed or type of dog. Again, as the hon. Gentleman said, between 1992 and 2019 only 8% of dangerously out of control dog cases involved banned breeds. The legislation simply is not working; it is not stopping dog bites.
Of course, the animal welfare consequences are sad, as has been outlined. Dogs that do not necessarily pose a risk are being seized and placed in kennels. There is something self-fulfilling about that, because, as the hon. Gentleman also outlined, the physical and mental stress caused can mean that dogs then begin to act out and show aggressive behaviour, which might not have happened had they been kept with their original families.
The law does not allow animal charities and rehoming organisations, such as Blue Cross, Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, to rehome prohibited dog types to new owners. That does not take into account the individual dog’s behaviour, which then means that the only option is to euthanise. One wonders what vets feel about having to go through with that; they are people who have given their lives to protect and help animals, but have to put down perfectly healthy and friendly dogs. As the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee put it:
“Defra’s position is both illogical and inherently unfair. Whether a dog is euthanised or not can depend entirely on whether it ‘looks like’ a Pit Bull Terrier.”
That is a loose criterion for something so serious.
Breed-specific legislation does not stop dog bites, is bad for animal welfare, and because they cannot be rehomed in a controlled environment thousands of dogs are being put to sleep. The question of aggression in dogs is complicated, but I am told that there is a consensus forming in the scientific community that the breed of a dog is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behaviour. According to the latest data from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, over 200 leading behaviour experts were consulted and found that socialisation is considered the most critical factor; 86% said that how a dog is brought up by its owner is the most important reason why some dogs are more aggressive towards people than others. That rather chimes with my experience back on my paper round, as the indifference of those who kept the dog always seemed to me to be part of the problem—it comes as no surprise to me. Moreover, 73% of the experts consulted said that it is a dog’s upbringing by the breeder before they are sold that determines behaviour. There are a range of factors here and I am afraid that the rather kneejerk response of the Dangerous Dogs Act does not seem to take those factors into account.
Labour has long been clear that the Dangerous Dogs Act needs reform; it was rushed in the first place and it is now seriously out of date. Will the Minister commit to commission an independent review of this legislation, in line with the recommendations made in the EFRA Committee’s report on the issue? As I have already outlined, the petitioners quite clearly feel that the breed-specific ban does not work. If the Minister and DEFRA are insistent that some such ban is needed, will she please outline why and present the evidence in such a review? Some legal breeds can pose just as great a risk to public safety as illegal breeds, yet there are no legislative restrictions on their ownership. That inconsistency undermines the logic of the legislation, so will she tell us why some breeds are banned and other breeds that are known to be dangerous are not?
As we get on to the world-beating animal welfare legislation that we have been promised so often, will the Department engage with those with experience from other countries, and with local authorities and police forces that have considerable practical experience, to develop a deeper understanding of different dog control models and successful approaches that could be used in the UK as part of the review? Also, will the Minister tell us whether she will investigate the possibility of a new dog control Act as part of such a review?
Although we believe that legislative change is the most necessary reform, we also think there is quite a lot more that can be done to educate people about the risks. It is clear that young children are most at risk of serious dog attacks and suffer horrific injuries, too. We think we need better childhood education on staying safe around dogs, to stop avoidable incidents, and that it needs to be consistent across the country. Will the Minister commit to commissioning a childhood education plan from experts and charities to determine the most effective education measures and how they can be implemented consistently across the country? Will she ensure that DEFRA supports a roll-out of such a plan, if it is developed, to help to ensure that fewer children are seriously hurt in dog attacks?
We absolutely recognise that most dog owners are responsible and do everything they can to stop their dog acting aggressively and to protect people around them. Even the most responsible owners, however, can do with a helping hand. Will the Minister therefore consider introducing a targeted awareness campaign to inform dog owners and the general public about responsible ownership and safe interactions? Also, will she consult colleagues to ensure that sentencing guidelines are observed properly in the courts and that consistently robust sanctions under existing legislation are being applied across the country?
In conclusion, we are convinced that arguments that DEFRA has used in the past to maintain breed-specific legislation are not backed up by robust evidence. They do not stop dog bites and, sadly, they lead to hundreds of family-friendly pets being euthanised unnecessarily after being seized and kept in kennels for months. The Dangerous Dogs Act was a knee-jerk piece of legislation responding quickly to public concern about specific incidents. This has become a well-worn phrase but, once again, we need to be led by the science and by evidence.
That is why Labour is clear: we need a review of breed-specific legislation and of the Dangerous Dogs Act as soon as possible. The Labour party has a proud record on animal welfare. We will always do what we can to protect our pets, but we are also always determined to keep people safe. It is an important balance to strike, and it is not being struck right now. The situation needs to be re-examined, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to signal that she agrees and that the necessary leadership will be forthcoming.