New Covent Garden Market

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing the debate. I know him well; we have discussed the matter on several occasions, and I could not think of a better person to bring the debate to the Chamber today. I note that the local MP, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), is also here and understandably shares many of the same concerns, but I think it is fair to say that, given my hon. Friend’s time spent working at the market, his knowledge and experience are second to none here, so we are delighted that he is with us. It must have been a real privilege for him to follow in his family’s footsteps and run that business so successfully for that period of time.

My hon. Friend can be reassured that the Government are committed to ensuring that this iconic market continues to thrive at Nine Elms, both during the development and into the future. We are in absolute agreement that that means it must be a profitable market that works logistically and operates fairly and transparently for both landlord and tenants, and that we need to get on and build it at pace. I am as concerned as he is about the current situation. It is simply untenable for the market authority and the tenants to be in disagreement on such important details. I am clear that both sides should be spending whatever time it takes to resolve these issues, and quickly.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The Minister is absolutely right that the matter needs to be resolved and that we cannot continue like this. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has already asked this, but I want to ask it again: will the Minister commit to meeting tenants and the market authority, and any other relevant persons who need to be around the table, to begin to move things forward? I know that he has already had meetings, but we need to get something nailed down to ensure that we can begin to resolve this. As he rightly points out, we must get the market to a place where it is fit for purpose, but that has to be done right.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

Of course I will help to facilitate that. As I think the hon. Lady knows, we have already had a roundtable meeting, but we can have more in the future. The next step is to ensure that we have a second meeting of the experts on both sides of the debate to move things forward, but if further facilitation is required, I will do it.

My personal view is that there are enough experts on both sides of the table, both the tenants, who are formidable traders, and the market authority. We must bring the two together with their experts. If I were in charge of the situation, I would probably put the key in a very safe place and let the two sides just get on with it, because, as I will go on to say, this has gone on longer than Brexit and, as complicated as it is, it is not as complicated as that.

Hon. Members here are all speaking with a similar voice. Certainly I, as the Minister responsible for this fantastic and iconic institution, echo the sentiment that we need to get on. These are difficult issues, but they are not insurmountable. It is clear that the market is a national treasure. Anybody who is interested in food only has to go along and see this amazing institution, smell it and soak up the atmosphere, because it is unbelievable.

I am fortunate that my second job, after my newspaper round, was working in a greengrocer’s shop every day after school—except for Wednesday, which was early closing, if anybody remembers that—and then all day Saturday. I was pretty good at stacking the oranges and enjoying the seasonal smells of those russet apples—food at its best. I was fortunate enough then to go on and work in Asda, running its home shopping business, as well as doing various other things in the food sector. The market should be cherished, and anybody wanting to go along should do so at 2 o’clock in the morning, as I was fortunate enough to do myself, just to feel that buzz. There is a huge amount of experience and a wealth of knowledge there, and some fantastic activities going on. It supplies the food—the very best fruit, vegetables and cut flowers available—to London, the south-east and the country.

However, the area needs to be transformed. It has an ageing infrastructure and needs to move to a more modern and flexible place to do business, fit for the 21st century. The old business structures and facilities are 45 years old now, and although my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry looks young—sorry; perhaps I should not have said that, because he has been here a long time—even he would agree that the infrastructure needs to be improved, a bit like the facilities here in Parliament. However, the difference is that although we can decant, that is not possible for the market, given the space constraints.

There are big opportunities at the site, and we want to ensure that the market has a bright future for many generations to come. There are second and third-generation traders there, and it is part of their lives as well as their livelihoods, and we know that it is important for them to be able to carry on that important work. Refurbishing the site was looked at but did not offer good value for money, not least as the infrastructure would have to be replaced at some point in the future anyway, so there was a view that we needed to move on. The fact that the Government chose to invest in the market’s redevelopment is clear evidence of the value we place on it. A far easier option would have been simply to sell the land, but we chose not to do so because of our commitment to the market’s mission and its place in the food economy.

There are challenges for the market authority and the traders alike, and sadly it is not possible to rebuild the busiest wholesale horticultural market in the country while it continues to operate and not expect some disruption for all the players involved. That is unfortunate. It is true that the new market will occupy a smaller site when complete, as my hon. Friend highlighted. Smaller does not mean that it cannot be as profitable and effective in the future—indeed, it is vital that it is—but it does mean that it needs to change, not only in how the market is laid out but in how it operates.

I have every confidence that, working together, the market authority and the tenants can find a way to make sure that the market will thrive in its new design. This is not a question of whether it will work, but how. That means looking at both the operational design of the market and how the tenants operate within it. Between them, the market authority and the tenants—representatives of both are here today; they are outstanding people—know the market better than anyone else and must surely be best placed to solve the issue together.

None of this is insurmountable. An earlier challenge arose when the market authority, in discussion with the tenants, became concerned about how the developers would ensure that construction would not disrupt trading. It responded by stopping construction and insisting on more detailed plans from the developer to tackle this. Construction then recommenced, with work starting on the first of the main new market buildings last October.

All of this, along with some unexpected ground conditions, means that the project will take much longer than anyone envisaged or wanted—possibly up to three years longer. That is hard for the tenants, the market authority and everyone who comes to the market for business or pleasure. However, when things are tough, strong leadership is vital. In February I appointed a new chair of the market authority, and I am delighted that we have, in David Frankish, a chair who truly understands the business of the market, having built his own highly successful business in the food logistics industry. I am in regular dialogue with David and know that he shares my desire to do all that is necessary to resolve the current difficulties. Indeed, I am seeing him again in a week’s time, and we will absolutely focus on his plans to make urgent progress on these issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry made a number of specific points about logistics that I will respond to in the time available. The market authority tells me that it shared the Arup report on logistics that he referred to with the tenants association and its solicitors last November. That report was based on a comprehensive new traffic survey that Arup conducted in December 2017. Arup also installed automatic traffic counters, which are still in place, to provide an ongoing ability to monitor vehicle flows. The data is continually shared with the tenants association’s own traffic experts, and I recognise that this data is part of the ongoing discussions. I hope that is helping the situation. If it is not, clearly we need to find other ways to share the data and to make it more meaningful.

I also understand that, while the Arup report raised a number of logistical issues with the final design that needed to be addressed, it did not conclude that the new market would be unviable. The report shortlisted 12 proposals to resolve operational issues. The market authority, in discussion with the tenants, has already adopted some of those, including making changes to road layouts and adding a second exit slip road to provide better operational flexibility at peak times. The market authority advises that none of the other proposals have been dismissed; some will be implemented later on in the redevelopment, and others will need further review, depending on how the market adapts to the changes already made. Although I understand that there is work still to do, it is important to recognise that changes have been made, and that the market authority has the flexibility to continue to adapt the design as the build progresses.

My hon. Friend raised questions about the market authority’s actions as a landlord. Even he indicated that, during his time as a tenant, there were some frictions and tensions, as there often are between landlord and tenant. However, we are committed to running a market that operates as a business and is fair for both the tenants and the landlord. The market authority is a public corporation that operates as a business with a high degree of autonomy from the Government and has a statutory duty to break even. We also need to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return for the public investment in the market.

Clearly the tenant-landlord relationship is a legal one, but it is not just about following the letter of law; it is also about working fairly and transparently together. It is not possible for me to go into the detail of individual tenant’s situations today, but the market authority has sought to assure me that it has worked to move tenants on to new leases in a fair way. Indeed, it has highlighted that, as part of the move, it has offered a landlord compensation package over and above any statutory compensation due, amounting to an equivalent of between three and half and four years’ rent at current levels.

I do not underestimate the complexity of the issues here and the strain that the current situation is putting on relationships. The stakes are high and the frustration is all too evident—again, it sounds a bit like Brexit. I am as disappointed as anyone that the market authority and the tenants have so far failed to reach a shared understanding of how the new market will operate successfully, but surely legal action is not the way to get there. I utterly agree that is a waste of everybody’s time, energy and money—except the lawyers’. I know that my hon. Friend does not want their pockets further lined.

I firmly believe that sitting down together and working through the issues is the only way to find solutions, avoid legal disputes and move on, and there needs to be more of it—more sitting down together, more listening, more communicating, more understanding and absolutely more pace. I am sure that every challenge that this project presents can be overcome by continuous, open and respectful communication and a sincere approach to collaborative working. I am fully committed to helping to make that happen in any way I can, to reiterate the point I made to the hon. Member for Battersea.

The next meeting with traffic experts is planned for 10 July, and DEFRA officials will absolutely be there. I urge both sides to use that meeting to make real progress. They should use the whole day or the rest of the week if needs be—whatever time it takes—but they should not leave that room until they have found ways to move things forward.

We have serious players on both sides, and we all—the market authority, the tenants and absolutely all across Government—want the same thing: a thriving market now and into the future, where logistics work smoothly and both tenants and landlord work together fairly and transparently to create a profitable market where these vital businesses can grow. The best way to secure that is through working constructively together. I know that that is the call that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry wants to hear, and I think that all of us in the House feel that, so let us get on with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Religious Slaughter of Farm Animals

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. It is good to hear the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who secured this debate on such an important subject.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that shechita is any less acceptable than other forms of slaughter? Does he also agree that this country’s unwritten constitution has always made religious freedom a high priority? The changes that the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggests risk undermining the central tenet of our unwritten constitution, which is that religious freedom is important in our society.

[David Rutley]

I completely agree that religious freedom is essential. We had a fantastic prayer breakfast this morning, at which the principles of respect and tolerance were at the forefront of our minds.

On religious slaughter, I restate that the Government’s preference is that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. However, we respect the right of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs. We therefore allow the religious slaughter of animals by Muslims and Jews for intended consumption by them. The Government believe that that is an important religious freedom, and there is a long history of upholding it in legislation, dating back to the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contained an exception from stunning for religious slaughter for Jews and Muslims.

When I spoke about religious slaughter in the debate in this Chamber just a couple of months ago, I said that the Secretary of State and I would be holding a roundtable with a number of interested parties, including religious groups, animal welfare organisations—some of which are here today—and industry representatives. That meeting took place in May, and was a positive and open discussion, with helpful contributions from all who attended. Key issues discussed during that roundtable were the welfare impacts of different slaughter methods, essential ways of improving consumer information, the scope of the labelling scheme and halal assurance.

I strongly believe that the way to make progress—notwithstanding the important contributions of hon. Members from across the political spectrum—is through a roundtable and ongoing constructive dialogue. It is important to remind ourselves that in EU and domestic regulations that protect the welfare of animals at the time of killing, there are additional rules for animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, specifically for the production of halal and kosher meat. The primary aim of the welfare at slaughter regulations, which are based on a body of scientific evidence and advice from the European Food Safety Authority, is to ensure that animals are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering at the time of killing. It would be wrong to assume that the legal requirements for religious slaughter have not changed in the past 25 years.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister very much for giving way. He is dealing with this issue in a very reasoned way, as always. The European law says that all animals should be stunned, and there is a derogation to allow religious slaughter. We have to be careful not to wrap this up too much in the European situation. As we leave the EU, we must be much firmer on how we label and how we manage it, and we must ensure that more animals are not stunned than are needed for particular religions. We can do a lot more, so will the Minister speed up the operation? I fear that it is one of these slow operations that is not getting anywhere.

[David Rutley]

I would be surprised if the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee did not want faster action, as he regularly does. I hope he sees that we are upping the pace on animal welfare, with his support, for which I am grateful.

There are sensitivities on both sides—from a welfare perspective and a respecting religious freedom perspective— which we have to navigate our way through. This is an important debate, and the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth made in his well-considered speech must be taken into account. He mentioned New Zealand. I recently met one of the New Zealand Ministers of Agriculture, and we discussed this subject. I am aware that New Zealand has a quality assurance programme for halal, which we can look into. Some people suggested that Australia has a similar programme, but there is some non-stunned religious slaughter there in eight abattoirs. The focus should be on what New Zealand has to offer.

Mention was made of whether immediate post-cut stunning should be introduced to improve the welfare of animals killed without prior stunning, but when we look at that we must respect religious views. We are committed to continuing this dialogue and debate. The area that we should focus on, because it brings most people together, is labelling.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

It is very kind of the Minister to give way. He will understand that there is a great deal of insecurity in the British Jewish community as a consequence of institutional antisemitism in the Opposition party. Will he reassure that community, which feels insecure and anxious, that the Government will under no circumstances ban shechita, which is a central tenet of the Jewish faith, in the United Kingdom?

[David Rutley]

I assure Muslim and Jewish communities that we respect their freedoms. Through this debate and the roundtable process that we have put in place, we want to balance those religious freedoms with what more can be done to improve the welfare of animals. That is difficult, but not impossible, to juggle. Through dialogue, we can move forward and learn from what has taken place in other countries around the world. It must be done in the unique spirit of co-operation in this country. That should be respected by all parties in this House. I get the sense from this debate that people respect that requirement and the need to look more at animal welfare.

I think that the way forward is to look at these issues, consider the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, look at the mechanisms we have got through the roundtable forum that we have created, and move that on. We can focus more on labelling. We must engage with the communities and the industry to see how we can take this further forward. Our exit from the EU will provide an opportunity to do that with more conviction and at greater pace. I am sure that will please the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Thank you for your support in this debate, Mr Rosindell.

Question put and agreed to.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

David Rutley Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

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

As the Minister in the House of Commons with responsibility for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, I am delighted to present a Bill that will provide the ability to grant longer leases on Crown land there, opening new streams of revenue that will support the great British institution and enable it to flourish in the future.

Let me place on record, at the outset, my appreciation of the work of Members in this House—my hon. Friends the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—who have promoted similar private Members’ Bills on Kew Gardens. I also note the keen interest of noble Lords in supporting Kew. A similar Bill was promoted by Lord True, and this Bill, before coming to this House, was amended by Lord Whitty so that he and others could be reassured in placing the duty to prevent inappropriate development at Kew unequivocally on the face of the Bill.

Indeed, I think it fair to say that the Bill has already received support from Members on both sides of the other place. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch considered the Bill, and Lord Whitty’s amendment, supported by the Government, provides a double lock on future extended leases. Baroness Kramer and Lord Rooker were pleased that the Bill strengthened the protection of Kew and allowed us to look to a future as distinguished as its proud history.

Kew is a scientific institution of the utmost importance, not only for the United Kingdom but as a global resource—the global resource—for knowledge of plants and fungi. We are facing immense challenges when it comes to the preservation of the natural world, and it is clear that there is an essential role for plants and fungi in that regard.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about Kew being a centre of scientific research. For those of us in west London not blessed with wide open spaces, Kew is a treasure house—an absolute treasure trove of delights. The recent exhibition of Dale Chihuly showed Kew Gardens at its absolute finest. I hope that I speak for everybody on the Opposition Benches when I say we entirely support the hon. Gentleman, but particularly those of us in west London who absolutely love this treasure so close to our hearts.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman speaks well for the west London posse. He speaks very assuredly and with great passion as always for Kew Gardens, and we are grateful for that. It is a wonderful institution. I assure him that people not just in west London but across the nation want to visit it, and I hope that that is a boost to the local economy.

We are facing immense challenges in preserving the natural world. Within the challenge it is clear that there is a central role for plants and fungi, and Kew can provide answers about how plants and fungi will help us and our planet not just thrive but survive. Kew is a custodian of world-renowned collections, including the Millennium Seed Bank at Wakehurst and the Herbarium at Kew itself. The restoration and digitisation of the Herbarium will need considerable investment and will make the collection accessible globally.

Kew scientific research leads the world. With more scientists than at any time, its research is crucial in solving the challenges facing humanity today. Kew plays an extraordinary global role, in partnership with scientists, educators and communities, promoting research, education and conservation.

Kew does so much to involve the public, as we have already heard. With over 2 million visits to Kew and Wakehurst each year and around 100,000 pupils on school visits, it is building a wider understanding of plants and fungi and why they matter to us. Across the spectrum of public engagement, Kew is fostering a wider understanding of plants and fungi and why they matter to us.

Kew is not only an extraordinary scientific institution; as visitors and scientists will know, the estate includes many special buildings and structures, more than 40 of which are listed. It is a huge challenge to ensure the maintenance of these structures, which due to their historical nature is undertaken at considerable expense. We have a duty to balance public spending against priorities, and Kew is no exception. In view of Kew’s important role, DEFRA has been able to maintain funding to Kew in cash terms over this spending review period, but a key part of that was to support Kew to develop its other sources of income to deliver its ambitions.

Kew has made great strides in improving its financial sustainability. Kew’s Government grant forms just over one third of its income—37% in the 2017-18 accounts—and its mixed funding model is proving hugely successful, for example by using Government funding to leverage significant philanthropic and grant funding for renovation of the Temperate House, which reopened in 2018. Nevertheless, parts of the Kew estate, including some listed residential buildings near Kew Green, badly need investment to maintain and enhance their condition and enable Kew to realise additional income.

Attracting capital investment to refurbish buildings within the boundaries of Kew is one of the big opportunities available, but the current 31-year limit on leases imposed by the Crown Lands Act 1702 has made this difficult to realise. The Bill will allow leases to be granted on land at Kew for a term of up to 150 years. Longer leases will enable Kew to realise additional income from land and property, and will reduce maintenance liabilities and running costs. The additional income generated will help Kew to achieve its core objectives, maintain its status as a UNESCO world heritage site, and prioritise maintaining and developing its collections as well as improving the quality of its estate.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

We all support the work that Kew does and obviously want to support its estate strategy and the funding, but the point my hon. Friend has just made is important. Will he confirm that this is less about income and more about capital receipts? The significance of going to a 150-year lease is that the seven or so residential properties around Kew Green can be sold on a leasehold basis. Kew Gardens is also interested in developing the car park area alongside the Thames.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend speaks from experience; he knows this Bill very well. [Interruption.] Yes, very well. I agree: this is about not just income generation but cost reduction because of the maintenance costs of these properties. It is about getting capital in to help to renovate these important buildings and enable Kew to achieve its wider ambitions, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, any development will be restricted by local planning legislation and by Kew’s provenance as a world heritage site. Many protections will be put in place, notwithstanding the need to take forward these renovation works.

The Bill has the full support of Kew’s board of trustees and residents in the Kew area, in particular through the Kew Society. It might be helpful to set out the protections that have already been alluded to, particularly to confirm that the various safeguards that apply now would continue to apply to any lease granted under the Bill.

Kew’s activities are overseen by Kew’s board and by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is an Executive non-departmental public body and an exempt charity. It is governed by a board of trustees established under the National Heritage Act 1983. As an exempt charity, although the Charity Commission does not regulate it, it must abide by charity law with the Secretary of State as Kew’s regulator for charity purposes. This regulation is co-ordinated between the Charity Commission and the Secretary of State.

To ensure that Kew’s operational arrangements comply with the National Heritage Act and with public and charity law, a framework document exists between Kew and DEFRA to deal with business planning, resource allocation, the appointment of board members and, pertinently, the disposition of land. Thus, at all times in the governance process, the board of Kew, the Secretary of State and DEFRA play a key role in determining the operational management, and will continue to do so in the grant of any lease under this Bill.

The Bill goes further on that point in requiring that, before granting any lease, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the lease—and anything that the leaseholder is permitted to do with the property under the terms of the lease—would not have any adverse impact on the functions of the board of trustees as set out under the National Heritage Act.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I note from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) that there might be some question of a car park facility. Will the Minister ensure that, so far as possible, a low-carbon transport policy is developed for Kew? It seems ironic that we would do anything else, and there should clearly be sufficient electric charging points, sufficient public transport and sufficient cycling and walking routes to ensure that this really is genuinely state of the art for the 21st century.

[David Rutley]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, and I am sure that these matters will be given due consideration. The car park that may be envisaged in the future would need to comply with planning regulations locally, so these things would have to be considered.

[Stephen Pound]

Will the Minister read into the record a fact that is known to many of us, but perhaps not to every one of the vast number of people paying attention to the debate? Anyone who emerges from the main gate at Kew and strolls less than 100 yards up the road will find themselves at Kew Gardens station, where they can take the elegant District line to almost any place that their heart desires. There is also the London Overground. No one actually needs to drive there. There are three buses that stop there and two tube stations very close by. Would he care to note that for the record?

[David Rutley]

Noted. The hon. Gentleman is well informed, and I thank him. Of course it makes sense to use sustainable transport whenever possible, particularly when visiting Kew.

Another element of protection that will continue under the Bill is that of Kew’s UNESCO world heritage site status, and other designations that offer protection under the planning system. These will apply to any lease granted under the provisions of the Bill. Once again, the Bill goes further, requiring that before granting any lease the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the lease and anything that the leaseholder is permitted to do with the property under its terms would not have any adverse impact on Kew’s UNESCO world heritage site status.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will be familiar with the fact that it is typical with leasehold properties, particularly flats, for a leaseholder to have an entitlement to extend the lease before it reaches an 80-year cut-off period. With the type of leasehold we are discussing, will it be possible for a leaseholder to continue to extend in the normal way, or will it be a fixed term of 150 years only?

[David Rutley]

It would be possible to extend the lease in the normal way, except for the fact that a lease would never go beyond 150 years. There are different protections in place because Kew is on Crown land.

It is important to note that the Bill goes further on the UNESCO world heritage site status. Kew was inscribed as a UNESCO world heritage site in 2003 owing to its outstanding universal value as a historic landscape garden and world-renowned scientific institution. As a result, the UK Government, through the Kew board and the Secretary of State, have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the protection, management, authenticity and integrity of the site. As part of its world heritage site status, Kew has a management plan to show how its outstanding universal value as a property can be served, and that includes protections and mechanisms in the planning system relating to conservation areas in the London boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow.

The Kew Gardens site is also listed as grade I on the Historic England register of park and gardens of special historical interest in England. Much of the Kew site is designated as metropolitan open land, which applies similar protection to that offered to green belt land. Forty-four of the buildings and structures within the site are listed, and Kew is part of an archaeological priority area.

All the protections mean that any building work or alterations to any leased property, including the interior declarations in some cases, would require local planning permission and compliance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the national planning policy framework, and the Government’s policy for the historic environment.

Finally, of course, conditions would apply to the lease itself. In accordance with the duties that the Kew board and the Secretary of State must carry out, the lease itself, while seeking to be commercial, will include any restrictions that the Secretary of State decides are required—for example, to the extension or change of use to protect Kew, its UNESCO world heritage site status, or to ensure that the functions of the board of trustees under the National Heritage Act 1983 are not interfered with in any way.

As I set out earlier, the Bill disapplies the restriction in section 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1702 in relation to the maximum duration of leases of land at Kew. The Bill will remove the limit of 31 years on leases on land at Kew and apply a maximum of 150 years, bringing Kew into line with the provisions made for the Crown Estate by the Crown Estate Act 1961. The changes provide the ability to grant longer leases on the land. The Bill will not alter the many existing protections in place for Kew and its status as a world heritage site. In fact, the Bill strengthens the protections by formalising the duty of the Secretary of State to uphold them.

All proposals for granting leases are subject to scrutiny and must go through both Kew and DEFRA’s governance and comply with the protections in the planning framework, and in every case the lease itself will contain any restrictions that may be necessary.

The Bill will ensure that Kew’s historic properties are afforded the best protection. It is all about empowering Kew to manage its assets on a sound and sustainable commercial footing to enhance the estate and to pursue its core objectives. Kew’s trustees need the Bill to do what is necessary for the future of this national institution, which is part of our shared global heritage.

The modest dimensions of this two-clause Bill belie its importance in helping to safeguard Kew and its invaluable work. This is an opportunity for us to support Kew’s mission, because enabling Kew to maintain and enhance all parts of its estate will be crucial to its long-term success and to its global role in addressing today’s challenges for plants, fungi and humankind.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. Indeed, it is my pleasure and privilege to do so. I think there was one other Bill that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) had in mind as well.

[Dr Drew]

The Bill on animal sentience—I could throw that in there as well.

[David Rutley]

There we go. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a reasonable man, and I am trying my best to move forward with this legislation. With support from the Opposition, Government Members and those across the House, we are making progress. Hopefully we can make more.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is appropriate to hold the Bill’s Second Reading ahead of the climate change debate. I wish to join him in welcoming the hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) to her place. It is also good to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth in his place for what will be another important speech.

I want to respond to many of the points made in the debate. With characteristic enthusiasm and passion, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has persuaded people at Kew in no time at all that it is entirely appropriate for a group of MPs to come along. They would indeed like to extend that invitation to Members here, so I hope that he can join us on that occasion. It is rare for our suggestions to be put into action so quickly, but the hon. Gentleman has managed it.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned low-carbon transport. Kew’s transport policy is, of course, not within the scope of the Bill, but we will pass on his comments to people there. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) talked about extending the leases; I responded by saying that leaseholders could apply to replace the original lease with a new one of no more than 150 years. The hon. Member for Stroud also asked which properties would be included.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made a very important speech; I say a huge thank you to him for his remarkable work and support for Kew over the years. He also does a huge amount on the wider debate about biodiversity and climate change, for which many Members—not least DEFRA Ministers—are extremely grateful.

Of the properties that we are talking about today, five are currently let on a one-year lease following renovation work, partly funded by a loan, and two are unoccupied and require substantial renovation to bring them up to a habitable condition or make them fit to become office accommodation. In the first instance, Kew would like to focus on that portfolio of properties, particularly the unoccupied properties. That portfolio can itself generate a capital sum or remove liability for renovation or maintenance works—a cost avoidance of about £15 million over a 10-year period.

The hon. Member for Stroud also asked about funding and what would be done with it. The Government’s intention is for Kew to receive the income to support its mission, including investment in its infrastructure and the quality of the world heritage site itself. Although I cannot prejudge the outcome of the forthcoming spending review, the importance of Kew’s mission and of securing the institution’s future means that my Department will be working closely with Kew to put forward the strongest possible case. That includes significant investment in digitising Kew’s herbarium collection, which the hon. Gentleman called for and which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said was so important, so that it can be conserved securely and be globally available.

Kew’s work is vital for our biodiversity and in tackling climate change. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will push hard to get the right funding for these tasks. It is vital that we get behind that work and further support Kew, because it is a global centre of knowledge about plants and fungi, and that should never come under any question. Given my remarks, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Members will be assured that we are in this for the long term. We need Kew to thrive and survive, and the Bill will help it do just that.

I hope that Members are now fully aware of the necessity of the Bill and the benefit that it will bring to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and the wider role played by Kew generally. I also hope that hon. Members feel reassured that proposals under any new lease will be subject to scrutiny by trustees, the Secretary of State and through the planning process with the local planning authority, as well as being in line with Kew’s world heritage site management plan.

It is an honour to have participated in this debate. We care passionately about Kew, and we are grateful to the team there for their important work—I think everybody would echo that—and for their sheer enthusiasm.

[Stephen Pound]

Long may they flourish!

[David Rutley]

Long may they flourish, grow and prosper—absolutely. Their enthusiasm is infectious, and we are grateful for it. We want them to continue to succeed in the work they do. I hope the Bill will continue to make positive progress through Parliament, so that we can take this work forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you.

Pet Identification

David Rutley Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Westminster Hall

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

Sir Roger, I know that you have a real and sincere interest in this subject, so it must be difficult for you to sit in the Chair during the debate, but we know that you are with us in spirit and want to improvements to be made in this area.

This has been an important and fascinating debate. I have learned more about the names of hon. Members’ cats than I ever thought I needed to; we have heard of Muffins, Misty and Porridge, but the name that takes the biscuit, and definitely the creativity award, is Bumblesnarf. It is good to hear that we have a good posse of cat lovers here among us.

It is true that cats are cherished members of our families, bringing joy to homes up and down the country, so I understand the distress caused when they become lost or injured, or get hit by a vehicle. We have heard some harrowing stories today about the sense of loss and the need for closure from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who gave a fantastic speech to open the debate. The hon. Member—I should say the omnipresent Member—for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about how sad it is to see lost cat posters around and families trying to find their lost ones. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) spoke of the need to take care of the needs of families and not just the animals.

I thank the Petitions Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss the important subject of cat welfare, specifically the scanning of cats killed in road accidents. As I said, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk did an excellent job opening the debate. I too will take the opportunity to thank Cats Protection, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Blue Cross and the scores of other organisations that provide care for cats in all circumstances. These organisations, with the help of dedicated volunteers, do everything they can to reunite and rehome cats in need.

I commend the petitioners, Helena Abrahams and the others who have been so involved with the petition, as the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) set out in his early interventions—or perhaps I should say contributions—to the debate, on drawing attention to the importance of the scanning of cats and through that the importance of cats being microchipped. Like many Members of this House, I am sure, I was particularly taken with the examples from the Gizmo’s Legacy team and the terrible accounts of cats killed in road accidents or lost for one reason or another. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) talked about the strong support for the petition in her constituency, and of course, north Manchester is not far from Macclesfield, where I live.

In many cases, owners have been unable to discover the fate of their beloved pet, and I understand that that serves to compound their distress. I agree that local councils and their contractors should do everything they can to identify the dead pets that they come across and, where possible, notify their owners so that they are not left in a sorry state of suspense—or worse.

The issues raised in the petition on cats and road vehicles have been the subject of several recent debates in this House, not least the debate in December brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), whose work championing the cause of cats I wholeheartedly commend. He was also able to raise the subject at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs oral questions on 28 March when the Secretary of State—a cat owner himself—said very clearly, in relation to my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill, which we have just discussed, “Bring it on.” Some people might call that making policy on the paw—

[Dr Drew]

Very good.

[David Rutley]

—but I agree with him. We must do all we can to improve cat welfare. The benefits of microchipping are well known; that is why I am planning to issue, when I can, a call for evidence on making cat microchipping compulsory. It will be an important step forward for much-loved cats across the country. I hope that the petitioners and hon. Members here—not least the hon. Member for the beautiful constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who made a compelling speech, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and the ever-present hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew)—will recognise it as an important step that we must take.

Over 107,000 people have signed the petition, which is a reminder of just how well loved our pets are in this country and of how important their welfare is to us. I am pleased to explain the Government’s response to key aspects raised by the petition in more detail. While the petition itself does not specifically call for compulsory microchipping of cats, in common with many animal welfare charities we recognise that microchipping is the key method for identifying a pet and linking it to its owner. On that basis, the Government recommend that any owner should microchip their cat to increase the chances of its being reunited with them if it gets lost. That is also strongly advocated by Cats Protection and other welfare organisations.

In April 2018, we updated the statutory cat welfare code with the welcome collaboration of Cats Protection and others. The code now emphasises the benefits of microchipping cats specifically, and I encourage cat owners everywhere to consider the benefits of microchipping, which can be obtained for a modest fee. In fact, microchipping can even be obtained free of charge: Blue Cross provides free microchipping services at its animal rehoming centres, hospitals and clinics, and other welfare charities do likewise. The hon. Member for Strangford, who often contributes to debates on animal welfare, talked about the Assisi Animal Sanctuary in Northern Ireland, where microchipping is provided free in certain circumstances. That is an important step.

Microchipping technology has greatly improved the chances of lost pets being reunited with their owners. For a relatively small, one-off cost of around £25—or, as I have mentioned, in some cases free of charge—people can have confidence that their beloved pet could be identified if it were lost. As the head of cattery at Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Lindsey Quinlan, said, while the microchipping procedures are short and simple,

“the return on their value is immeasurable”.

The Government’s statutory cat welfare code therefore promotes microchipping on two grounds. First, micro- chipping gives cats the best chance of being identified when lost; secondly, and just as important, a lost cat that has a microchip is more likely to receive prompt veterinary treatment. In this way, microchipping ensures that cats are protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease, as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

I am grateful to Cats Protection for its support in developing the cat welfare code. DEFRA officials remain engaged and are seeking additional opportunities to promote the benefits of cat microchipping. I intend to work closely with Cats Protection on this, which is why I met the organisation in January to explore how the Government can support this important work. Working with Cats Protection and the wider sector through the Canine and Feline Sector Group, the Government will further strengthen and protect the welfare of cats in this country.

It is because of success stories such as those we have heard today that I am so delighted that the proportion of cats that are microchipped has grown in recent years. Recent figures from the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals show that 68% of cats are now microchipped, up from 46% in 2011. However, a saddening statistic from a recent survey by Cats Protection suggests that the majority of the cats taken to their adoption centres in the past three years were not microchipped.

Compulsory dog microchipping was introduced in England through secondary legislation in 2016, due to the public safety risk posed by stray dogs as well as the propensity for dogs to stray or get lost. Compulsory microchipping for dogs has been a real success, with a recognised reduction in stray and lost pets as a result, as the Dog’s Trust’s annual “Stray Dog Survey” can attest. That does not mean that cat welfare is less important than dog welfare; as I mentioned, I plan to issue a call for evidence on compulsory cat microchipping as soon as possible and to encourage its uptake even further.

Turning to the key aspect of the petition, the question of compulsory scanning, I recognise how painful it is to lose a pet and not to know what has happened. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, there is a requirement for drivers to stop and report accidents involving certain working animals, as has already been discussed, including cattle, horses and dogs. As I understand it, adding cats would require primary legislation, which would be the primary responsibility of the Department for Transport, which is the lead Department. However, the highway code requires drivers to report accidents involving any animal to the police, which can help many owners to be notified if their cats are killed on roads. The Blue Cross briefing for this debate clarifies the case for cats well:

“Dogs are required by law to be kept under control i.e. on a lead, therefore, RTAs involving dogs can be investigated by the police to determine whether the owner has broken the law. As cats are legally allowed to roam freely, the owner is not committing an offence.”

There are additional responsibilities for dog owners:

“Legally speaking, dogs are also considered more likely to cause damage to a vehicle, requiring the driver to report the details to the police to establish liability.”

There are differences between cats and dogs and their behaviours. Nevertheless, I am pleased that it is established good practice for local authorities to scan any dog or cat found on the streets, so that the owner can be informed. That is often included as a requirement in street cleaning contracts, as it should be. However, I realise from the information provided by the petitioners and champions of Gizmo’s Legacy that some councils may not be following this established good practice, so I will take this up with the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). We need to agree how to encourage local authorities to work together, to promote best practice in this area, and to ensure that dead cats are scanned so that owners can be informed of their tragic loss. I will also write to the Local Government Association to set out my concerns and to seek assurances on increased adherence to the guidance.

Cats Protection found, through freedom of information requests, that 80% of respondent councils in England scan animals involved in road traffic accidents for a microchip. However, given the debate we have had, I think it is important that we have a more consistent appreciation of and approach towards this. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—[Interruption.] I always get that one wrong; Hansard will correct it. However, what I do not get wrong is my recognition of her absolute commitment to cat welfare, and animal welfare more generally. I hope she realises that we want to take action in this area and make further progress.

Highways England has clear guidelines for contractors to follow when they find a deceased cat or dog on the national road network. This process is designed with owners in mind, giving them the best chance of being informed that the incident has occurred, and is laid out in the network management manual. I am delighted to say that, in 2015, the necessary arrangements were made in all Highways England contracts for cats and dogs killed on the strategic road network to be collected and identified and for their owners to be contacted, including retrofitting the network management manual so that both cat and dog fatalities are collected and identified where possible. This area is the responsibility of the Department for Transport, so following the debate, I will work with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), to explore what more the Government will do to ensure that guidance is being followed and what more can be done to help owners to know the fate of their beloved cats.

The hon. Member for Stroud makes a really important point: there is a huge responsibility on all of us who drive cars to consider our speed, because of the danger excessive speed poses not only to other humans but to animals. That point was incredibly well made. A centralised database was also mentioned. We already have a broadly unified microchipping system in the UK: there are 12 databases that meet the requirements of separate regulations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we already have working systems that operate together and talk to each other. We can explore that more, but I wanted to reassure colleagues that there are databases that serve the function that we are concerned about today.

I think we all agree that we have had a truly interesting debate. There is clearly considerable sadness when a family pet is killed, and I understand that owners simply want to know what has happened, so that they are not haunted by the possibility that a missing pet might one day return. It is right that we do all we can to encourage local authorities and others to scan the fallen pets that they find, and I will work with colleagues across Government to see what more we can do to promote and encourage good practice in this area.

[Dr Drew]

Can these changes be made by secondary legislation, or do we need to change that Act?

[David Rutley]

I made inquiries on the basis of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others made during the debate. I understand it would need to be through primary legislation; I made the point about adding cats to that Act.

Compulsory microchipping has also been highlighted, and I am taking the first steps forward on that with a call for evidence. I hope that hon. Members, despite their broader concerns, see that we are committed to taking action here. That will be a hugely important step forward, showing our intentions and sending a clear signal to local authorities that more needs to be done, not least in Scotland; if I was in the Scottish Government I would be trembling in my boots waiting for the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to intervene and take further action there. However, we will take these actions forward, as I discussed.

The Government’s record on animal welfare is strong, and we will continue in that vein. We have a strong commitment to introduce increased maximum penalties for animal cruelty—I am working at the highest levels to move that further forward—and to look closely at the regulation of animal rescue and rehoming centres. As always in the debates we have had over recent months, I recognise the degree of cross-party support for the action being taken. It is because of that that we are able to take much of this legislation forward, and as the hon. Member for Stroud will agree, there is more to do.

We have already introduced stronger animal welfare controls on dog breeding and the sale of pets, including on the breeding and commercial sale of cats. The implementation of Lucy’s law, which bans the third-party sale of puppies and kittens, followed hot on the heels of Government support for Finn’s law, which protects service animals. The Government are committed to protecting and enhancing the welfare of animals, including cats, and we will continue to build on our progress in the coming months and years, hopefully on a cross-party basis like we have seen in recent months.

Animals

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 May, be approved.

It is good to be here in the Chamber taking action on animal welfare again, after the Third Reading of the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill yesterday, and I very much appreciate the support of so many hon. Members for that legislation.

The regulations are important because they put in place Lucy’s law. They establish a ban on commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens under six months of age in England—a ban that has been called for by committed campaigners and that has overwhelming public support. This is a positive step forward in cracking down on unscrupulous breeders and tackling the scourge of puppy smuggling.

Lucy was a Cavalier King Charles spaniel who died in 2016 after suffering terrible conditions on a Welsh puppy farm. Her plight inspired the Lucy’s law campaign, which harnessed widespread support from the public and the animal welfare sector. Dogs such as Lucy are often used by unscrupulous breeders to produce multiple litters of puppies, which are taken from their mothers when just a few weeks old and advertised online or sold in pet shops.

There is not an animal lover in the land who would wish to support this abhorrent profiteering from cruelty, but here is the problem: under current rules, it is difficult for would-be buyers to know whether a seller is a bone fide hobby breeder who raises puppies and kittens in a caring environment, as their advertisement claims, or someone who breeds animals simply as a money-making exercise, without regard for their welfare.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents feel strongly that stronger action needs to be taken against the rogue elements among breeders, and there will be a lot of support for the measures that are being brought forward. The Minister is absolutely right about the appalling scenes that we have seen. To what extent does he believe that the steps being proposed will not just make things a little better but end this evil trade once and for all?

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is good to see that he has been campaigning hard locally on these issues and supports this campaign and that his constituents feel the same. I can assure him that this legislation will be a material step on. It has been welcomed by charities across the board—I will praise them in a minute for the fantastic work they have been doing—which feel assured that the proposals will not only crack down on unscrupulous breeders but be a positive step against puppy smuggling.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Following on from the Minister’s proper remark about positive steps, does he agree that those who adopt rescue animals—dogs and cats, but particularly dogs—deserve a great round of applause because they are not only fulfilling their own needs but helping to provide a proper home to an animal that would otherwise be mistreated or abandoned?

[David Rutley]

That is absolutely right. This legislation means that people will be able to buy puppies directly from a breeder or from a rehoming centre. It is vital to recognise that those who bring a rehomed puppy or kitten into their home are really looking after the welfare of that animal. Their efforts should absolutely be praised, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has done that today.

The activities of these unscrupulous breeders are bad for buyers and also bad for the countless good breeders in this country whose reputations and businesses are at risk when the actions of others less decent than themselves threaten the integrity of the sector overall. That is why we are taking action today, just like we did yesterday.

I would like to thank the brilliant campaigners and animal lovers who have helped to bring this positive change before the House today. The Lucy’s law campaign has been championed by vet and campaigner Marc Abraham and his fellow campaigners at Pup Aid. Lucy’s law is supported tirelessly by organisations big and small, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Mayhew, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and the Dogs Trust, all of which do so much to strengthen animal welfare across the country. I should also highlight the important work and support of the all-party parliamentary group on dog welfare so ably chaired by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is in her place.

This decision to ban third-party sales of puppies and kittens followed a call for evidence in a public consultation that received over 6,500 responses, of which no fewer than 96% supported the proposal. The call for evidence was launched in response to an e-petition that called for a ban on the sale of puppies by pet shops and other third parties. The petition received over 148,000 signatures and triggered a debate in the House on 21 May 2018. This further demonstrates how Parliament and this Government can respond to public concerns.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we also have to stamp down on those who steal puppies to order? Many puppies are taken from outside people’s houses, outside shops and the like simply because there is a market for them. This measure makes the market more regulated, and that can only be applauded.

[David Rutley]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes another really good point. Absolutely—this will help in that dimension, but there is also more that we need to do to make people more aware of where they are sourcing their puppies. We need to do more to tackle puppy theft and dog theft. We will be working on that with various campaigners in the months ahead.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Everyone involved in the tough grassroots campaigning that took over 10 years to reach this point should be congratulated. I would particularly like to congratulate people in my constituency who worked very hard to get to this point. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that at the moment Wales is not included in this measure? Does he expect the Welsh Government to follow suit very quickly in doing a similar thing?

[David Rutley]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point. I will come on to what happens in the devolved Administrations. It is fair to say, however, that the Welsh Government are now considering their response to the three-month consultation. I praise her local campaigners for their hard work. It does take time to get these changes through, but I am pleased to say that in the space of a couple of days we are taking really tough action, on a cross-party basis, to move the agenda forward on animal welfare.

This statutory instrument implements Lucy’s law by making an amendment to the parent regulations—the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. The commercial sale of pets is already a licensable activity. The amendment means that licensed pet sellers, including pet shops and dealers, will no longer be able to sell puppies or kittens under the age of six months unless they themselves have bred the animals. Alongside the public consultation, a draft regulatory triage assessment was published. This legislation does not require a full impact assessment as the net estimated impact falls significantly below the necessary threshold of £5 million.

The ban will enter into force on 6 April 2020. The additional time before the ban coming into force will allow the sector to prepare. If the ban is rushed, it may encourage abandonment of puppies or their breeding mothers, or other unscrupulous activity. This approach is being supported by welfare groups and campaigners. Once it is enforced, the best place to buy or adopt a puppy or kitten will be directly with the responsible breeder or through one of the country’s many animal rehoming centres.

This Government have shown that we take animal welfare very seriously.

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister is absolutely right to publicise and to put on record how many excellent, responsible breeders there are out there. There have been occasions in the past where Governments have legislated for all the right reasons but ended up creating nightmares for some of the smaller organisations, in particular. What representations has he had on this, and how much can he reassure us that the legislation, as well as being robust, is sufficiently well drafted that it will not create unintended consequences for responsible smaller breeders?

[David Rutley]

That is a good point. I think the hon. Gentleman will also recognise that when the regulations to which he is referring were introduced last year, the Department took a step back, listened to the concerns and addressed them. We have learned from that and worked closely with a number of welfare groups to ensure that the regulations before us are in a really good state, and we have time ahead of 6 April 2020 to ensure that they are fully worked through.

This instrument will help to address a number of welfare concerns associated with puppies and kittens bought and sold by third parties. Those concerns include the early separation of animals from their mothers, unnecessary journeys at a young age from breeder to pet shop, the sale of puppies and kittens at inappropriate commercial premises, and unscrupulous breeders who are associated with third-party sales. The ban will help to tackle the blight of puppy smuggling, and it will also help the public to make more informed and responsible choices when sourcing a puppy or kitten. It will build on the new licensing regulations, which came into force in October 2018 and introduced a range of welfare improvements for dog breeding and pet sales.

Comprehensive statutory guidance underpins the 2018 regulations, and it was produced by the sectors concerned under the auspices of the Canine and Feline Sector Group. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is updating the statutory guidance on the activity of selling animals as pets, to take account of this ban on third-party sales. The changes are intended to assist local authority inspectors and licence holders by clarifying that non-commercial rehoming of puppies and kittens does not require a licence and requiring local authorities to notify existing licence holders of the change, so that they can prepare appropriately.

The guidance also outlines how to determine whether a licence holder bred the puppies and kittens they offer for sale, which is very important. A licence holder should be able to provide supporting evidence such as photographs, microchips and veterinary records to show that they housed and cared for the animal and its mother for the first eight weeks of its life, as well as the licence itself. The draft guidance has been shared with the sector, and we intend to finalise it well before the ban comes into force in April 2020, which I hope addresses the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins).

This statutory instrument applies to England only because the parent regulations apply to England only. Animal welfare is a fully devolved issue, and respective parts of the United Kingdom have slightly different approaches to the licensing of pet sellers and other animal activities. I understand that a three-month consultation was recently concluded on banning third-party sales in Wales, and the Welsh Government are now considering those responses, which is good news. In Northern Ireland, Members of the Legislative Assembly have shown support for a similar ban to be introduced, and officials in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs are following developments in England closely. Scotland has committed to reform the licensing of sanctuaries, breeders and pet shops and is considering a ban on third-party sales.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this excellent piece of legislation. He mentioned Wales. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited a puppy farm in Wales about three years ago—I am sure that the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), will touch on this—and it changed my mind on puppy farming. It was very disappointing to see that dogs could not be dogs. Could the Minister speak to the Welsh Government, to ensure that the information he has gleaned is shared with them and they can reach the same conclusion as us?

[David Rutley]

I know that a lot is going on to share best practice and experience among the devolved Administrations, and I will ensure that that takes place. I am sure that there is an active dialogue. There certainly has been a very active dialogue in preparing the many SIs related to EU exit, so those relationships have been formed. It makes absolute sense, because in some areas Scotland is slightly ahead of us, and in this area we will be slightly ahead of other devolved Administrations. We do not want to have an animal welfare race, but we certainly want to ensure that we learn from this experience, because it is about the welfare of very important and much loved animals. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we will follow that up.

The ban on commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens is an important step towards further improving welfare standards to ensure that our beloved pet dogs and cats have the best start in life. This Government are committed to protecting and enhancing the welfare of animals, and this statutory instrument is another step in delivering on these commitments. For the reasons I have set out, I commend this statutory instrument to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend reinforces exactly the point that I am making: too many puppies will be smuggled in. We are getting tighter at the ports, but we need to get tighter still and have people there. They will come through at different times of the day and night when there is nobody about.

There is another linked issue. Legally, one can go and buy five puppies and bring them in. How many people buy five puppies for themselves? Very few in my estimation. It is a legal loophole. Basically, someone gets a fraudulent form signed by an interesting vet in some other country— I will be diplomatic today, which is unusual for me.

[David Rutley]

Very unusual.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for that sedentary comment.

Seriously, it is a problem. People can legally bring them in. If someone has a signed certificate from a vet in a particular country, they can bring them in. This could be another bonus from Brexit, dare I say it?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

First, I say once again that it is fantastic to be able to participate in such a positive debate and to make such positive progress. I am grateful for all the contributions made today; they have all been constructive and the questions raised are legitimate. We do need to answer them and I will do my level best to do so.

It is important to correct the record, however. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said we are “a nation of lovers”; I think in the context of this debate he meant animal lovers. We will leave the other subject for a different day, but we are talking about animal welfare here today. I just want to make sure that is absolutely clear.

It is important that we do not forget the cats. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was very clear about that, as she was in her praise of the tireless campaigners, which the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) did a fantastic job of doing, too.

[Bob Stewart]

Cats, as Winston Churchill said, look down on us, dogs look up at us, but pigs look us in the eye as equals. I just wanted to make that point, as a dog lover more than a cat lover.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will allow you to decide whether that was in order. My hon. Friend has strayed slightly from the subject of today’s discussion, but as always he educates us on his views, and on those of Winston Churchill.

I cannot get away from cats because a very active member of our private office team is the proud owner of Percy, a kitten, and we have regular updates on his progress. I am grateful for the contributions to the debate, and it is important to highlight some of the work being done in the devolved areas as well. I am pleased to hear about “MacLucy’s” law; I have never heard it described as that before. We must make progress in those areas as well.

[Dr Cameron]

It is important that “MacLucy’s” law is taken forward across the UK, because we would not like puppy smugglers or farmers to feel that there is a safe haven anywhere. Given that so much has been put into the campaign, I ask the Minister to speak with counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to try to make sure that this practice applies across the board.

[David Rutley]

Yes, I absolutely will do that. I have said that to colleagues in the context of Wales, and we will do that in Scotland as well. We need to move this forward in the United Kingdom.

I should also highlight the number of Whips who have been in the debate today—although they are not able to speak—including the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). They are huge animal lovers and wanted to be associated with the progress we are making today.

I want to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton on sentencing and increased sentences. We remain committed to introducing the necessary legislation to increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years’ imprisonment, and I am working at the highest levels to ensure that the legislation needed to make the change is introduced at the earliest opportunity.

[Neil Parish]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Rutley]

I will give way in just one second, because I was about to say that I am sure that those who make decisions about what goes on in this Chamber—the business managers—will listen carefully to those on the Opposition Benches and to the experienced voice of the Chair of the EFRA Committee in their calls to move this legislation forward. They have told us that they will not attempt to block this legislation, because everybody sees how important it is.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend, and that is exactly that point that I wanted to re-emphasise. There is so much cross-party support, and I cannot see why the managers of business in this House, on either side, should be worried. I know that the Minister is working hard, but please may we have this legislation sooner rather than later? He promised us several times that this was going to be done very quickly, but I must question him gently on how quickly he means. When will it be?

[David Rutley]

I have never ever had any gentle questioning from my hon. Friend. As I have said, I am pressing hard to get this done as fast as we can, and our aim is to bring this forward as soon as we can.

The hon. Member for Stroud made a contribution on sentience, and the supportive contributions that my colleagues have made today show that the UK is a global leader in animal welfare. The Government’s policies on animal welfare are driven by a recognition that animals are sentient beings. We are acting energetically to reduce the risk of harm to animals, whether they are pets, on farms or in the wild, and we will ensure that any changes required to UK law after we leave the EU are made in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure that animal sentience is recognised. DEFRA continues to engage with stakeholders to further refine the Government’s proposals on sentience, and we are currently seeking the right legislative vehicle in this context.

The hon. Member for Stroud also made points about rescuing and rehoming centres. I hear the concerns that he expressed about these organisations. In the Westminster Hall debate on 26 February 2019 on animal rescue homes, I said that

“we must do everything we can to ensure that good welfare practices are in place in all animal rescue homes.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 74WH.]

Legitimate rescue homes do incredible work rescuing and rehoming thousands of sick and abandoned stray animals each year. We have heard praise for them in today’s debate as well. I had the honour of visiting the Mayhew rehoming centre a few weeks ago when we announced the laying of this statutory instrument, and we discussed the importance of responsible purchasing and rehoming of puppies and kittens. We want to make progress here, and we need to be confident of the benefits and impacts of any regulations placed on these organisations, particularly some of the smaller rescue and rehoming charities, which is why we are actively exploring these issues with the organisations involved.

The hon. Member for Stroud asked about resources for local authorities leading on implementing and enforcing animal licensing controls. Importantly, they have the power to charge fees, which factor in the reasonable costs of enforcement associated with licensable activity. DEFRA works closely with local authorities and the City of London leads on the training of local authority inspectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton talked about the importance of self-policing, and it is important that we continue to get intelligence and input from the public as well. They have an important role to play.

Further contributions were made about the importance of addressing puppy smuggling. In other debates we have highlighted the need to do further work on this, and I personally and DEFRA take a zero-tolerance approach to this abhorrent crime. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has talked about the number of puppies that should be allowed to come across our border at any given point in time with one owner. As I have said to him in other places, we would be in a position to review that after we leave the EU.

There was further discussion about Marc Abraham’s views on licensing and rescue homes. I am pleased that he can be with us today; it is great to see him recognised for the important campaign that he has taken forward. We agree that there is a clear difference between a legitimate charitable rehoming centre and a business selling pets. The latter will be subject to a ban on third party sales for puppies and kittens, but as I have already discussed we are seeking to regulate the rescue and rehoming sector.

Rehoming charities often charge a rehoming fee. Some have suggested that unscrupulous pet sellers could take advantage of that by reinventing themselves as rescue and rehoming organisations to get around the ban. That is why we will be working with canine and feline sector groups and local authorities to develop specific guidance to help distinguish between non-commercial rescue and rehoming centres, which are charities, and pet sellers, which are businesses.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow made important points about the publicity campaign that we need to take forward. We need to do further work on helping people to purchase pets responsibly, and we have committed to doing that. We have also assured the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that we will work to provide the best advice to help people to look after their dogs and cats responsibly.

The Government are committed to protecting animal welfare. This legislation will help put an end to the inhumane and abhorrent conditions that animals such as Lucy are subjected to. It will ensure that puppies and kittens are born and reared in a safe environment with their mothers and sold from their place of birth. Those who decide to bring a pet into their home can know that it will be healthy and has come from a responsible breeder. I commend this statutory instrument to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 May, be approved.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

David Rutley Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning]

She does not look 30 years of age, as my hon. Friend comments. She said to me when she was about 11 years of age, “Daddy, I’m going to be taken to a zoo by the school, and I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to see animals in cages.” We have never gone to a zoo and never gone to a circus that has had live animals. My youngest daughter is 28 and my eldest daughter is 30. My eldest daughter is now a marine biologist, so the House can probably realise where I am coming from on this. If we are going to make a law that says that we are banning live animals in circuses, let us do that for them, and for the public. If there are animal welfare issues, that can be picked up, but actually over the years it has not been, which is why we are going to ban it ethically now.

Should the animals be taken if they are found in this situation? This is a really difficult grey area that the Minister is going to have to address. Why would someone travel with an animal if they have not been training it and using it? Why would they keep it in its winter quarters when perhaps there are better types of quarters that it could be kept in? If it is travelling, why would they do that if they are not using it within a circus production? I hope that there can be an accommodation in this Bill—whether in this House, around guidance, or as it proceeds to the other House, which will also understand that the public are with us on this—whereby we can do what it says on the tin. This Bill says that we are going to ban live animals in circuses—we are going to protect those animals should they be in a circus.

There will be loads of good will out there regarding these animals. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said that he tweeted out about this —yes, but they have to go to the right place. We are talking about myriad different types of animal that are used within circuses. It is really important that these animals go to a place of expertise to be looked after, because a lot of them may well have been through very stressful procedures. They may have been in a circus nearly all their life and then they are taken to a completely different environment. That takes a degree of professionalism and expertise. That has to be addressed in terms of payment, which should come from the circus, as they are the people who are responsible for these animals. They can be passionate about them. I have heard some of the debates in public over the years where they have said, “We love these animals.” I do not doubt that, but we need to say, “If we have a situation where we are going to have to remove animals from you, as an organisation, then it is not right for the taxpayer or a charity to pick up that tab—it is your job.” We need to consider how we can move that forward within the guidance. Perhaps the other House will debate this for a little bit longer.

We are trying, on principle, cross-party and as a nation, to get the animal rights part of this right. My kids—our kids—are driving this forward. It is like the environmental arguments that are going on out there at the moment. They are right, because it is their future, not our future. I have been lucky enough to be in Kenya with the military and have been in most of the safari parks. Seeing an animal in its natural environment coming down to the water hole in the evening because that is what it naturally does is an absolutely moving thing, not like seeing an elephant standing on its back legs in a circus, which is very damaging for the animal.

The House should be very proud of bringing this legislation forward. I would disagree only slightly with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport on one thing. The previous Labour Administration had a huge majority—an absolutely enormous majority. They could have got whatever legislation they wanted through this House at any time during that period, but it is a Conservative Government who have brought this through. I am very proud of that, but it should have been brought in years and years ago.

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

It is an honour to participate in the debate, and I welcome the genuine cross-party spirit. We are good friends on these issues, and it is good to hear well-informed, well-thought-through opinions, which will add to what we are taking forward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on setting out his concerns so clearly. We have spoken outside the Chamber, to facilitate further discussions, which shows the cross-party approach we are taking.

Animal welfare is a vital issue for everybody in the Chamber. All Members here have played an important role in trying to secure debates and take forward legislation on this issue. It is time to stop the outdated practice of wild animals performing or being exhibited in circuses. I will go into some technical details, but I think we all agree that we need to move in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

There is concern about using two different bits of legislation to solve one problem. Would it not be clearer to cover this issue in the Bill, rather than relying on the Animal Welfare Act?

[David Rutley]

That is an interesting point. It is difficult to get the balance right, but the key thing to remember is that we are discussing an outdated practice that we want to see removed on ethical grounds. Seizure is much easier where there are genuine welfare concerns—I will explain why in more detail—and those powers are contained in the 2006 Act.

If the animal is subject to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976—of those animals currently kept in circuses, only camels and zebras are subject—it may be seized if it is being kept without a licence or if a licensing condition is being breached. There is no need to replicate those powers here. In Committee, concern was raised about repeated breaches of the Act. The courts would have the power to impose unlimited fines, which makes it highly unlikely that a circus would continue to reoffend, for economic reasons.

Powers to seize animals interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, which is protected by article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights. Interferences must be justified and proportionate. That may be easy to do if an owner is mistreating an animal and the powers are being exercised under the Animal Welfare Act, which is the point I was trying to make earlier. However, the objective of this legislation is simply, but importantly, to prevent the use of wild animals in circuses on ethical grounds. Preventing someone from using animals for other purposes, which is what the seizure and deprivation powers do, goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Bill.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would like some reassurance from the Minister about a circus that operates in my constituency—Circus Mondao—which has a zebra and two camels. I have been campaigning for it to cease the use of these, and I ask that the Bill cover that so that I can happily go to Circus Mondao in the knowledge that, because of this Act, it is not using wild animals.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman sets things out incredibly clearly, as he has done on others Bills I have been involved in. Absolutely—I can categorically say that, at commencement of this Act, those practices will no longer be able to be taken forward, so his campaign will have come to fruition. I hope that reassures him.

Amendment 4 seeks to extend the enforcement powers in the Bill to police constables. A few points have been made, not the least of which were those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who is passionate about many things, including these issues. I always have a soft spot for Hemel Hempstead because that was where one of my sons was born. We are all talking about our children today.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

You just put them in a circus then.

[David Rutley]

I do not know how to take that comment. I think I will move on.

Again, we do not feel that the amendment is necessary if an animal is in distress, when the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already provides powers for the police to respond quickly. The offence we are talking about—a ban on use on ethical grounds; let us keep that in the front of our minds—does not require such an urgent response. It does require a response, but it does not have the same immediacy. It can happen only in the context of a public performance, which will of course take place in a public place. If a travelling circus wanted to break the law, it would have to do so in front of an audience. An inspector could be at the circus in sufficient time, and the schedule provides powers to search for evidence. As outlined in the schedule, that includes questioning any person on the premises, taking samples and taking copies of documents. Indeed, inspectors can seize anything, except an animal, found on the premises that they reasonably believe to be evidence of the offence in clause 1.

We do not believe it necessary to extend these powers to the police. DEFRA has approximately 50 circus and zoo licensing inspectors, who are qualified and experienced in identifying and, if need be, handling species of wild animals. In fact, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) made the point that we do have the expertise, and I think it is best to get qualified veterinarians or people with extensive experience of working with captive animals to take care of this work. Few, if any, constables would have that level of knowledge, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead pointed out.

In the rare cases where a police presence is needed, as I explained in Committee, the Bill also provides powers for an inspector to take up to two other people with them on an inspection. These could include a police constable, who would be able to exercise, under the supervision of the inspector, the powers of inspection provided in the Bill. Let me assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and other hon. Members that the guidance DEFRA will issue will also make it clear that police constables are able to accompany inspectors during the inspection, and I have also set that out to him in writing. I hope that gives him and other Members a greater degree of assurance that the police will be able to play a role, as required.

[Luke Pollard]

Will the Minister go into slightly more detail about where the guidance will land on that point? Will the police constable be one of the two people who can accompany an inspector, or will that be in addition to those two people, since there may be very good reasons why certain specialists are required for certain animals?

[David Rutley]

That is a good question, and we will take a closer look at that. At this stage, it would be one of the two people, but that is something we can take a closer look at.

I accept the point that has previously been raised that the Scottish Act provides powers for police constables to enforce the legislation. The Scottish guidance states:

“Although constables are provided powers for enforcement, it is expected that it will primarily be Local Authorities that will enforce the Act as part of other responsibilities relevant to travelling circuses.”

Even under the Scottish Act, the police are not seen as the primary inspection force.

Since Committee, DEFRA officials have discussed enforcement of the Bill with the chief constable of Hertfordshire constabulary, Charlie Hall, who is the national policing lead on animal matters. The view of the police is that while they would of course support DEFRA-appointed inspectors, should this be required, they do not want to take on the additional responsibility of being the primary enforcer of what is a very specialist area of business. They see their role as being one of support in keeping the peace when necessary to enable inspectors to conduct the work provided for in the Bill.

Mention has been made of the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and we certainly respect its contributions, but we are concerned here with an offence involving captive wild animals, not wildlife crime, so it is unlikely that that group will have a primary role in inspection. That will be for the other inspectors we have talked about.

[Sir Mike Penning]

There could be a situation in which a wild animal has been inappropriately brought into a circus. We are not talking about everything coming from Africa or Asia; it could, for instance, be a wild animal from the UK, or one illegally imported. There are people who have that area of experience, and all we are asking for in the guidance is that they should be appropriately contacted and their expertise used, should that be needed.

[David Rutley]

I think that is a perfectly fair point, but the point I am trying to make, to reassure colleagues, is that we have 50 inspectors who are well trained to take care of this. Of course, we would get the police involved at the right time, and we will put that in guidance. We can anticipate that there may be circumstances in which we need to get the National Wildlife Crime Unit involved, and we will set that out as appropriate. Again, I hope that the points I have made give sufficient reassurances to hon. Members, and that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport feels that he need not press amendment 4.

I turn to amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. He seeks to prevent circus operators from euthanising their wild animals, which is something we all want to be avoided, unless they have permission from a qualified vet. Again, I assure him that these issues were raised directly with the circuses during the evidence session. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but we have not seen any evidence that current circus operators would seek to euthanise their animals. Indeed, the two remaining circuses have assured us that they would not do so. In oral evidence during the Bill’s Committee stages, Peter Jolly senior was clear that:

“I would change my business to something else, but the animals would stop with me.”––[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 42, Q107.]

Carol MacManus suggested that the other circus, Circus Mondao, was considering either rehoming its wild animals or keeping them at winter quarters with people to supervise the animals

“because we would have to look after the animals.”––[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 50, Q152.]

They are concerned about their animals and consider them to be part of their family.

I would also point out that, in practice, the amendment would unfairly target circus operators by requiring them to obtain permission from a veterinarian to have an animal euthanised. No such legal requirement exists for pet owners or other owners of working animals who operate a business. As we have discussed, we do not need to seize an animal under the Bill to prove that an offence of using a wild animal in a travelling circus has been committed. The other thing it is important to set out to my hon. Friend is that retirement plans are in place for these wild animals, and the Animal Welfare Act will of course continue to apply to protect these animals. Once again, I hope that the points I have made will give reassurances to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members.

New clause 4, as set out by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, aims to prevent new animals from being added to existing licences and to prevent new licences from being passed, and amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, seeks to allow the circuses two more years on their existing licences. We do not believe new clause 4 is necessary, although I understand what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is seeking to achieve with his amendment—to mitigate the risk of additional wild animals being brought into travelling circuses between Royal Assent and the Bill coming into force on 20 January 2020. New clause 4 appears to be intended to come into force on Royal Assent; I think that is the intention. By convention, there is a strong presumption against commencing any earlier than two months after Royal Assent, because the public are entitled to be given a reasonable period of time to adapt to a change in the law and to reorganise their affairs in response to it. It would be highly unusual to commence a clause such as this on Royal Assent.

Paragraph (a) of new clause 4 seeks to prevent new licences from being issued after the Bill has passed, so it would apply only to new travelling circuses or existing ones that currently do not use wild animals in their performances. If a travelling circus wished to start using wild animals before the end of the current touring season, typically at the end of October—for those who have not been part of this debate, circuses would not continue until 20 January, because they normally stop performing at the end of October—it could technically have a last hurrah, and the hon. Gentleman has made that point with conviction. However, it would have to apply for a licence as soon as the Bill was published to maximise the revenue it would want to get. I reassure hon. Members that DEFRA has received no inquiries from anyone regarding even the possibility of an application for a new licence.

If, however, a new circus decided to apply for a licence, say, next week, DEFRA’s application takes a minimum of six weeks, and for a new circus unfamiliar with the demands of our licensing regime, it could take considerably longer for an application to be determined. Both current licensed circuses, when they first applied for a licence, needed to be inspected twice before their licence was awarded, and those inspections took place at winter quarters, which is an easier place to conduct an inspection; even then, both applications took two months to be approved. Even if a circus were to submit an application for a licence next week, it would be able to use its wild animals for, at most, 14 weeks or three months before the end of the current touring season.

[Luke Pollard]

That is quite a long time.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman says that is quite a long period. It is long enough to take what he is saying seriously. We understand his arguments, but for the sake of completeness, I want everyone to understand the processes.

Paragraph (b) of the new clause would affect circuses already licensed by DEFRA. The two licensed circuses still using wild animals have not said that they have any plans to add further wild animals. Given that a ban will be in place before the next touring season, it would make little economic sense for them to invest in new trained animals or equipment now, and significant changes to a performance require planning, which would usually happen when the circus is at winter quarters, from late October onward. Also, in the unlikely event that a circus sought to add a wild animal to an existing licence, the proposed moratorium would not prevent that from happening between now and the moratorium coming into effect.

I assure the House that that is a highly unlikely scenario. The current 2012 licensing regime would safeguard the animal’s welfare. Existing licence conditions require circuses to provide DEFRA with at least two weeks’ notice of their intention to add a wild animal to their circus, and inspection would follow as soon as possible after the animal’s arrival in the circus. The Government accept that that leaves open the possibility—albeit a very small one—that new animals could be used in travelling circuses for a maximum of 14 or 16 weeks, or just over three and a half months, if the licence application was submitted and approved, unless the proposed early moratorium comes into effect. Although we have had no indication that any circus in the UK would try to make use of such a gap, I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. I will take the matter away and, ahead of Committee stage in the Lords, consider how best we can ensure that no new wild animals are used in travelling circuses by the time the ban comes into force on 20 January 2020.

On amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, we believe that circuses have had enough time to plan for the ban. He suggested, I think probingly, that the decision has only just been made; in fact, the legislation has been long in gestation, and the general feeling is that it would have been better had it been introduced sooner. I think we all share that view. It has been difficult to get parliamentary time. Circuses have had six and a half years to prepare, ever since the introduction of the licensing regulations, which contain a sunset clause that made it clear that the ban would be in place by January 2020. We do not believe, therefore, that the amendment is necessary.

The Government have always been clear that the licensing regulations were an interim measure only. It is important to highlight that licences must be renewed every year, and in February last year we reaffirmed that any license issued to circuses this year would be the last, because a ban would be in place by the time the interim regulations expired on 20 January 2020. The coming into force date of the Bill aligns with the expiry date of the regulations, which means that the two circuses will be able to update and plan their routines for next year while they are not on tour, as the majority of circuses would do anyway.

It should not be too difficult for the circuses to replace the wild animal elements of their shows. DEFRA has been inspecting these circuses at least three times a year for the last six and a half years. Our inspections show that the animals, where they are used, are used for only about five to ten minutes as part of a two-hour show. As long as the ban comes into force during the winter season, which has always been the Government’s intention, we believe that the two circuses have enough time to adjust their routines. Indeed, there are about 25 circuses in the UK and Ireland that do not use wild animals in their show, and they operate successfully. They show what can be done. To reassure my hon. Friend further, comparisons with ticket prices in other travelling circuses that do not use wild animals do not show a premium for seeing or involving wild animals.

I should add that the amendment does not reflect the fact that the interim licensing regulations expire next January. The amendment would therefore permit wild animals to be used in travelling circuses for two years—that is, to 2022—with a much lower level of scrutiny than they have been subjected to for the last seven years. In those circumstances, I would certainly share the concerns about more wild animals being introduced into travelling circuses. A two-year moratorium, with no DEFRA licence required at all, could well lead to more wild animals being used in travelling circuses. That is not something this Government would agree to.

I hope I have made it clear why the Government believe that next January is an appropriate date for the ban to come into force, and that hon. Members in all parts of the House are reassured by my comments. I hope my hon. Friend feels that it would be best were he not to press his amendment.

[Philip Davies]

I thank the Minister for an extremely thorough response to the amendments tabled by me and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). People will now see why I speak so highly of my hon. Friend, not just in his time as a Minister but in his time at Asda. His courteous, serious and thorough treatment of all the amendments does him credit and shows why he is such a fantastic Minister, and I am grateful to him. I am pretty sure that he will discuss these matters further with the shadow Minister and me before the Bill goes to the Lords.

As the Scottish National party Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), is present, I should restate my view that the law introduced by the Scottish Government is better than the Bill we are dealing with, but I have heard the Minister’s response and, based on that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

indicated assent.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(3)).

[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am pleased to move the motion for the Third Reading of this short but very important Bill. It is a Bill with a very simple purpose: to ban the outdated practice of using wild animals for performance or exhibition in travelling circuses. The Bill addresses important ethical concerns about the way we use and perceive wild animals in the 21st century. This country is rightly proud of its place in the world for the protection and care of animals. Our regard and respect for wild animals, and our sense of their intrinsic value, are now much more important to us than allowing them to be used for entertainment.

The Government’s belief, which I hope is widely shared by many in this House, is that travelling circuses are not the right place to experience or learn about wild animals. Frankly, circuses do not need to use wild animals. Most circuses have been thriving without the use of wild animals for a long time now. The continued use of wild animals in travelling circuses, often performing demeaning routines for our amusement, sends completely the wrong message about the value and respect we should accord them. The Government’s view is that the very notion of inducing wild animals to perform tricks in a circus setting is well past its sell-by date and should now stop.

The Bill fulfils a long-term commitment. I once again pay tribute to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have sought to take it forward as a private Member’s Bill, including my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who took this important issue forward initially, for his advocacy and support.

I also wish to thank hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debates and throughout the proceedings in this House, as well as the members of the Public Bill Committee and the expert witnesses, including those who submitted written evidence for their consideration on the Bill. I am grateful for the constructive engagement by representatives from animal welfare non-governmental organisations, especially in their willingness to help to draft the guidance that I have committed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to producing when the Act comes into force.

I extend my thanks to my hard-working and long-suffering Bill team, my private office, the parliamentary private secretaries, the Whips on both sides and, of course, the Clerks for their work and support on this issue. I thank those on the Opposition Front Bench for the constructive way in which they have taken the Bill forward and most of the other proposed legislation we have been working on over previous weeks.

It is an honour to take the Bill forward. It has had such overwhelming support from all parties, the public and animal welfare organisations from Second Reading through to today. We are committed to enhancing our well-deserved worldwide reputation for caring for animals after we leave the EU. This ban is another important measure to protect and improve the lives of animals, from strengthening the protection of service animals through Finn’s law, to ensuring puppies and kittens are no longer sold by unscrupulous third-party sellers—we will have more of that tomorrow—and combating the illegal wildlife trade. We are grateful for the continued support of colleagues across the House for our efforts to protect animals and to ensure a sustainable future for our shared planet. I wish the Bill safe and speedy passage through its remaining stages in the other place.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the Government’s choice of definitions to include, or not to include, in the Bill. Indeed, in evidence, we heard stakeholders’ concerns about the missing definition of what a travelling circus looks like and broad concerns about what “wild animal” means.

Having heard the evidence yesterday, Members on both sides of the Committee will think it important to ensure that we can comprehensively ban the use of wild animals in circuses. That means making sure that the legal definition is correct. We need to ensure, whether in the Bill or in guidance, that performances outwith a typical circus tent, such as on a tour of arenas or activity involving touring from place to place and not returning to the home location, are within scope. Our suggested definition refers not to a place but to the group of people and animals making up a circus. That reflects more accurately how circuses work, as we heard yesterday.

The definition that we propose is in line with the guidance accompanying the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018. Scotland does not have regulations on licensing animals in entertainment. There is a chance that circuses in England could merely classify their animals as being used for entertainment. That might, for example, be the case for reindeers in the circus being used in Santa’s grottoes. A definition of travelling circuses will provide clarity on what is in or out of scope. Without a robust definition of a travelling circus, there is a risk that wild animals could be used with entertainment licences as part of performances that are travelling circuses in all but name.

In the evidence sessions yesterday, it was quite clear that the circus operators were keen to hold on to their animals and continue to use them in entertainment, perhaps under different licences, if only because of their close emotional bond with the animals that they currently own and use. There is overwhelming evidence that, if we do not define what a travelling circus is, that might create difficulties with enforcement, and there could be unintended consequences. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight succinctly put it yesterday,

“unintended consequences are often the consequences of things that were not intended in the first place”.—[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 29, Q77.]

The attempt to get a clear definition of a travelling circus is an attempt to prevent unintended consequences and to make the scope of the measure sufficiently tight to be legally enforceable.

I should be grateful if the Minister set out the options. Is primary legislation the right place for a clear definition of a travelling circus or would including it in guidance to be published by his Department carry similar weight and allow flexibility? I am interested in the end effect, and not necessarily the words on the page.

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

It is good to see you in your rightful place, Mrs Moon. Thank you for all the work that you have been doing on the Bill.

Amendment 1 would introduce a definition of a travelling circus into the Bill. We recognise the concerns about the absence of a definition, but we cannot accept the amendment. We deliberately chose not to include a definition in clause 1 because we do not feel it is necessary or helpful. In fact, a specific definition might actually be unhelpful. We considered several definitions and found that those that were drawn too widely, as in amendment 1, might ban activities that we do not want to ban, such as falconry displays with accompanying entertainers that might travel to different county shows. We discussed that issue at length in the evidence sessions yesterday. Such displays would fall within the definition in amendment 1, but it is not our intention to ban them. They are clearly not travelling circuses.

Moreover, the definition in amendment 1 includes a reference to animals being

“kept or introduced (whether for the purpose of performance, exhibition, display or otherwise).”

The word “otherwise” could capture any number of activities, including keeping wild animals as pets. The amendment would greatly expand the scope of the ban beyond performance and exhibition in a travelling circus, which I think is the public’s primary concern, by far.

Conversely, any definition that is drawn too narrowly is problematic. Setting out in detail what a travelling circus is or is not could create loopholes or a list of ways for a travelling circus to avoid a ban altogether. If we said, for example, that a travelling circus had clowns, trapeze artists and so on, but one of them did not include a clown, it might not be included in the ban. There are therefore challenges either way. Rather than trying to define the term, it is better to use its common meaning. We believe that the courts will have no trouble at all in understanding what a travelling circus is or is not, and a “common understanding” approach will mean that it will always be relevant and move with the times.

The Government note that neither the Scottish Government, in their Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018, nor the Welsh Government, in their draft Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Wales) Bill, have attempted to define the term “circus”. Likewise, DEFRA’s interim licensing regulations for wild animals in travelling circuses do not attempt to define “circus”, and the enforcement of the regulations has effectively protected the welfare of wild animals in circuses over the past six and a half years despite that.

However, to reassure the Committee, and learning from what the Scottish Government have done, we will be producing detailed guidance to accompany the introduction of the Act, to assist inspectors and circuses. It will set out clearly the types of activity that we consider will and will not be covered by the ban.

I note that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has accepted that there are arguments in favour of putting the definition in either the legislation or the guidance. I am grateful to him for our conversations in this debate and outside the Committee. As he knows, we have been looking at this matter very carefully in DEFRA. I would like to reassure him that we have not taken the decision lightly, but we feel that taking the approach of having guidance will enable us to address his concerns and, I think, the concerns of the Committee in a pragmatic way.

It became clear in the evidence sessions yesterday that this is probably a more flexible approach as well. The challenge of defining the term tightly or expansively in the Bill is that that makes it more difficult for us to make changes. We know how long it has taken to get the legislation before us today, so the more pragmatic approach will be to list excluded activities, as we have seen in the Scottish guidance, which obviously is available to colleagues. It is interesting that bird of prey displays, festive reindeer displays, school and educational visits, animal handling sessions and animals being used for TV, community celebrations or zoo and safari park outreach activities are not included in the Scottish arrangements.

We would look to do something very similar. I cannot say definitively what it would be, because the other thing that I would like to assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and other members of the Committee of is that we want not only to learn from the Scottish Government’s approach—it has been very important for us to learn from that—but to seek the views of and engage with the animal welfare organisations that we heard from yesterday. I had a quick conversation with a number of them at the end of their session, and what they said then—obviously, it is for them to say this more formally once we reach a conclusion on this—was that they would be open to being engaged in helping to shape the guidance.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful that there is a willingness to engage with the people who gave evidence to the Committee yesterday. Will the Minister say whether other stakeholders, who were not able or not invited to attend the Committee yesterday, could also be involved in that process? Having a broad range of views could be helpful in doing the defining or at least creating guidance that would be as comprehensive as is required to do the job.

[David Rutley]

I agree with that. We do not want to have a cast of thousands, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was talking about people with expert knowledge and understanding, particularly of animal welfare, rather than about extending this to people with other experience. From an animal welfare perspective, yes, we will do that. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Luke Pollard]

Based on the assurances that the Minister has given, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “commonly” and insert “normally”.

This amendment would align the definition of “wild animal” with that used in the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 and the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

The Opposition are moving the amendment to ensure legislative consistency across the different pieces of animal welfare legislation and to avoid creating any legislative conflicts or loopholes. The Bill defines a wild animal as one that is “not commonly domesticated”. Although protected animals in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are defined as “commonly domesticated”, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 defines a wild animal as one that is “not normally domesticated”. I am not normally one to go into the minutiae of the meaning of words, but I would be grateful if the Minister set out why the definition is not aligned with the 1981 Act and gave a clear reassurance that there is no legal interpretation in the difference between “commonly” and “normally”, to make sure that we are consistent across our legislation.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that he does not get involved in the forensic detail, but I suggest that he does. We have been in enough debates and statutory instruments for me to know that he takes a forensic approach, so I expect nothing less than for him to go through the technical detail, which is the right thing to do.

The Government do not believe that the amendment is necessary, however. Amendment 5 seeks to align the definition of a wild animal in the Bill with the definitions used in the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012. Both pieces of legislation define a wild animal as an animal that is

“not normally domesticated in Great Britain”.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

In the evidence sessions yesterday, several circus owners made the point that the animals in their circuses were exotic animals, rather than wild animals. To ensure that there is no ambiguity about that, it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the definition of wild animals in the Bill covers the 19 animals in circuses today.

[David Rutley]

That is a very good question, and it is important to get it on the record, because there was quite a tangle of conversations about different definitions. We are clear that those 19 animals are wild animals. We can have all sorts of technical debates—I hope we do not have them today, because I think we discussed it enough yesterday—about domestication, but we are clear that those 19 animals are included in the definition.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report, “Wild Animals in Circuses”, also noted the slight difference between the definition of wild animal in the draft Bill and in the 1981 Act. The Government were happy to explain their thinking in response to the Committee then, and I will do so again.

The term “animal” or “wild animal” is used in several places in the statute book, but there is no common definition of either. Our approach is in line with the definition of a “protected animal” in section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which refers to an animal being

“commonly domesticated in the British Islands”,

rather than “normally”. To reassure hon. Members, any difference in the precise wording does not have any material impact on the workings of the definition; the terms “commonly” and “normally” are interchangeable. I note that the Scottish Parliament’s Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018 includes

“commonly domesticated in the British Islands”,

in its definition of a wild animal, as does the Welsh Government’s Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Wales) Bill.

I hope that this is a probing amendment—I get the sense that it is—and that I have been able to reassure hon. Members that there is no material difference between using “commonly” and “normally” in the definition of a wild animal. I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Luke Pollard]

I am not commonly or normally pedantic about such things, except for apostrophes. On this occasion, given the reassurance that the Minister has put on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Inspections

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[David Rutley]

The clause gives effect to the Bill’s schedule, which makes provision for the appointment of inspectors and sets out their powers and duties under the Bill, including powers of entry, inspection, search and seizure. The Committee may wish to debate the inspection provisions when we consider the schedule.

[Sandy Martin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The inspection regime, which is crucial—there is no point in passing legislation unless we can enforce it—does not enable police officers to take part in enforcement of the Bill. Members of the public would be a bit surprised to find out about there being areas of the law in which the police are not allowed to be involved, so I urge the Minister to reconsider whether the police should be involved and allowed to take part in inspections and enforcement of the Bill.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I will be brief—if I had been a bit quicker off the mark, I would have intervened on the Minister. My concern is that, as with so many other aspects of the Minister’s Department, although there will be powers of inspection, unless there is proper resourcing and people in place doing the job with the power to carry it through from start to finish, it all becomes pretty meaningless. We see that, for example, in the work of the Environment Agency. Will he reassure us that the power for action will mean something in practice?

[David Rutley]

I know that the hon. Lady has strong concerns about resourcing in other areas. In this case, we have inspectors with relevant experience based on what we do with zoos, and we will draw on those individuals for help. Given the small number of circuses we are talking about, we do not envisage that a huge amount of resource will be required for inspections. I respect her concerns on other issues, and no doubt we will debate those.

[Kerry McCarthy]

There have been reports that Anne the elephant, the subject of the Daily Mail campaign some eight years ago that led to the Bill, is not being kept in ideal conditions and is isolated. I had a conversation with the Minister about that after Second Reading and he undertook to check on her wellbeing. Has that been done?

[David Rutley]

It is an honour to be reminded in Committee of the commitments I have made. I will follow up that point, but I confess that I do not have that information to hand. I look to my trusted officials, who will get back to us on that later today.

The hon. Member for Ipswich raised the use of police. Paragraph 6 of the schedule allows inspectors to “use reasonable force” when necessary and also to take “up to two…persons” with them, which could include a police constable, when exercising the power of entry.

[Sandy Martin]

Paragraph 4 of the schedule repeatedly says “an inspector” and defines an inspector as someone appointed for the purpose of inspections. It does not mention police officers at all. I am not sure why the Minister thinks the police are being given any powers at all.

[David Rutley]

To reiterate, based on the work done by the Department, an inspector, or the persons whom the inspector takes with them, could be a police constable.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Paragraph 8 to the schedule says:

“A person taken on to the premises”—

as one of the two other persons—

“may exercise any power conferred on an inspector…if the person is in the company of and under the supervision of an inspector”.

[David Rutley]

That is right. Just to confirm, one of those people could be a police constable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Consequential amendment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[David Rutley]

Clause 3 makes a minor amendment to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The Act requires persons who wish to keep dangerous wild animals as listed by the Act to be licensed by the local authority. However, the Act currently exempts any dangerous wild animal kept in a circus from that requirement. Once the ban set out in this Bill comes into force, no dangerous vertebrate wild animals should be used in performances or exhibited as part of a travelling circus. The clause takes a belt-and-braces approach, making it clear that using dangerous wild vertebrate animals in a travelling circus is not allowed.

The 1976 Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland. The effect of the amendment to it will be that the exemption will no longer apply in England and Scotland. The Scottish Government, who have already introduced a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland—which we are grateful for and which sets out important lessons for us to learn here in England—have asked us to extend the amendment in the 1976 Act to Scotland. We are pleased to facilitate that request; the Scottish Government have agreed in principle to lodge a legislative consent motion.

The Act’s exemption for circuses will remain in place in Wales, where the Welsh Government are currently considering introducing their own legislation on travelling circuses. If they wish to remove the exemption, the Welsh Government can do so when they introduce their own circus legislation.

For completeness, I should add that we have also discussed the Bill with officials in the Northern Ireland Government, but they are not in a position to consider a ban at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Extent, commencement and short title

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out “on 20 January 2020” and insert

“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint, and no later than 20 January 2020.”

This amendment would enable the Act to be brought into force earlier than 20 January 2020.

Since the introduction of the Bill, it has been clear— from the Second Reading debate, the evidence sessions and cross-party discussions—that hon. Members on both sides of the House support a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The only question is when that should take place. The last Labour Government had hoped to introduce legislation around the time of the 2010 general election; sadly, that general election got in the way and we have had to wait nine years. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have promoted private Members’ Bills during that time in an attempt to legislate sooner.

The Bill’s enforcement date is 20 January 2020. The amendment seeks to explore whether that date can be brought forward, so that we can ban the use of wild animals in circuses sooner. During yesterday’s evidence, the Born Free Foundation said that there was a risk of new species and new animals being brought into travelling circuses before January 2020.

[Luke Pollard]

I entirely agree. If we as a country had taken this action in 2009 or 2010, as proposed by the last Labour Government, we would not be here and we would not be chasing the pack. In Britain we like to think of ourselves as a nation of animal lovers—indeed, I believe we are—but we have to put that into practice. Every animal matters. It has taken nearly a decade to introduce this ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, and it is being introduced at a time when the Government are light in legislation, including the missing fisheries and agriculture Bills, on which we really need to make progress. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is an opportunity to bring forward the Bill’s enforcement date.

During yesterday’s evidence we heard that many circus animals are not used for entertainment purposes over the winter season. Peter Jolly said that he stops touring around November. I understand from conversations with the Minister that there is concern that bringing forward the commencement date would overlap with the current licensing arrangements. I am sympathetic to that view. The Opposition want the ban to be brought into effect as soon possible, but we do not want taxpayers’ money being spent on compensation. There is a balance to be struck and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out his thoughts on that.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could set out a clear direction for those circus operators who may be thinking of introducing new animals before the commencement of the ban. I certainly do not want a final hurrah for circus animals: “Your last chance to see the raccoons, the zebu and the macaw!” Given that circuses operate in a commercial environment, there will always be that last PR sell.

We have an opportunity to send a message that no additional animals or new species should be introduced to any circus. As we heard from Born Free yesterday, a big cat exhibitor has applied for a new licence, but that flies in the spirit of what we are trying to do.

We want to ensure that the powers come into force as soon as possible. The period between now and 20 January 2020 is important because, every single day that goes by, those animals remain in travelling circuses and potentially in cruel and unusual environments that may damage their wellbeing. More people are encouraged to presume that it is normal for those wild animals to be in a circus and that we as a country accept that.

We have established from public polling, as set out in yesterday’s evidence and during the Minister’s comments on Second Reading about the weight of consultation responses received by the Department, that the general population do not support the use of animals in circuses and that it should be brought to an end as soon as is reasonably possible. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether there is an opportunity to bring forward the commencement date. Our amendment would not prevent 20 January 2020 from being the commencement date. It refers to bringing forward the powers

“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint, and no later than 20 January 2020.”

The Government’s proposed date would remain in legislation but they would have an opportunity to bring it forward. Ministers need to retain that important tool, especially to prevent any circus operators from using the provision as a last hurrah for the use of wild animals in circuses, and from introducing new species and animals for a final show before the commencement date. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those concerns.

[David Rutley]

I need to update the Committee on an important point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East. Everything is okay with Anne, who was rehomed at Longleat zoo, which is licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Anne was recently moved to a new purpose-built enclosure. She is not currently housed with other elephants but she does have other animals for company, so she is in a much better place. I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue and I apologise for not providing that update previously. I hope I have made up ground there.

I will move on to the Bill, unless there are concerns about other animals. I will try my best to find out, though perhaps not quite as speedily.

[Simon Hoare]

Tarka the otter.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset—soon to be right hon. no doubt—shows his age by mentioning Tarka the otter. Or is it timely?

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

A children’s classic is timeless.

[David Rutley]

I remember it well. We will move on to amendment 2, if that is all right with you, Mrs Moon.

[The Chair]

Please do.

[David Rutley]

The Government understand the sentiment behind amendment 2 but are not able to support it. We have committed to having a ban in place when the regulations expire and that is what we intend to deliver.

It is important to recognise that the two remaining circuses still using wild animals are businesses, despite the fact that there are practices not approved of by Parliament, which will need notice of when they need to stop using wild animals. Both circuses are currently licensed by DEFRA to continue using wild animal acts, until the interim Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 expire on 19 January 2020.

The commencement date in the Bill deliberately aligns with the expiry date in the 2012 regulations, to ensure that the two circuses have absolute clarity about when they must stop using wild animal acts. In the Government’s view, that allows sufficient time for both circuses to adjust the rest of their circus shows.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I am going to wait for a little bit of inspiration to answer that question as fully as I would like. Any animals would need to be inspected first. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is a good one, but there would be a requirement for those animals to be inspected.

[Luke Pollard]

I am trying to understand what the Minister said after his moment of inspiration. The implication is that there is a possibility that new animals and new species could be introduced, between now and the commencement date of the legislation on 20 January 2020. The only restriction in the licences is that these animals must be okay and subject to inspections; it does not prevent lions, tigers or elephants from being introduced in the final few months of wild animals being allowed in circuses. Is that what the Minister is saying?

[David Rutley]

Clearly, those animals would need to be inspected. I understand the concerns that further animals could be introduced to those circuses in the last few months, but the circuses are licensed to use wild animals and we have no welfare grounds to refuse animals being added unless they are inspected.

Technically, Opposition Members have made an important point. However, I think circuses are under no illusions about public opinion on this, and certainly parliamentary opinion. It is also clear that there could be economic costs for them, so there is a disincentive to introduce new animals within the last few months. However, given the strength of concern, let me see what more we can do to raise awareness and concerns about these issues.

However, as I have said, apart from the powers of inspection, that is where we are at the moment. The key thing is that we want to get this ban in place as quickly as we can. Given the journey that we have been on, the good news is that it will be in place by 20 January. That is not too far off now.

[Luke Pollard]

I am concerned that, between now and the commencement date, new animals and new species could be brought into circuses. I do not agree with the Minister that the strength of public feeling was adequately understood by the circus operators yesterday. In fact, we heard oral and written evidence from Mrs Brown—I fundamentally disagree with her written evidence on several grounds—that she does not believe the strength of feeling in the DEFRA consultation, due to the size of the response compared with the UK population, even though that was a very good response for a DEFRA consultation.

I worry that there is a risk of a last hurrah for wild animals in circuses. The amendment does not change the 20 January 2020 date, but it provides the Minister with a stick to use should we be under the impression that additional wild animals and new species could be brought into circuses. Certainly, based on the strength of feeling among my constituents in Plymouth, if there is a risk of an elephant or big cat—a lion or tiger—or even an extra zebu or raccoon being brought into our circuses, they would want the Government to take steps to stop that happening. I am absolutely certain that, in the event that Government compensation is only paid for animals already there, plenty of the British public would be willing to chip in a fiver to prevent an elephant from being brought into our circuses for a last hurrah.

On that basis, I disagree with the Minister on this. Because of the risk of new animals being brought into circuses, the powers proposed in the amendment are important. The amendment would not substantively change the commencement date but would provide a stick to ensure that no new animals are brought in before that date. I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Lady raises a good point, which is worth getting on the record. It was clear from the evidence session yesterday that circus owners have a genuine affection for their animals. Whether they should be able to use those animals for entertainment and, importantly, move them around the country in tight conditions is a different matter. I agree that circus owners have that affection, but I disagree with the way that affection is applied to their business model, if that makes sense.

We also heard that elements of cruelty accompany keeping animals in circuses. The new clause seeks to provide courts with an additional option to use in the event of a breach. Effectively, if a circus owner continued to exhibit wild animals as part of their entertainment, a court, on the basis of the regulations, the guidance and the Bill, would have the ability, on confirming a breach of the Bill, to apply a disqualification, should it see fit. That is important, because people who I have spoken to about this want to know that the animals are safe. If the law is breached and wild animals are used in a circus, and those animals continue to be owned and potentially used again by those operators, I imagine that most of my constituents would want those animals taken off those individuals.

The new clause includes the ability for the court effectively to decide to,

“instead of or in addition to dealing with that person in any other way, make an order disqualifying him under any one or more of subsections (2) to (4) for such period as it thinks fit.”

Disqualification under subsection (2) is from owning, keeping or participating in the keeping of wild animals. Effectively, the new clause provides a big stick for courts to ensure, if there is a breach, that there will be sufficient punishment, that those animals can be removed from that environment, and that there is a consequence for people who decide to keep wild animals and to continue to entertain people with them. Our new clause provides for not only the banning but the enforcement and the punishment.

Our purpose, in tabling the new clause, was to ask the Minister what potential punishments he envisages for a breach of Bill. I shall be grateful if he will set out what he anticipates will happen, in the event that a circus owner is in breach of the Bill.

[David Rutley]

The Government proposed a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses on ethical grounds, as has been discussed. As a result, the penalties and enforcement powers in the Bill must be proportionate to the severity of the offence. The use of wild animals in a travelling circus has until now always been legal in this country. We seek to ban it because the Government, and I hope Parliament, recognise that it is an outdated practice.

The Bill is about sending a signal about the respect that we should show wild animals in the 21st century. If operators seek to be cruel to their wild animals—we have not seen any recent evidence to suggest that they would—other laws are already in place to deal with those offences in a more proportionate way. The penalty for a circus operator found guilty of using a wild animal in a travelling circus is an unlimited fine. We think that is a proportionate penalty, as did the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when it undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee also agreed that further disqualification powers were unnecessary. Where a travelling circus chose repeatedly to break the law—given the very public nature of the offence, we think that is highly unlikely—a court could hand out fines of increasing severity. A travelling circus would soon find it simply uneconomic to continue, in addition to the damage that would be caused to its reputation.

Of course, where evidence is found of a wild animal being mistreated in a travelling circus, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 will apply, as is currently the case. That Act already provides powers to seize animals and disqualify people from keeping animals should there be grounds for doing so. Those disqualification powers are proportionate to some of the wicked and cruel offences covered by that Act. Furthermore, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 contains powers to disqualify those convicted under that Act of an offence of not having sufficient licences in place.

The penalty in the Bill is an unlimited fine. As we have discussed, fines may increase in severity. It is useful to note that the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018 has a maximum fine of £5,000 and a criminal record, whereas the Bill will introduce for England a penalty of an unlimited fine plus a criminal record. The Bill empowers the authorities to put in place fines of increasing severity to make this activity not just illegal but increasingly uneconomic to pursue.

I hope that clarifies how the Government would seek to deal with the understandable concerns that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has raised. I hope he understands that we do not need any disqualification powers in the Bill because there are disqualification powers elsewhere to address the other issues he raises. I hope that, on the strength of the points I have made, he feels he can withdraw the new clause.

[Luke Pollard]

On the basis of the Minister’s reassurances that there will be sufficient consequences for people who breach the law, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Powers of seizure: animals

“(1) Where an animal is seized under paragraph 7(k), an inspector or a constable may—

(a) remove it, or arrange for it to be removed, to a place of safety;

(b) care for it, or arrange for it to be cared for—

(i) on the premises where it was being kept when it was taken into possession, or

(ii) at such other place as he thinks fit.”—(Luke Pollard.)

This amendment would enable an animal which has been seized to be removed and cared for appropriately.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Effectively, new clause 2 and amendment 3 continue the theme we explored in our debate on new clause 1 about the potential seizure of animals. They seek to ensure that there are powers to seize an animal in the event of continued breaches of the Bill. Fundamentally, the constituents I represent want to know that, in the event of such a breach, it will be possible to take the animals to a place of safety. That is really important to them and, I imagine, to many Members.

New clause 2 would introduce a power to seize an animal in the event of a breach and would confer that power on an inspector or, as the Minister pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, a constable. Amendment 3 would amend the schedule, which includes a curious form of words. It effectively states that an inspector may remove a number of things from any property where there is a wild animal, except the animal itself. Seizing evidence in support of a prosecution makes a lot of sense, and I imagine we all agree with that, but the schedule does not allow the removal of the animal itself. At what point does it become possible to rehome the animal in a safe and secure way? The Opposition are concerned that it is not clear that the Bill contains any powers to seize animals and ensure that they are rehomed satisfactorily.

New clause 2 and amendment 3 would set out clearly in the Bill that, in the event of breaches—in the event that wild animals are subjected to continued cruelty by being held in small cages in environments that are not suitable for their continued care—the animals can be seized and rehomed. From my understanding, that is not included in the Bill, and I would be grateful if the Minister set out under what circumstances he envisages any wild animal being seized and taken to a place of safety, from the commencement of the Act. I imagine that most people watching these deliberations would want to know that in the event of a breach those animals would be safe.

[David Rutley]

New clause 2 and amendment 3 seek to provide inspectors with powers to seize animals and make alternative arrangements to care for them. Although we understand the concern that, in some situations, animals might need to be removed from the premises on safety or welfare grounds, such powers are already provided for in existing legislation. As such, the amendments are not necessary.

The inspection powers provided by the Bill are only those that inspectors need to properly enforce the ban, including powers to enter and search premises, to examine animals and to seize objects. In this context, “premises” includes any vehicle, tent or moveable structure. In addition, inspectors have powers to video or photograph an animal, which would provide sufficient evidence of an offence.

We have not provided powers to seize animals during the course of an investigation or post-conviction penalty. In respect of pre-conviction seizure as evidence, that is because it is unnecessary. If there are welfare or public safety concerns, animals can be seized under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

[Sandy Martin]

To use an analogy, it is often the case that if someone who owns a large tree that they want to remove hears that a tree preservation order is about to be placed on it, they will chop it down before the order can be placed. Is there not a real danger that if it is not possible to seize animals under certain circumstances when they are about to be removed from a circus, they may be destroyed before they can be rehoused?

[David Rutley]

That is an interesting point, but I think it is unlikely. There are protections, so if a circus owner was minded to do such a thing, I would have thought that we would have seen evidence of animal welfare concerns, which would be dealt with under the 2006 Act. I will explain in more detail as I proceed why we have come to that conclusion, which will hopefully answer the question more fully.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 permits seizure if an animal is suffering, or if it is likely to suffer if its circumstances do not change. The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 permits seizure of certain types of animals, including camels and zebras, if they are being kept without a licence under that Act or if a licensing condition is being breached. There is also no need to seize an animal to prove an offence has been committed under the Bill. As the Bill bans the use of animals in circuses, the evidence would need to establish that use. Simply establishing that the circus had a wild animal would not be sufficient.

We do not think that the seizure of an animal is appropriate post conviction. The only offence that a circus operator will have been convicted of is using a wild animal in a circus. To deprive them of the animal entirely would be unprecedented and clearly disproportionate, and would lead to the threat of or concern about legal challenge. I appreciate that there may be concerns about repeat offending, but there is no limit to the fine that can be imposed by the courts, as we discussed in relation to disqualification. The way to tackle the challenge is to escalate fines over time, so a repeat offender would soon find themselves out of business.

As I have already outlined, where there are welfare or public safety concerns, the Animal Welfare Act and Dangerous Wild Animals Act provide the powers to seize animals. On those grounds, I urge the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport to withdraw the new clause.

[Luke Pollard]

Based on the reassurances that the Minister has given—that the welfare of the animals can be looked after—I am happy to withdraw the clause. However, I think there is a strong point about ensuring that none of the animals can be used should there be any breaches, and the welfare of those animals must be paramount. The reassurances that the Minister has given are sufficient to send a clear message on that point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

Inspections

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that point; I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got to the nub of what I am trying to get at with the Minister. I am trying to set out clearly what is included in the definition. We do not seek to qualify what a vehicle is; we stress “including” to make sure that definition includes those different movable structures and vehicles that could be home to any wild animals at any point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly identified my ruse: getting the Minister to put on record that all those different vehicles and movable structures would be included, to make sure that there can be no hiding place for any wild animal in the event of an inspection by an inspector or, as we heard earlier, a constable enforcing the requirements.

[David Rutley]

Amendment 4 seeks to add further clarity to a term that itself is already part of a definition. However, the Government do not believe the amendment is necessary. Paragraph 12 of the schedule provides a definition of premises, which already includes “any place”, but also

“in particular, includes—

(a) any vehicle, and

(b) any…movable structure.”

That is already a very broad list, which is also in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The definition of premises in PACE includes “any vehicle” and

“any tent or movable structure”,

and those definitions are not further defined in the Act. Listing “caravans, trucks and trailers”, as in amendment 4, would not add anything to that definition, as those are already either vehicles or movable structures.

The purpose of a list within an inclusive definition is to extend that definition beyond what it might ordinarily be thought to include. It is not a list of examples, and including such a list runs the risk of inadvertently narrowing the definition, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire has said. Specifying only vehicles that people might live in—a caravan, a truck or a trailer—suggests that the definition does not include, for example, cars or motorcycles. Again, I hope that this is a probing amendment, or at least one that seeks to clarify, and that the Committee is content that the explanation I have given means that further defining the phrase “premises” is not necessary. As such, I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not press the amendment.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for the reassurances he has given. I wanted to make sure that it was clearly set out on the record that any vehicles or potential locations where a wild animal could be stored were included in the definition, and I am grateful to the Minister for having set that out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I just want to make a couple of points. It is true that in days gone by, there was perhaps a lack of attention to detail, but in recent times the Whitehall Prosecutors’ Group has come together to try to ensure that there are high standards of training and effectiveness among prosecutors of all sorts. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with me that it is perhaps worth just mentioning to one of the Law Officers what has been said, just to ensure that this matter is brought to their attention and that there is proper superintendence of this legal process.

[David Rutley]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and I can assure them that we take seriously the comments that have been made, will review the points that have been made and will make sure that the most senior Law Officers look at this. They have done, and the general view that we have at the moment is that we do not believe that it would be appropriate or necessary for the police to enforce this legislation but, again, we will review that, based on comments that have been made. However, DEFRA-appointed inspectors are likely to be better qualified in identifying and, probably, handling species of wild animal. They have expert training and experience.

Given that the offence in clause 1 would have to happen in public, we do not believe that there will be many cases that will need investigating. It is quite an open offence that will be publicly obvious. It is also important to remember that police constables, when invited to take part in the inspection, if “in the company of an inspector” had been set out in the Bill, would have the same power of seizure of evidence as an inspector. They would be able to support the activities that go on there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

On a point of order, Mrs Moon. I am attempting a nebulous point of order so as to put on record my thanks to the DEFRA officials for the work that they have done. I also thank the animal welfare organisations and all those people who have fought for the ban on wild animals in circuses. Every wild animal matters. I hope the Minister will continue to push in his efforts to get the Bill through as fast as possible, so that we can get the six reindeer, four zebras, three camels, three raccoons, one fox—not for hunting—one macaw and one zebu into a place of safety, where they can enjoy the rest of their lives in as close to their natural habitat as possible.

[David Rutley]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Moon, regarding an oversight by the Minister in not recognising the important work by DEFRA officials who have been incredibly helpful in taking this forward over many years, I am grateful to countless Members of Parliament, who have not only supported this Committee and our work in the debate that took place about a week ago, but those who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. It is right to have done that and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for bringing that to our attention. I also share in his thanks to those who participated in our evidence sessions and to you, Mrs Moon, for chairing our debate so well this morning.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

David Rutley Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I will have to interrupt. We only have three minutes left.

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

Q I just have a couple of questions. Thanks for coming along today—we appreciate it. In terms of the animals we are talking about now and the ones you have, I understand that you want them to carry on travelling. As you know, the legislation we are considering at the moment does not allow for that, so I just wanted to ask again about retirement plans for the animals. Mr Jolly, you seemed to indicate that this might be enough for you to decide that you do not want to carry on in the circus arena anymore, and you, Ms MacManus, you were not too clear what was going on.

Carol MacManus: I don’t think it is fair on the animals.

[David Rutley]

Understood.

Carol MacManus: If I leave my camels behind, I would have to leave some llamas and horses behind just to keep them company. They were really stressed when I could not take them to Spalding.

[David Rutley]

Q When you talk about leaving them behind, do you have people at your winter base all the time?

Carol MacManus: I wouldn’t just turn them all out in the field and hope they were still there when I got back next week or next year.

[David Rutley]

Q Forgive me, I do not know how your operating model works. You do have people at your winter quarters throughout the year?

Carol MacManus: At the moment, no, but we would have to put that in place, because we would have to look after the animals.

[David Rutley]

Q So that would mean that, although you do not have definitive plans, you have options for your two reindeer, your zebra and your two camels.

Carol MacManus: If it makes a difference on the Bill, I could say I am just going to have them all put to sleep, but I do not think it would make any difference. So, yes, there are plans in place.

[David Rutley]

Q Thank you very much.

I have one other quick question. There is a lot of public interest in this Bill, and some people want to see this happen as soon possible. If the legislation was put in place before 20 January 2020—I think that is the deadline; is that right?—would you be able to cope with that in terms of your plans?

Carol MacManus: But I thought we were still licensed and that our licence was valid until January 2020. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know. I would have to get a lawyer on to that case. I thought we were safe until January 2020.

[David Rutley]

Q Mr Jolly, any thoughts on that?

Peter Jolly: If it goes on till 2020, we are in the winter quarters anyway.

Carol MacManus: But say a ban comes in next week.

[David Rutley]

Q It will not be next week, but what if it was brought forward earlier?

Peter Jolly: We travel until November.

Carol MacManus: Won’t that contradict the legislation that is in place?

[The Chair]

Order. I am sorry, but the time has passed so quickly. I want to thank our two witnesses for the time you spent with us. We thank you for your full and frank responses to the questions. You have given very valuable evidence to the Committee. Thank you very much indeed.

Carol MacManus: Thank you for having us.

Examination of Witnesses

Martin Lacey Jr and Mrs Rona Brown gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from colleagues, I call the Minister.

[David Rutley]

Q Thank you very much. I have one question, but first I just want to reassure the circus families who are still in the room that there is no discrimination involved in the basis for this legislation; there is certainly nothing to do with religious discrimination. I think all the Members around this table can agree on that. I hope that those families get that clear sentiment here today, notwithstanding the fact that I understand it is a difficult time for them.

I want to ask this of the two witnesses in front of us. Do you recognise that the public perception of using wild animals in circuses is fundamentally changing? If not, what do you consider to be the reason that most travelling circuses in the UK have stopped using wild animals?

Martin Lacey: It is definitely now much harder to run. There are a lot of costs in taking care of animals. Just for my lions, we have our own lion clinic just outside Munich, and it costs €20,000 a month just to feed the lions. Obviously, the expense is very high.

We have 1.1 million visitors in the summer season. There are 450,000 people in Munich who visit us in our own circus building. There is obviously a lot of interest there, but I would agree there is a lot of scepticism about circuses. Our way is just to be open. We are very open; we show everything. Everybody who knows us knows that we love and care for our animals.

Personally, I do a lot of scientific work. I know that I am good with animals, but to prove it to politicians I need to work with scientists, and we try to find out. We are doing another test now on stress. We did one with travelling and now we are doing another one to back that up. I think that is the future.

I have a son who is 11 years old. He flew over with me and he is interested in this. He loves his animals as well. For my future, that of my children and his children, we are showing and being open. It is possible to have animals in human care and to have a high standard.

[David Rutley]

Q Do you have any comments on the question, Mrs Brown?

Rona Brown: No, I think Martin said everything and I agree totally with him.

[David Rutley]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Thank you both very much for the time you have spent with us. This has been a very robust session, but we have greatly appreciated the time that you have spent with us, the evidence you have given and the responses to our questions. Our Clerk will accept the books from you. If colleagues would like them translated into English, they are most welcome.

Rona Brown: May I just say something, Mr Chairman?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

Q Thanks again for the contributions today. As you probably heard in the earlier sessions, there has been a debate about police powers and whether constables should be able to inspect properties. Can you confirm your understanding that under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 the police have powers to intervene in welfare situations, and that the courts may seize and disqualify?

Mike Radford: Yes, but they may only do that under the offences defined in the Animal Welfare Act. If the issue is unnecessary suffering or failure to meet the animal’s needs, in accordance with the welfare provisions the animal may be seized. If there were no welfare or suffering issues and the potential offence was simply that the animal was within the circus and that went against the ban, I doubt that the courts would allow seizure, because under the Animal Welfare Act seizure is allowed on the basis of an offence under the welfare Act being alleged to have been committed. The offence here would be under this legislation, not under the welfare Act.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

David Rutley Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Carmichael]

Q If you have people there exercising functions under the Act, does it not make good sense for everybody to have powers to gather evidence in the normal way?

Dr Ros Clubb: Yes.

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

Q Thank you very much for your contributions, which are much appreciated. When DEFRA carried out its public consultation, 95% of the public supported a ban. I am interested in your views, either anecdotally or through any other survey data that you have seen, on whether the public’s view has changed significantly since that time, which was 10 years ago.

Daniella Dos Santos: I would say that most people think there already is a ban; their belief is that this not happening any more. I would suggest there has been no significant change in public support.

Dr Ros Clubb: From the public opinion polls that we have seen over the years, support has remained at a similar level. The majority, when questioned, believe that there should be a ban. Anecdotally and from talking to people, including our supporters, many people believe that a ban has already been passed and are not even aware that this practice is still allowed to continue.

Nicola O'Brien: As I said before, people are surprised that we are still talking about this and that all animals are not banned in circuses. People are really surprised that there has not been legislation in England on this yet. We have seen an increase in frustration that there is not a ban in place yet. We think public opinion is still as strong. Again, the consultations carried out in Wales and Scotland more recently show wide public support for a ban.

[David Rutley]

Q Questions have been raised around seizures and disqualification. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, there are powers for seizure. This Bill would be based on a rationale of ethics, as we discussed on Second Reading. If there are any animal welfare issues, the enforcement powers would be available to seize the animal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The courts are also empowered to disqualify those who have held those animals. Notwithstanding your concerns, those are strong powers. Do you accept that they will have some real weight in this area?

Dr Ros Clubb: We accept that those powers exist and, where there is evidence of animal welfare issues in contravention of the Animal Welfare Act, those powers could come into play. We absolutely accept that. Similarly, there are powers of seizure for species that fall under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Our concern is if neither of those apply, something might fall between the cracks. Our angle is to be consistent and ensure that any illegal use can be addressed with those powers.

[David Rutley]

Q There has been a lot of discussion around travelling circuses in Scotland and Wales. The Governments there—in their various stages of taking this legislation through—have not felt the need to define what a circus is, and neither did the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when it was dealing with its evidence. Should we have a different approach here?

Daniella Dos Santos: From the BVA’s perspective, our issue is that the meaning of “travelling circus” is not defined in the Bill. We would support the inclusion in the Bill of a definition in line with the one used in the Scottish Bill.

Dr Ros Clubb: From our perspective, our main concern is to ensure that the activities meant to be captured by this are captured. Part of that could be covered in statutory guidance, if it was associated with the Bill, to ensure that the less formal use of animals associated with circuses is captured and that there is more guidance around what is meant by “travelling circus”.

Nicola O'Brien: I have nothing further to add.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q Birds are covered by the Bill because the Animal Welfare Act 2006 defines an animal as being a vertebrate. Is that correct?

Dr Ros Clubb: Yes that is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Seely]

Q You used the words “free to choose”. Animals respond to their behaviour types; they do not have freedom of choice in the same way that humans do. When you talk about being free to choose, you are getting into a grey area, are you not? A lot of people would dispute the idea that animals are free. Okay, going to a circus is not natural behaviour for an animal—I get that—but what about galloping with a human on?

Jordi Casamitjana: I agree that there is a grey area and different interpretations. I am an animal welfare expert—that is my background. The fact that the behaviour is used in a domestic environment does not mean that that behaviour is the behaviour that the animal would use if it was alive and doing it their way.

For instance, an animal running from a predator is natural behaviour, but running too much is no longer natural behaviour, nor is running for another purpose, because it has been hit or for other reasons. There might be behaviours that have their origins in natural behaviour that have been forced and modified to the extent that they become an animal welfare concern. From that point of view, you can say that even humans have some behaviours that are instinctive and some that are learned. That is no different from any animal. We have feelings; they have feelings. We have intentions; they have intentions.

Angie Greenaway: Regarding the legislation, we know there is long-standing public and political support and commitment to legislate on the issue, as opposed to some of the other issues. People probably accept that there are welfare issues involved with those and things that we might speak out against, but there are inherent welfare issues with the travelling nature of the circus.

We also accept that there are issues with domesticated animals in travelling circuses. Actually, most opinion polls show that there is majority support for a ban on those species as well, although it is not quite as high as wild animals and it has obviously not been consulted on and debated. We would like that to be addressed in the future. There have been so many arguments about the science, the consultation process and all the markers along the way over the past 10-plus years. That is why it is really important to get this legislation through. I am sure people will address some of these other issues in due course.

[David Rutley]

Q Thank you for your contributions. Do you as groups agree that societal attitudes towards wild animals in circuses have changed over time? Why do you think that might be? What are the drivers of that? I am interested in your thoughts about public perception.

Angie Greenaway: That is something we have seen over the past 20 or even 30 years. Public opinion polls have shown that there has been consistent support— 70% or 80%—for a ban. The Government consultations in England, Wales and Scotland show that 94.5% to 98% are in favour of a ban. I think some of that is because people generally are more aware of the needs and the lives of animals through documentary programmes, scientific research that comes out and investigations by groups such as ours, which expose living conditions and the training and handling techniques used in circuses. When people are aware of that inherent suffering, attitudes change, and over time that is happening not just in this country but all over the world.

Dr Chris Draper: All I would add is that I think public attitudes have reached a crescendo. They perhaps reached a crescendo quite a few years ago and we have been kept waiting. This dates back to discussions in Parliament in the 1920s, in the run-up to the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925. Concerns have been raised about how animals fare when they are used for entertainment and exhibition in circuses. Those concerns never went away, but awareness increased of what was going on behind the scenes. This is not just about people’s ethical and moral consideration of animals, as it was in those days. It is an emerging picture, but the picture is consistent: the public are now united against the use of animals in this way.

Jordi Casamitjana: I would go even further than that. Some 300 or 400 metres from here, years ago, there was badger baiting, bear baiting and bull baiting going on. In 1835 we banned those activities. There was already a concern then that having wild animals in a circus-like spectacle, where they fought with each other for entertainment purposes, was wrong. The enlightenment—this political, social and philosophical movement—started there, and it has not finished. Time is constantly moving. Our views about how we treat animals are opening up. We see animals as sentient more than we used to. We realise they are suffering. We realise their needs better than before. This drive towards a belief that we do not have the right to impose suffering on animals just for entertainment purposes has continued. It is not surprising that it has taken some time, but it has never stopped—and it will never stop, because that is what social progress does.

[David Rutley]

Q On the discussion about defining travelling circuses in the Bill, there are concerns, which we have discussed at length, that defining them too narrowly may mean that certain activities, such as falconry, cannot happen. It sounds as if you would be quite understanding of an approach that involved using guidance to define things more clearly. I think one of you actually said that might be a more flexible approach that could adapt to changing circumstances in the years ahead. Obviously, primary and secondary legislation can take time. It would be interesting to hear your more definitive views on that. If we were to move forward with guidance, would your organisations be willing to get involved in that process and help review it?

Angie Greenaway: Yes, we would be very happy to contribute to that and to comment on the Scottish legislation as well. Guidance is needed for clarification. As Committee members have mentioned, there are circumstances in which people are not sure whether the legislation would cover something. Guidance would help provide clarity.

Dr Chris Draper: Statutory guidance is necessary in this case; leaving things with an industry-led guidelines approach would not be wise. In terms of the statutory guidelines type of approach, I would be more than happy for Born Free to be part of that process.

Jordi Casamitjana: I would also be happy to be involved. Guidelines give special flexibility, so you can perceive problems and make modifications in the future, when there is suddenly an unforeseen type of activity. We have the reality right now; there is a variety of activities, and therefore it is already neweded right now.

[Luke Pollard]

Q I wanted to go back to Angie’s written submission, which talks about the circus animals suffering. There is a general understanding that banning wild animals from circuses is a good thing, and we want to do that, but I have not yet heard—apart from in small bits—about the levels of suffering that we have in circuses at the moment. There is a sense that that has already been banned, so any animals that are already there must be well treated; otherwise, how would people pay money to go to a circus if they felt animals were not well treated? Can you give us a sense of your assessment of the welfare of the animals we have in circuses in the UK currently? What is the best way to assess the wellbeing of an animal in any type of captive environment, especially one where they are subject to so much touring and travelling?

Angie Greenaway: I think the British Veterinary Association covered it well when they talked about the inherent welfare issues of travelling and the fact that the accommodation needs to be small and collapsible and to be put on the back of the trucks. Big cats, even though they are not currently touring, will be in a series of small cages on the back of a lorry; that is their permanent accommodation. Sometimes they might have access to an exercise enclosure, but it will only be for x hours during the day. Elephants will be kept chained all night, at least, and possibly all day.

Other circus animals, such as camels and zebras, might be tethered and on their own. Obviously, they are herd species, so those are unnatural social groupings, which was touched upon earlier. The provision of the accommodation is not suitable, nor is the constant travel. The report by Professor Harris, commissioned by the Welsh Government, said that there is no evidence to show that these animals get used to the travel. Some people think it does not matter and say, “Oh, they’ve been touring for years.” That is still going to be a stressful experience that will compromise their welfare.

There are issues across the board, but also those that are species-specific, depending on how the animals are socially grouped, managed and trained. The welfare of the animals is compromised, and that has been accepted by veterinary bodies. The scientific evidence is overwhelming about the issues involved.

Draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

David Rutley Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 811).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 820).

[David Rutley]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. The statutory instruments relate to buyer security in Northern Ireland, and have been grouped to facilitate efficient scrutiny and ensure that we have a fully operable statute book on exit day.

The Committee might wonder why the instruments have not already been debated. To clarify, they were initially submitted in December 2018, but we needed to ensure that the policies we have developed for Great Britain worked in Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. On 13 March 2019, the UK Government confirmed their policy to have no new checks or controls on goods at the land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement. That enabled the instruments to proceed to ensure that important controls to protect buyer security on the island of Ireland are managed without checks at the land border.

The statutory instruments are among a small number of affirmative measures made under the urgent procedure. The importance of having the regulations in place by exit day—initially 29 March and then 12 April—meant that the timeframe did not permit us to lay them via the normal route. It was of the utmost importance that we could assure the EU, in advance of its consideration of the UK’s application for third-country listed status in the event of exit on 12 April, that we had a complete statute book.

The nature of the instruments makes them critical. If they were not operable on exit day, there would be a significant risk that products of animal origin from third countries could not be imported directly into Northern Ireland and that plant products that host harmful organisms could enter Northern Ireland without regulatory controls. That was not acceptable and required urgent action. The priority was to provide as much certainty as possible for business and the public. The Committee now has an opportunity to debate and vote on the instruments.

The regulations largely mirror amendments made to the corresponding legislation for Great Britain, which have been considered by the House. As with those amendments, the regulations before the Committee are technical and are designed to ensure the continued operability of effective legislation. The instruments do not introduce any change of policy, nor do they impose any regulatory controls on imports from the EU. In particular, the trade instrument does not require consignments of animals and animal products from the EU to be inspected at border inspection posts in Northern Ireland. The plant health instrument provides for some operational changes to plant and plant product import arrangements, which I shall address in a few moments.

On animal and plant health products entering Northern Ireland directly from a third country following exit, I confirm that there will be no change to, or an increase in, the checks that are carried out currently. For animals and related products transiting from a third country to Northern Ireland through the EU, the only additional checks that would be applied if we left the EU without an agreement would be for products of animal origin and high-risk food and feed that is not of animal origin.

Such commodities would need to enter via a border inspection post in Northern Ireland, which are currently located at Belfast airport and Belfast port. Intra-EU movements of those commodities is not considered significant. Even if we left the EU without an agreement, live animals, reproductive materials and animal by-products from third countries would be able to enter Northern Ireland through a UK port without further checks if they have had full veterinary checks at a recognised EU border inspection post. A significant increase in the number of checks at Northern Ireland border inspection posts following exit is not therefore anticipated.

Plants and plant products entering Northern Ireland from third countries cleared in the EU would have to comply with the same import requirements as consignments that came directly from the EU. Regulated plants and plant products entering Northern Ireland from third countries via the EU that have not been checked in the EU would require three days’ pre-notification, documentary checks, and inspection at an approved place of inspection which, it is important to note, would be away from the border.

While operating within a United Kingdom framework, plant and animal health are matters of shared interest on the island of Ireland. The Belfast agreement provides the structures for north-south collaboration on plant and animal health. That has resulted in a recognition of the importance of the single epidemiological unit, which protects the island’s biosecurity. The regulations are specifically about protecting biosecurity across these islands while facilitating trade, and will not change any island plant and animal health partnership practices.

The Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which is the first of the two instruments, amends Northern Ireland legislation relating to imports of live animals including horses transiting through the EU; animal products; reproductive material used for animal breeding; and bees. It also amends legislation on the movement of pet animals, which is an important social issue in Northern Ireland given its land border with the EU. Most importantly, the instrument makes necessary technical corrections to the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011, a key piece of Northern Ireland legislation that sets out the requirements for trade in live animals and genetic material with the EU, and imports of animals and animal products from outside the EU.

The instrument makes no policy changes to the 2011 regulations. It does, however, provide for the transfer of the power to approve border inspection posts in Northern Ireland from the European Commission to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I am pleased that the very hard-working DAERA officials who have helped ensure these regulations are in the best possible order are present.

This instrument ensures the continuation of veterinary controls and other import conditions in the 2011 regulations that provide the necessary protections for animal and public health. Furthermore, it amends two pieces of legislation that regulate the non-commercial movement of pet animals into Northern Ireland. Those amendments provide the necessary technical corrections to provisions in other Northern Ireland trade-related legislation that are predicated on EU membership and would be inappropriate to retain following exit, such as references to “another member state”, “intra-Community trade”, and the European Commission’s ability to attend inspections. They are very much technical operability changes.

The Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is the second of the SIs. Although the instrument provides for some operational changes to import arrangements for businesses, those changes are necessary and risk-focused. First, regulated plant material such as ornamental plants in pots intended for commercial planting that currently enters Northern Ireland from the EU with an EU plant passport would require a phytosanitary certificate issued by the official national plant protection organisation, in line with international obligations. Those consignments must be pre-notified to the relevant plant health authority. In order to maintain the flow of goods, regulated plant material from the EU would not be subject to checks at the border in Northern Ireland, just like the rest of the United Kingdom. However, remote documentary checks would be undertaken in alignment with UK plant health authorities.

Secondly, consignments of regulated plants and plant products from non-EU countries that transit through the EU to arrive in Northern Ireland and have not been checked and cleared in the EU would require a statutory three days’ pre-notification to DAERA, as well as documentary checks and inspections at approved places of inspection within Northern Ireland, which would be away from the border. In the unlikely circumstance that plants and plant products from a non-EU country are checked and cleared in the EU, they will be treated as EU goods on arrival in Northern Ireland, and must comply with the import requirements for plants and plant products imported from the EU. The instrument also extends the application of an existing offence to the import requirements that would arise should the UK leave without an agreement.

Biosecurity and trade is significant for the Northern Ireland and wider UK economy. While operating within a UK framework, biosecurity in plant and animal health will remain important to the recognition of the island of Ireland as a single epidemiological unit. That will continue to secure close co-operation between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland officials on wide-ranging trade, disease and biosecurity matters. The instruments will protect biosecurity whilst facilitating trade following exit. For the reasons I have set out, I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions and questions. The hon. Member for Ipswich has been consistent in his concerns about the sheer number of SIs but, as I have explained previously, DEFRA in particular is significantly affected by a potential no-deal scenario, and as a responsible Government we have needed to look at and plan for every eventuality. I am grateful to hon. Members in this Committee, many of whom—I am thinking in particular of the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Bristol West—have sat through many other SIs with great fortitude and interest in these important subjects. I also pay tribute once again to the officials who have taken this work through, not least the DAERA officials who are with us today.

I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Ipswich. However, in my view, it is clear that the best way forward would be to ensure that we have a deal; if we did, we would not have to worry about these arrangements. Obviously, conversations and negotiations are going on between both our parties at the moment. I wish them success in moving forward, and we will see how they play out, but to my mind a deal would be the optimal outcome.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points about enforcement—I will address both his points and those made by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood in turn. As far as enforcement goes, regulated plants and plant products from third countries that transit through the EU en route to Northern Ireland are currently subjected to plant health checks at the first point of entry into the EU to ensure biosecurity protection. Cleared goods can then circulate within the EU, and are assigned the same status as EU goods.

Under the instrument, regulated plants and plant products from third countries transiting through the EU en route to Northern Ireland that have not been cleared in the EU would be subject to regulatory controls. Those controls require all importers of regulated plants and plant products from third countries transiting to Northern Ireland via Dublin, or anywhere in the EU, to provide DAERA with three days’ pre-notification of any consignment arrival in Northern Ireland. Pre-notification provides relevant details of goods and the expected date of arrival at the DAERA-authorised approved place of inspection within Northern Ireland, where documentary checks and physical inspections are completed. Goods will not be subject to plant health checks at the Northern Ireland border. The instrument also requires that the goods must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the appropriate authority in the country of origin.

The instrument gives the same assurance for third-country goods transiting through the EU to Northern Ireland as is provided by the corresponding DEFRA instrument in respect of Great Britain. Furthermore, existing protections provided by the common transit convention and international air services transit agreement will continue after EU exit. That will mean that consignments will continue to travel under a seal from their place of origin, and goods arriving at the authorised places of inspection will have their seals removed there only by an authorised officer. DAERA and DEFRA have agreed the operational arrangements for goods transiting via the UK so, in those situations, strong enforcement mechanisms will be in place.

Regarding inspectors, all consignments of regulated plant and plants products currently imported from the EU under the existing EU passport system would require pre-notification accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, as I explained before. In the event of exit without an agreement, they would also be subject to remote documentary checks. A recent survey on the volume of trade with the EU indicates that up to 40,000 phytosanitary certificates would require remote documentary checks annually. Those certificates will replace EU plant passports, and similarly will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. That equates to 20 or 30 checks daily, which is a manageable workload. Resources will be in place to manage those processes, and it is anticipated that the number of inspectors required to undertake that work would more than double, from five to 11. However, plans have been developed to deploy and redeploy staff to manage that additional workload, so the appropriate number of inspectors and the resources required to carry out those inspections will be in place if required.

The hon. Member for Ipswich raised points about co-operation with Ireland in the area of biosecurity. There is a strong sense of collaboration and a real sense of partnership to this work, which will continue as we go forward. We will work to maintain common protected zones for plant health in both jurisdictions.

The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about new plant health offences. The instrument extends the application of offences to the import requirements that would arise if the UK left the EU without an agreement. The existing offence relates to failure to comply with a notice served by a DAERA inspector identifying non-compliance with regulations relating to a relevant consignment. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, goods that require an EU plant passport will need to be pre-notified and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. The instrument ensures that the existing offence covers non-compliance with those requirements.

The Committee mentioned the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977. The definition of “member state” in that order is amended to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be a member state of the EU. References to “Council Directive 92/65/EEC” are replaced by references to “the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011(2)”. The amendments are very technical in nature.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned the differences between statutory instruments for Great Britain and those for Northern Ireland. The SI makes minor amendments to four additional pieces of Northern Ireland legislation—I apologise for not including them in my speech, which was quite long. I am pleased to have the opportunity to update the Committee now.

Three of those pieces of legislation have been included in the instrument because there was no other vehicle with which to amend them. The amendments made have been made for GB legislation via other instruments. One of those pieces of Northern Ireland legislation has no GB equivalent—the Northern Ireland Poultry Health Assurance Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2011—while others relate to bees and to destructive animals. Those are all technical changes.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister tell us how the revocation of an instrument can be defined as a “technical change”? The Destructive Imported Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1933 is being revoked. How can that be described as technical?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

This SI makes a minor technical amendment to one piece of Northern Ireland legislation—the 1933 Act. The amendment is designed to ensure that the movement into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK of certain animal species, such as the muskrat, continues to be prohibited following exit, except when permitted under licence, which mirrors an amendment made affecting England. I will write to the hon. Lady to set that out more clearly.

I have covered most of the questions and, for the reasons that I set out, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 811).

PLANT HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 820).—(David Rutley.)