Pet Abduction Bill

James Daly Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

We digress.

Debbie Matthews founded SAMPA—the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance—after having a very similar experience, when her two dogs were stolen from a supermarket, as did Toni Clarke, who founded Pet Theft Awareness after her beautiful Siamese cat, Clooney, was stolen. The common thread that runs through all these stories is that the police response was practically non-existent. In Debbie’s case, the police told her that there was no point in them coming because nothing of value had been stolen from her car. Helen, who reported the incident of the cats I mentioned previously, was told by the police that they do not even consider a cat a possession. Of course, the approach varies across police forces—that is one problem that my Bill seeks to address—but that is simply not right and it has to change; and with this Bill, it will.

One reason that this legislation is so important is the sheer scale of these offences now. According to Direct Line, between 2018 and 2022 there were more than 12,000 dog thefts—an average of 2,400 a year, and the equivalent of seven dogs stolen every single day. Those figures are not complete, because not all forces even register such offences. Cat theft, which has been mentioned, is now catching up. According to Pet Theft Awareness, the police recorded that the number of stolen cats had jumped by 40% in 2021 to an all-time high of 560. Cat theft has quadrupled since 2015, and data from the Metropolitan police shows that cat theft as a proportion of total pet theft crimes rose from 6% in 2012 to 31% last year.

Cat theft is very much on the rise, and I am sure it is much connected with the beautiful breeds that some people have. One can only imagine the distress and anguish faced by owners of Siamese or ragdoll cats—these beautiful breeds that are kept inside—whose pets are snatched away from them. In saying that, I am not in any way diminishing the impact on me if Merlin and Marmalade, who are just normal old moggies, were taken; they are immeasurably valuable in my eyes.

I do not want to go any further without saying a huge thank you to some people who have done a lot of work on the Bill over many, many years. Dr Daniel Allen, an animal geographer from Keele University, and Debbie Matthews both campaigned for 10 years to get this far. The Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation has also done tremendous work, and is so ably led by Lorraine and Chris Platt, who I am glad are here with us today. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Witham (Priti Patel), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for all their work in this area over many years. In particular, the former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), was so instrumental in forming and leading the pet theft taskforce. It was his ingenious idea to move away from the more difficult-to-prove offence of pet theft to the more appropriate offence of pet abduction.

Public interest intensified during the pandemic, when breeders could not breed dogs but the demand for puppies and companionship soared, and we had a paradise for callous criminals who wanted to steal other people’s pets. That perfect storm of callous criminality caused a spike in pet theft, particularly of dogs, which led to the launch of the cross-Government pet theft taskforce in May 2021. It is important to stress that although this is a political issue, it is not, I hope, a party political one. The Bill has huge support from right across the House, for which I am very grateful.

That taskforce gathered evidence to understand the factors that contributed to both the perceived and real rise in pet theft. It heard concerns about the significant price rises for the UK’s most sought-after dog breeds during lockdown. According to the Dogs Trust, the price of some breeds rose by almost 90%. The number of “Buy a puppy” Google searches increased by more than 160% in the months between March and August, as everyone scrambled to buy their pandemic puppies. That led a number of sources, including animal welfare charities and experts, to suggest that those price increases almost certainly triggered the rise in pet thefts.

The findings of the pet theft taskforce showed that the emotional impact of having a pet stolen is high. Not knowing what has happened to a pet or where they are is an agonising situation to be in—one that all pet owners in the Chamber surely sympathise with. That emotional impact does not stop with the owners. The pets, too, can suffer from being taken away from their owners and thrust into an unfamiliar environment. There is also a high level of fear surrounding the victims of pet abduction. In fact, that was demonstrated to me last night when I took part in an hour-long phone-in on Iain Dale’s LBC show to talk about the Bill. Anyone who knows anything about Iain Dale knows what a massive dog lover he is. He has a walled courtyard at his house in which his two dogs, Woody and Dude, are allowed to go out, and it has a gate so that they are safe, but he is still worried and fearful that somebody else might get in. That was reflected in many of the calls, so this is still a real issue.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

This is a good Bill and I support it, but my concern is that an offence already covers this type of criminal behaviour. I do not believe that it is the difficulty in proving that offence that is causing the problem here; it is the police not taking allegations and investigations seriously. I hope that the new offence will impact on the police response so that they take the matter seriously. Does my hon. Friend think that it will achieve that?

[Anna Firth]

I share my hon. Friend’s interest in that area. Of course, those are questions that I have asked myself, and I think the answer is twofold. First, the police will have to assign a unique identifier to this separate offence, so we will finally be able to see the scale of the offence and which police forces are taking it seriously and enforcing the law on it. Of course, it would not be logical to suddenly find that pet theft is happening in only one or two counties but not in others—the degree might vary, but the offence is happening all over the country. Making it compulsory for the police to assign a unique identifier will, in itself, lead to greater enforcement.

The other point, which my hon. Friend does not directly touch on, is the sentencing for this offence. He will know that there have been many attempts to strengthen the sentencing guidelines, but he will also know, as a lawyer himself, about the separation of powers and that that is not a role for this place. However, by having a separate offence, there will be separate sentencing guidelines. I hope he is assured by that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Firth]

I thank my hon. Friend for an excellent point. The logic of that is irrefutable, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

[James Daly]

The lawyer in me is coming out here. Does “lawful control” mean ownership?

[Anna Firth]

I am almost certain that it does, but I will have to refer to my notes to be precise. Perhaps I could come back to my hon. Friend on that, but it extends wider than ownership. It is designed to encompass a vet, a dog sitter or somebody else with a role in relation to the animal in question. I hope that helps my hon. Friend.

I hope that many hon. Members in the Chamber will volunteer to be on the Bill Committee—indeed, I consider that they almost have volunteered. It is so important that we do not over-criminalise well-meaning behaviour. The situation in relation to stray dogs, where people have simply meant to provide shelter to an animal for a reasonable period of time if they believe it to be without a home, will not be caught by the Bill. In Northern Ireland, a defence will apply to a person finding an unaccompanied dog.

Most importantly, the Bill will introduce a new offence whereby if someone is found guilty of dog or cat abduction, the offender will be liable to a fine and up to five years in prison. The maximum term of imprisonment is comparable with provisions for animal welfare offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The Bill lays a marker that the abduction of our beloved pets will not be tolerated. Any distress caused should be taken into account, and the Bill will also give the opportunity for monitoring.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I have to say this now, having listened to the other contributions: as I walk into my front room there is a picture of me sitting with my dog Bertie with his rosette. Bertie came third in the dog of the year competition this year, but I have to add that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) is not her place, even I have to accept that her dog was robbed, because that dog is one of the most talented animals I have ever seen in my life and how it did not get in the top three I do not know. But that is a completely different story.

I rise to support this Bill for all the reasons that have been given. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee and have been a criminal lawyer for the best part of two decades and I am always interested in how we can encourage the police to take seriously all types of offending, and certainly offending in this area. I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) that passing this Bill would be a strong statement from Parliament and I genuinely hope the police will take up the challenge of investigating these offences properly and giving them the degree of time and seriousness they deserve.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) will forgive me for talking now about my private Member’s Bill, which is No. 7 in today’s list. I hope it is appropriate to raise it and I only do so in the context of general animal welfare legislation and because it is relevant to our discussion of her Bill. What this Bill is addressing—and what we have very articulately and movingly been talking about—is the impact of the loss of a cat or dog on the owner. Sadly, sometimes when someone loses a cat in particular it is not always when it is alive; sometimes it is when it has passed. There are many instances of this. The campaign for Gizmo’s law, which originates in my constituency, is a nationwide campaign that provides a basis for my private Member’s Bill. It has highlighted that if a cat is found deceased on the public highway and is picked up by a local authority, it is almost certainly disposed of in landfill; no care or thought is given to the owner of the cat, who does not know where it is.

Gizmo’s law is proposed through my Pets (Microchips) Bill, which I bring to the Minister’s attention as it is a complementary piece of legislation. If a cat is found in such circumstances, that law would require the local authority, without cost apart from time, to make arrangements for the cat’s microchip to be scanned and to make efforts—through various websites or the details that will hopefully come from the microchip; legislation on the mandatory microchipping of cats is now coming into force—to tell the owner of the cat what has happened. The loss of a cat, not only through theft but through such tragic circumstances, is an important matter that is complementary to this debate and part of the discussion about how we treat our pets.

The other part of my Bill also addresses the nuanced circumstances of how we treat our animals—in this case, dogs. I simply could not believe it when I was told about this case. Tuk’s law is a campaign run from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), on which Sue and Dawn have worked over many years. Although the number of cases is reducing, there are sadly circumstances where individuals take healthy dogs to the vet, and veterinary surgeons will euthanise the dog. No explanation needs to be given; in those circumstances, there is no requirement on the veterinary profession to scan the microchip or to make any inquiries to identify the rescue back-up—the rescue back-up being the original breeder or someone other than the owner.

That means that there is an extraordinary situation whereby, for perhaps a whole variety of reasons—perhaps a dog is barking—a neighbour, say, could decide, “I’m going to take that dog to the vet and ask for it to be put down.” That genuinely happens. There have been ongoing discussions on the issue; I have been talking about it for three or four years, since I have been in the House. The veterinary profession has put a voluntary code of conduct in place, but it is not stopping these cases from happening. That example could fall within the legislation that we are talking about today.

I ask that the Minister give consideration to the widest possible scope. If we are to introduce good legislation like this, it should cover all circumstances, so that members of the public can know what has happened to their pets, and so that healthy dogs are protected. If I were to lose Bertie in any circumstances, it would be the end of the world. If he were in an accident, the impact on me and my family would be just as great as if he were stolen. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to the Pets (Microchips) Bill—No. 7 on the Order Paper—which we will not reach today, as a complementary piece of legislation to address many of the issues we have been talking about today.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Daly Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

We can go one better than that, in that we have already brought forward measures that allow the regulator, Ofwat, to take action, alongside tougher penalties, now with unlimited fines. In addition, all storm overflows will be monitored 100% by the end of this year, and there will be a much tougher approach on regulation, as the House heard in the strong response to the debate earlier this week.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

T2. The Mayor of Greater Manchester’s proposal for a 493 square mile clean air charging zone would have been a disaster for businesses in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend provide an update on the Government’s response to the current Greater Manchester clean air proposal?

[Steve Barclay]

I can try, but the task of finding clarity in the position of the Mayor of Greater Manchester in this regard is somewhat confusing. First he says he is in favour of tackling the issue of air quality—and, indeed, we have heard from Opposition Members how important that is—and then, when he has powers to take action, he seems to look to Westminster and expect us to act on his behalf. Of course I will follow up my hon. Friend’s request and seek clarity from the Mayor, but the ability to do so has, to date, been rather limited.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

James Daly Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I always agree with every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), and I endorse every single word of her powerful speech today. Everyone who has chosen to participate in this debate will say that, quite simply, the Bill is a good piece of legislation. It is needed, and we encourage the Government to get it on the statute book at the earliest opportunity. This debate gives Members an opportunity to discuss issues related to the Bill, which is important. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, Conservative Back Benchers will do nothing that will risk the Bill making the statute book. However, we are able—quite rightly—to raise concerns and suggest additions. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon did just that when she raised concerns that cats are excluded from the new offence of taking a dog without lawful authority.

I want to comment on the scope of the Bill. Perhaps it is my tender years in this place, but I look to the eminence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) to correct me if anything I say is wrong. I think we all received a brief from the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. We are told that the Bill is broad-ranging and includes farm animals and domestic pets. I took that as a starting point, and asked what the phrase “kept animals” means if we take it away from the nature of the Bill. I could not find a satisfactory dictionary definition, so I went to the Bill’s long title, which says the Bill is to

“make provision about the welfare of certain kept animals that are...imported into, or exported from Great Britain.”

It appears that the scope of the Bill relates to the import and export of farm animals and domestic pets, but that does not seem to be the case. As we have just heard, one of the provisions relates directly to an offence that can only be committed when taking a dog without lawful authority in the jurisdiction of this country. The Bill presents an opportunity for the Government to consider not many amendments, but probing amendments that are not simply related to import or export—however important those issues are.

We need to look at the scope of the Bill in relation to pets and domestic animals. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said, the reason for that is important to us all. My dog Bertie is my best mate; he is part of my family. I will take any opportunity I get to talk about animals and how we treat domestic pets. The scope of the Bill hopefully allows us to do that. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

You would expect me, Mr Hollobone, to take the opportunity to refer to the Pets (Microchips) Bill—my private Member’s Bill that I have put before the House on three occasions. I will briefly mention why it is appropriate to talk about this issue, and to at least consider it being part of the provisions of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Gizmo’s law, which is part of my Bill, comes from a campaign run by a lady called Helena Abrahams from Bury North. As her constituency MP, I have a duty to talk about that campaign; it has been going on for many years.

Many Members may not know this, but if a cat is found deceased in a local authority area, the general action of a council—not all councils, because I am sure that some councils will be outraged by what I am about to say—is that that cat is immediately disposed of in landfill. There is no scanning of the microchip; there is no attempt to reunite that cat with its owner. When we consider the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon made, namely that cats as well as dogs are valued members of our families and a part of who we are as individuals, we should at least consider whether legislation can be brought in to address that situation.

Working with a pet food company, the Gizmo’s law campaign has been able to provide scanners to all local authorities in the country to allow them to scan a cat to see whether there is a contact address, and then to give the owner the opportunity to come and collect that cat, if that is what they want to do; if not, the cat will be disposed of. At the heart of a Bill that is about the best of animal welfare, the cost of such a scheme is not even minimal; the cost is non-existent. However, it could be a positive addition to the Bill.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue relating to what is called Gizmo’s law. I know that the Department has looked at this issue multiple times over many years. Indeed, four or five years ago, it was a requirement for the Highways Agency to scan animals—that was an administrative requirement handed down by the Department for Transport. However, does he not think that that may be something that could be addressed in a non-legislative way, such as simply making it a condition of some of the grants that local authorities receive, so that they actually show the due diligence to scan roadkill cats and dogs when they encounter them?

[James Daly]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. However, I would argue that legislation is the correct vehicle for doing this. Establishing a legal duty reflects what I hope would be Parliament’s view as to the necessity for such a condition. However, I fully accept the point that has been made and his suggestion may well be another way of dealing with this matter.

The second part of my private Member’s Bill is Tuk’s law. In different circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), with his expertise in this area, would be able to correct what I am about to say. In essence, however, a person might take a healthy animal to a veterinary surgeon and they say to a vet—again, this only occurs very infrequently—that they would like, for whatever reason, a healthy dog to be euthanised or put down. That has happened in the past and it continues to happen infrequently.

Tuk’s law would require veterinary surgeons and veterinary staff to scan what is called the rescue back-up—the chip that is on the dog—which would highlight the breeder or somebody else, at least to give that healthy dog an opportunity for a life, or a different set of circumstances. Whatever the reason is that a healthy dog is brought into a veterinary surgeon, we should be doing everything possible, if that dog is not a threat to human beings, to rehouse it elsewhere. Tuk’s law is a duty to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue and we will not turn it into a debate now. However, for a Bill—I have talked about its scope before—that aims to address directly how we as a Parliament and we as a country view our beloved animals, whether they are farm animals or pets, it is an important matter that should be considered in the round when this Bill is brought back. It is a good Bill and I wholeheartedly support every comment that has been made so far.

I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about my private Member’s Bill. If the Minister wishes to discuss it with me further, I am happy to do so at any point. It is a good private Member’s Bill, it costs nothing, and it adds to the great strides that our Government have taken in respect of animal welfare since we came into power in 2019.

Flooding: Irwell Vale and Surrounding Areas

James Daly Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered flooding in Irwell Vale and surrounding areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your redoubted chairmanship for the first time, Ms McVey.

Flooding affects communities all over the United Kingdom. Many Members present will live in an area affected by flooding and will understand that when communities flood, the effect is profound and devastating. It is completely debilitating for those communities. Yes, they may have accepted moving to an area with a 100-year flood risk, but, by gum, have they been surprised to have been flooded two, three or four times in a decade. In the past few years, hundreds of lives across my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen have been negatively affected. Homes and businesses in Whitworth, Bacup, Stacksteads, Waterfoot, Darwen, Rawtenstall, Helmshore, Irwell Vale, Strongstry and Chatterton have been devastated by floods in the past 10 years.

The reason why our area floods is the same reason we are one of the most picturesque and beautiful areas in the United Kingdom: our lovely rivers. We have the Limey Water, the Whitewell brook, the Darwen, the Spodden, the Ogden and the Irwell. In the summer, they are beautiful, burbling brooks; in the winter, they become raging torrents. It is those last two rivers—the Ogden and the Irwell—that really affect the residents of Irwell Vale, where there is a confluence just before the village. Irwell Vale, Chatterton and Strongstry have been flooded repeatedly by those rivers, which has been devastating.

It has proved historically difficult to mitigate the flood risk because the water comes from a wide catchment area. I have visited those communities on several occasions after they have flooded and the impact on their lives has been completely devastating. It is something the Prime Minister has demonstrated that he understands. He recently visited Didsbury, in Greater Manchester, after some flooding, and said that there is a

“huge psychological, emotional and financial cost”

to the communities that flood. I absolutely agree. That is why I am grateful that over the past nine years, the Minister and her Department have already provided £1 million of investment for our local communities to try to stop the flooding. Back in 2014, residents of the village of Stubbins were delighted when their long-awaited flood defences were opened by me and others after finally being completed.

Today, I want to talk about the ongoing challenge in the catchment area that makes up the River Irwell and covers other areas. Floods have particularly affected Irwell Vale, but they also affect tens of thousands of people across the country. That is why the issue is such a priority for the Government.

The Irwell, which cuts through my constituency, is a river that was previously thought to flood very infrequently. In fact, it had a 100-year flood risk. However, it has flooded in 2007, 2012, 2015 and 2020. The communities of Irwell Vale, Strongstry and Chatterton also have the dual risk of overland flooding. It is not just raised river levels; they are in a deep, sheer-sided valley and when there is heavy rainfall, combined with rising river levels, the flooding can come from the back of the houses as well as the front.

In February, I was down there talking to the community, who explained how family members felt they could not leave home because they were constantly clicking “refresh” on the Government’s online flooding monitor; they sort of felt they would be more likely to flood if they were not in the house. Although that is not particularly rational, it shows what a huge impact living on a flood plain and in a community that floods has on the mental health of these families. That is why it is really important we debate that impact today.

For a number of years now, I have worked very closely with the Environment Agency, the Government and the communities, to find a solution that will serve this community not just in the short term, but for generations to come. The Government’s policy is that flood defences are not about how big a community is. This is a small community, but all communities must be supported. I hope the Government will reaffirm that commitment today, because the whole point of the Government’s levelling-up agenda is that no community gets left behind. The smallest hamlet is as important to the Minister as the greatest city, but all too often it is the smallest hamlet that gets flooded and needs the flood defences. I hope the Minister will reaffirm today that no community is too small to have the benefit of Government flood defence spending.

I want to talk more directly about the Environment Agency plan for Irwell Vale, Chatterton and Strongstry. Following the 2015 flooding, the Environment Agency worked closely with me and the local community. It did a large-scale appraisal on a whole catchment basis for the River Irwell and its tributaries. That was followed by a capital funding bid to further reappraise flooding issues and possible mitigation work for the community.

Following the 2020 floods, which were again devastating, the Environment Agency did further extensive work to ensure that solutions would deal properly with increased flooding frequency. I find it extraordinary that between 2015 and 2020 there was such a change in the expectations of flooding in the community that the EA had to revisit all the work that had already been done. That tells us how concerned we should be for these communities, which will be subject to more frequent flooding.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his efforts to secure funding. I know we will hear a little more about that in a second. I was also at Irwell Vale during the period of severe flooding and it was catastrophic—genuinely appalling. Irwell Vale is about 1.5 miles from my constituency. My right hon. Friend knows the fine town of Ramsbottom in my constituency well. How does he feel that the scheme he is about to describe will help flood defences in Ramsbottom?

[Jake Berry]

Irwell Vale is a wonderful place, as my hon. Friend knows, as he has visited it. It is my main dog-walking route. I always do the leaflets there at elections as well, although that is not relevant to today’s debate. It is part of a string of villages and towns along the River Irwell, and the next significant town along is Ramsbottom, which is a wonderful place as well. A lot of what the Environment Agency is proposing in its current plan is about slowing the water flow down on the River Irwell. Although the plan is described as a linear flood defence, which might make colleagues think of me campaigning just to swoosh the water past my constituency and let it come over the top in Ramsbottom, that is absolutely not the proposal of the Environment Agency—even if it were mine, which it is not.

All the mitigation measures that the EA is taking further up the Irwell valley will benefit Ramsbottom, which has had significant flood events, particularly for local businesses, which I know my hon. Friend works closely with. Even though only 100 or so houses are identified to directly benefit from the work, it would in fact benefit the whole River Irwell catchment. As my hon. Friend will know, this is a river that goes into the centre of Manchester and has been responsible for flooding in Salford in the past. I know the Minister will want to look at the whole catchment approach. What we do in Irwell Vale benefits Ramsbottom.

[James Daly]

And obviously Waterside.

[Jake Berry]

And Waterside, of course. An economic assessment has been undertaken by the Environment Agency, and the benefit and cost of all of the options has been assessed. The most economically favourable solution—frankly, the one that is likely to gain the maximum amount of grant in aid from the Government—has been identified. There was a long list of options, many of which I looked at. That was turned into a shortlist. The preferred option has now been chosen. It is what the Environment Agency refers to, slightly misleadingly, as a linear defence. It includes several mitigation measures to slow down flow.

That brings me to where we are today. The problem faced by Irwell Vale residents and communities, and other communities, is that the grant in aid funding will not cover the cost of the project needed in my constituency. It has been clear for a while that, if the scheme is to deliver meaningful and sustainable solutions, we will have to look at a cocktail of Government funding to support it, unless we ask communities to pay significant amounts that they cannot afford. The estimated cost of the project is £19.6 million, which I appreciate is not an insignificant amount. If the Minister, or any of her colleagues, were to visit Irwell Vale and speak to the community there, she would see that the community understands that it is an expensive scheme. They have been completely realistic and pragmatic about the need to work hard to find funding.

Of that £19 million—which sounds like a huge amount of money—we have already secured just over £11 million. That brings me to the rump—the £8 million—for which we are looking to the Government for support. The Environment Agency, supported by me and the community, has already applied to the fund for frequently flooded communities, as well as other Government Departments. It is also looking to increase the local levy contribution to try to make up some of that shortfall. We believe that the frequently flooded communities fund is absolutely central to delivering the scheme in Irwell Vale, although the Minister may have a different view. We know that the Government have not yet made decisions about the fund; one of the purposes of this debate is to gently nudge the Department and tell it that giving us that funding would be a good thing to do for the residents of Irwell Vale, Strongstry and Chatterton.

Last year, the Government announced that another £5.2 billion would be available for flood work over the next five years, and that it would be invested in flood alleviation schemes. That is really important, not just for my constituency but for the wider River Irwell catchment. I am excited that the Government have allocated so much more funding—more money than any Government in history—to tackling flooding. I hope that the Government look favourably on our local scheme, which is supported by the Environment Agency and the council that covers the areas that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and I represent. It is supported locally and by Parliament. I thank my hon. Friend for attending the debate.

[James Daly]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech outlining the threat posed by the River Irwell, pretty though it is. The Government have recognised that. In my constituency, and in Bury South, £30 million has been invested in Radcliffe and Redvales because of the threat that the Irwell poses to housing in that area. My right hon. Friend’s strong case for investment cannot be overstated, because the evidence clearly shows that destruction will follow unless money is invested.

[Jake Berry]

I know those areas well. There are thousands of houses there. In the beautiful villages in my constituency, there are just 100-plus houses. I understand that the Government have to prioritise funding; there is not an endless pot of money. However, we have been waiting a very long time, and we have been flooded lots of times. Now that Radcliffe, other areas of Bury and Ramsbottom have had significant flooding investment, I hope that the Minister understands why we think that it is our turn.

We need the investment. We are talking about relatively few houses, but in truth, no one cares whether there are 100 or 1,000 houses in their community. In politics, we talk about houses when we should really talk about homes. We do not live in a house; we live in our home, and it is not just four walls and a roof. It is where we have our photograph albums from when our children or grandchildren were at school, loved items of furniture that have been in the family for generations, and all our possessions. When water comes through the air bricks in the house, or up through the floorboards, it is not just damaging people’s house; in many cases, it is washing away a life—a lifetime of memories, and all those happy events that took place in their home. That is why the scheme is so important. People who live in Irwell Vale, Chatterton or Strongstry have had that happen to them five times in the last decade.

In politics, we do not often point back at things and say, “I am really proud that I was part of that.” We probably should do a bit more of it. However, if I can deliver this money to the community that I have the privilege of representing, it will give me— though this is not about me—the opportunity to say proudly that debates in Parliament, and this debate, transformed people’s lives. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister about future funding, and the Government’s ambitions for funding the scheme. I do not want to go back to these communities next winter, or maybe the winter after that, and have to explain to people why their life has been washed away again. We have a real opportunity today to change that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I would be delighted to undertake that. I met with the EA team earlier today, and one of my questions was whether part of the scheme could be delivered while we continue to work together on further sources of income for the remaining £8.5 million. I was told that it was not quite as easy as that, but I undertake to ask for a detailed answer for my right hon. Friend, because some of the wall rebuilding might alleviate some residents’ concerns.

The frequently flooded communities fund may not be the correct route for further funding applications, but I was firmly reassured by the EA that it is leaving no stone unturned to try to source the remainder of the funding, and that several routes are being considered. I encourage all interested colleagues to continue to work with the partners who are determined to make that happen.

I take on board my right hon. Friend’s point about how all communities must be protected. The fact that 100 hundred houses are affected is not in itself a barrier to finding a substantial amount of funding. He said that the area is on his dog walking route; it is a beautiful area, and there is biodiversity that needs to be protected as well. It is not just about the homes, although they are the most significant factor.

[James Daly]

This is an excellent scheme with a fantastic champion, but all communities need to be protected. Ramsbottom in my constituency is a mile and a half down the road from Irwell Vale. We have had £484,000 of investment in the whole constituency. It is not enough to protect families and businesses on Kenyon Street. Will the Minister or someone from her Department meet me to discuss what we can do to ensure that Ramsbottom has adequate flood defences?

[Victoria Prentis]

The Environment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I know that the Radcliffe and Redvales scheme has been useful in his constituency.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made the valid point that this is not a linear scheme and the aim is not to move the water from one constituency to another and cause problems there. That is why it is important that we continue to deal with these flooding issues holistically, looking at these schemes as part of a wider picture. He mentioned the benefits of wider catchment approaches to flood management. I very much agree that a whole-catchment approach can unlock opportunities for areas such as the one we are discussing. The Government have committed to transforming the approach to local flood and coastal erosion risk planning. Every area of England will have a more strategic and comprehensive plan that will drive long-term local action. That will be in place by 2026.

The EA is already implementing an approach that considers wider-catchment benefits, and is taking that whole-catchment approach to new funding bids. It is collaborating with partners such as Moors for the Future and the National Trust to deliver a suite of natural flood management measures in the upper Irwell catchment. That includes moorland restoration on Holcombe moor and slow-the-flow measures in Buckden brook. It is very important that we continue to look at the wider picture when managing this water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane has asked me to reassure all hon. Members that flood and coastal risk management is a top priority for the Government. I reiterate that she would be delighted to meet Members from this area to discuss the specifics of the bid, the new plan, and how that funding gap can be filled. I thank all hon. Members for this informative debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Food and Drink: UK Economy

James Daly Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[John Stevenson]

I very much agree. The two key parts of Government policy in terms of security are energy security and food security. At present, we probably import more food than we should.

I want gently to challenge the Government on some of their attitudes and thinking towards this sector. First, what will the Government do to help promote the sector domestically and internationally?

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. One of the sectors in the food economy that concerns me is fishing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, in this country we do not buy our own produce. How can we encourage people in this country to buy the brilliant seafood we produce all round the coastline, so that it is not reliant on a foreign market?

[John Stevenson]

I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that point. How can the Government help our industry both domestically and by creating greater opportunities in the export market? We need to continue to see the success of the industry and exploit the opportunities in both our domestic market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) just said, and in exports.

The development of new products, the competitiveness of the sector and the opportunity to export are vital to our country. However, there is sometimes a feeling that other countries promote this sector far better than we do. I am interested to hear what plans the Minister has to improve that.

The Minister knows that hers is a sponsoring Department for the food and drink sector. Therefore, will the Department with such responsibility challenge in a more constructive way some of the unreasonable pressures that sometimes emerge from the health lobby? As I said, the sector has made great strides on the health issue and does work with Government. Everybody accepts that more needs to be done, but a realistic approach is fundamental.

The supply chain is critical to all industries and the food and drink sector is no different. The appointment of Sir David Lewis as the new supply chain adviser is welcome. I know that the Food and Drink Federation will fully engage with the new supply chain advisory group. It is an outstanding advocate for the industry that works well with Ministers. I am sure the Minister will comment on that in her remarks.

None the less, there are concerns about the supply of food and the inflationary pressures in the supply chain. Those will undoubtedly have an impact on the consumer in due course. That leads on to issues surrounding our trading relationship with the EU. There are concerns about the border controls on exports, but also the very real issue of shortage of appropriate labour. As we know, there is a shortage of HGV drivers, farm workers and factory workers. I can easily give local examples of the firms I have already mentioned and the issues they have with securing employment. We also have pressures in the tourist industry, which compounds the problem in places such as Cumbria.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing this debate on what is a very important issue. The debate has a very wide scope, and we could talk for many hours on the subject, but I want to talk about the interconnectivity between the food and drink industry and the market in this country—how we can ensure that suppliers of food and drink, big or small, local or national, have the best possible conditions for people to buy what they produce. I am meeting a little business on Friday that works in the production of gin. How are we going to ensure that it is competitive—that the markets are there for people to buy that product?

I am passionate—I do not think this is a secret—about pubs. Perhaps I should not frame it in that way. I have set up an all-party parliamentary group on tenanted pubs. One of the points that is directly linked to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, is that we cannot see the food and drink industry on its own; it is interconnected with so many different markets. Tenanted pubs are going through a very difficult period. They are the buyers of the meat from local farmers, the drinks from the suppliers I just mentioned. To allow the industry to flourish, as we all want it to, we have to support the market for it. That is pubs and restaurants—pubs in my constituency such as the Waggonmakers, the Dungeon and The Two Tubs, which just won my pub of the year competition.

Until we as a country consume the shellfish from the coast of Cornwall or the east coast around Bridlington, until we have those markets and create the campaign and market conditions where, as a matter of course, we are buying and making best use of the fantastic products we have throughout the country, then we will have failed. There is much to be done as a Parliament in championing British food. We have some real champions in this room. The small producers of quality produce and drinks require this Government to support them in any way possible. The Hearth of the Ram, a great pub in Ramsbottom, buys everything local. If we did not have it, there would be no market for local producers in my area.

Local, small producers are part of this debate, but I fully accept that the scale of the contribution that the food and drink sector makes to our economy should not be underestimated. As a native of Carlisle, I recognise a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said. Two of my favourite places on earth, Carlisle and Bridlington, are represented in this room today. I am delighted to have taken part in this debate.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fifth sitting)

James Daly Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Hudson]

Thank you, Mr Davies. I rise to welcome Government action on pet theft. In response to the hon. Member for Cambridge, I noted those amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill a few months ago, and the reason why many of us on the Government side voted against them was not because we were against pet theft law being strengthened, but because we were given assurances by the then Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), who has been mentioned, that pet theft would be addressed in law. I am so pleased, as a veterinary surgeon and a parliamentarian, that we are now at the stage of recognising and passing pet theft into law.

I welcome that the Opposition will not oppose the new clause. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge that the new clause has been tabled at very short notice, and I feel that the Government can work with the Opposition, with Committee members, and with Members on both sides of the House, to ensure that we get the legislation right. We have to get the wording right so that we can stamp out the abhorrent crime of pet theft.

I have called for some time for the legislation, once introduced, to be expanded to include other species. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment of those calls and their attempts to address them with new clause 6, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. As it is worded, the new clause is incredibly complicated, incredibly confusing and subject to much misinterpretation. I urge the Government to look closely at the definitions in the new clause, which are not suitable.

The Government are moving forward on animal welfare. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill has been introduced, and will recognise that animals are fully sentient beings—the theft of animals is distressing for both the animals and their owners. Cats are being stolen as we speak, and should be included. I am keen, though, for the provisions to be expanded beyond pets.

I welcome the fact that we are expanding the measures to other species, but they should not apply only to pets. Should we be talking about “companion animals”, rather than pets? What about farm animals? When a farmer in Cumbria has 20 sheep stolen—a not uncommon occurrence—it is incredibly distressing for that farmer. I urge the Government to look closely at expanding the measures to include all animals: farm animals, horses, ponies. What about the Vietnamese pot-bellied pig that someone keeps in the back of their garden? What about someone who keeps a sheep to help them keep the lawn down—is that a pet or a farm animal? This is where we will end up going due to the complexities of the Bill.

I fear that if the Government do not change new clause 6, we will have some form of George Orwellian “Animal Farm” interpretation of how important some animals are compared to others. I urge the Government to not let us go into that. These animals are being stolen now—farm animals, horses, cats, dogs—so we need to act now. I welcome what the Minister is doing, and what DEFRA is doing, and I encourage them to listen to voices on both sides of the House. I ask with good grace whether the Minister will meet me and Lord Goldsmith. Can we get round the table and see if we can improve these clauses, so that all animals are covered, and so that we can stamp out not just pet theft, but animal theft?

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I was a criminal defence solicitor for 16 years. The one thing that we will never get in legislation that will potentially go before the criminal court is 100% exact language. We are talking about legal interpretation. These are matters that will be decided on by those giving expert evidence and through the interpretation of the courts. That is how the system works—the separation of powers. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border about looking at the wider definition of theft, but all the matters that he mentioned are covered; they are acts of theft, which is on the statute book already.

I welcome new clause 6; I think it is a good clause. Criminal lawyers, together with those giving expert evidence and others involved in the court system, will be able to understand it clearly. Even if we were to have a lengthy discussion, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, regarding what “forming bonds” means—we could discuss that forever—it will be expert evidence in a court that will decide matters, not what parliamentarians debate. I welcome the clause and congratulate the Minister on it.

[The Chair]

I welcome Members making contributions, but could you use your leg muscles to indicate that you want to contribute—perhaps near the start of the debate, but you are free to stand whenever you like—so that I do not miss you out? I almost missed that last request to contribute.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (First sitting)

James Daly Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Apsana Begum]

Q A final question: in Committee, our work will involve looking at the detail of the Bill, and it is said that the success of a Bill is often dependent on the financial commitments backing it up, to ensure that it is implemented and enforced. What is your assessment of the financial commitment required to ensure that the Bill is a success, given the experiences you have had in your organisation with the financial gap between enforcement, implementation, and the measures?

David Bowles: It is a real concern for the RSPCA. You just have to look at the Bill and what additional things it is putting on local authorities primarily, such as primate licensing or the puppy issues. Who is responsible for making sure that puppies are imported and sold properly and, if they are sold on the internet, that that licence requirement meets the legislation? Local authorities. For me, that is pushing a lot of stuff on to local authorities, but there is no extra monetary provision.

Paula Boyden: I completely agree. It is important that we provide the right support for local authorities and, equally, for colleagues at the borders who are undertaking the checks. They need the resources and the right sort of training. Comments were made about local authorities getting together and having a central animal welfare inspectorate to undertake the inspections, so that we have that expertise. In effect, that is what we have in the City of London. They are doing this day in, day out, so they have that level of expertise that we need for this.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Q I have a couple of questions about clauses 26 to 41 in part 2 of the Bill, specifically about dogs attacking or worrying livestock, and about criminal enforcement. I was a solicitor for many years, appearing in the courts. The vast majority of animal welfare proceedings were brought by the RSPCA, not by the police. The Bill talks about the police; it does not talk about private prosecutions or the role of organisations such as the RSPCA in enforcement. Do you foresee any role for the RSPCA or third-party agencies in this process?

David Bowles: You are probably aware that the RSPCA investigates probably about 85% of issues under the Animal Welfare Act. You are probably also aware that under our new strategy, we are in discussions with Government, the Attorney General’s Office and the police about the handing over of prosecutions to the statutory agencies. The primary reason for that is the changes in sentencing, which obviously we fought for and wanted. You will start to see a prison sentence of up to five years. We do not believe that it would be good for a non- governmental, non-statutory agency to be doing something where somebody could end up with up to five years in prison. A lot of the enforcements in this Bill are down to local authorities and down to the police.

The RSPCA will continue to investigate animal welfare issues—for instance, getting the calls on primates that are not being cared for properly. We will continue to enforce those. That is why we wanted a ban—because we want to make life easier not only for local authorities, but for us. I would love for the RSPCA not to have any calls on primates whatever, and for us not to spend the money investigating those cases and then trying to rehabilitate those primates. I do not believe, given how the Bill is written at the moment, that that will happen.

[James Daly]

Q I think there is a concern about how these matters are prosecuted. Paula, you touched on the potential for a dog to be kept in kennels for a long time. Clause 27(2), (3) and (4) appears to suggest that if a dog is seized by the police, the owner has seven days to claim the dog back, and if that does not happen, the dog can be given to another owner or potentially destroyed. I do not know whether that is your understanding. Clearly, we want to avoid at all costs healthy dogs being destroyed after seven days. Do you have any thoughts on how we address that part of the Bill?

Paula Boyden: The devil is in the detail on that. One would hope, and what would be great to see there, is that within the seven days there is some sort of behavioural assessment of that dog—of whether it is appropriate to rehome it. It might involve an irresponsible owner who is not prepared to put the time and effort into training the dog, fencing their garden or whatever it takes. I would very much hope that there will be a little bit more detail about what happens within the seven days. I would certainly support the concept that we do not want dogs just languishing in kennels for protracted periods of time, but it has to be proportionate.

[James Daly]

Q It is almost certain that somebody arrested for an offence like this would either be released under investigation or granted police bail. Is the position that you would like that until there is a charge, the dog must be kept with the owner, or do you feel that with release under investigation, it could be many months before a charge even comes? What should happen to the dog in those circumstances?

Paula Boyden: Again, it depends on the circumstances. If, for example, it is a repeat offender who clearly has not learned from the first time, I would hope that they would be encouraged to sign the dog over, because they are clearly not going to step up to the mark and do something about it. In that situation, rehoming might be the most appropriate thing for that dog. If it is a first offence, again, it depends on the circumstances. Anybody can make a mistake.

[James Daly]

Q I am talking about prior to charge—when somebody is arrested, interviewed and released on bail by the police, so there is no charge. What happens to the dog in those circumstances?

Paula Boyden: In those circumstances, there is the first stage—whether they need to take evidence and those sorts of things—so we assume that that is done. Obviously the person is innocent until proven guilty, so there is the question of whether it is appropriate for the dog to go back to that person, but again it will depend on the circumstances. If, for example, the dog has escaped from the garden, the sensible thing to do is to say, “Okay, we can get the dog back to you, but you’ve got to fence your garden first of all.” Then it depends on their commitment to doing that as to whether they have the dog back or it is deemed appropriate for the dog to be rehomed.

David Bowles: The RSPCA would share some of your concerns about some of these seizure issues. Paula has rightly talked about some of the kennelling issues with the police. I am not sure if you are aware, but the Scottish Government passed legislation this year—it has only been in place for two months—that allows the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to get rid of a seized animal, whether it is a farm animal or a dog, after 21 days, rather than waiting for the court case to take its route. We would like to see something similar happen in England. If the person is found not guilty, then there is a compensation process under the Scottish legislation. That safeguards the welfare of the animal, because they are not languishing in kennels. Do not forget that even before covid, some cases took two or three years to get to court; under covid, 2020 was essentially written off, and we are seeing a huge backlog in court cases.

I worry that we have a lot of dogs, in particular, languishing in kennels, and their welfare needs are not being cared for. Once the court case is finished, it will be up to somebody, perhaps the Dogs Trust or the RSPCA, to try to rehabilitate the dog.

[The Chair]

Order. We have come to the end of the allocated time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses: David Bowles, the head of public affairs for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and Paula Bowden, veterinary director for the Dogs Trust.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Alison Cronin MBE, Dr Simon Girling and Dr Jo Judge gave evidence.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)

James Daly Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

The next two Members who wish to speak are James Daly, followed by Ben Lake.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Q Thank you very much, Ms McVey. Can I ask some questions about the specifics of the Bill—clause 27 onwards in part 2 —regarding the seizure and retention of dogs? Can you give me your views on that? Clause 27(1) says that if

“a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or a road or a path…The constable may seize the dog”.

There is some more wording, but what is clear from subsection (3) is that the owner of the dog in those circumstances has seven days to reclaim it. There is a suggestion that at the end of that period, if it is not reclaimed one of the options open to the police is the destruction of that dog. Is that your understanding of the position?

Rob Taylor: No, it is not. My understanding is that the dog could be rehomed or passed on to someone else. It is not destruction—that is not my understanding.

[James Daly]

Q And the police will be in a position to find a home within seven days for dogs?

Rob Taylor: The dog will be placed in the care of a dogs home, then it will be up for relocation to a suitable home. The problem that we have at present is that we seize a dog, and as soon as the owner turns up we have to give it back. Otherwise, we seize a dog and are stuck with it until whenever, and it is a really difficult one.

[James Daly]

Q There is a potential contradiction in the Bill regarding the situation that I have just read out, where a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has taken place, and the dog can be collected after seven days. Then we go on to clause 27(8), which says:

“The constable may seize the dog and detain it—

(a) until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 26 has been committed by reason of the dog attacking or worrying livestock, or

(b) if proceedings are brought in respect of such an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.”

Effectively, that means that we have one situation where there is seven days and another situation under clause 27(8) where the dog can be kept until the end of criminal proceedings. What is the difference between the two? Is it that under clause 27(8) the person has been charged with the offence and the dog will then be kept potentially on an indefinite basis, compared with the seven days I just referred to?

Rob Taylor: I would have to read through it again in detail, but I think part 2 relates to the risk that the dog is going to reoffend. I would need to read through it again to make sure, but from the meetings I have been in that is the belief I have. We see time and again that a dog will offend, be taken back by the owner and then at the scene, and the next day go out and kill three or four sheep. The next day it does exactly the same again. My belief is that the power there is for detaining the dog until the case is completed.

[James Daly]

Q Okay. You can see the difference between what constitutes a decision for seven days and what constitutes a decision for what would potentially be a very lengthy period of time. I have to go on. I am from a criminal law background and have dealt with many cases in this area. Realistically, where we are now, you could have a case that was disputed and could go on for over 12 months. You would accept that?

Rob Taylor: Absolutely.

[James Daly]

Q So what happens to the dog for that length of time?

Rob Taylor: It would be kept in kennels until such a time.

[James Daly]

Q How would we as a Committee be confident that the dog’s welfare needs would be met after such a long time in kennels?

Rob Taylor: The dog would be kept in kennels and would be fed and watered properly, as other dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are. The first situation applies when the dog owner is not known. The second applies when the dog owner is known. The dog could be kept to prevent it from reoffending again. Over the last 15 years I have been dealing with dog offences, I would say that that power has probably been used once or twice. It is an extremely rare situation.

[James Daly]

Q A witness who gave evidence this morning said that there are examples from Scotland of dogs being kept for three or four years.

Rob Taylor: I have never come across that.

[James Daly]

Q My final question is on the power of disqualification, which I assume you fully understand. People obviously can have more than one dog, so there may be a situation where one dog is responsible for an act that has led to the owner being convicted of a criminal offence. A disqualification order would suggest that other dogs in the home can then be seized, even though they have not been responsible for any potential criminal behaviour. Is that correct?

Rob Taylor: Absolutely. Court orders are given many times for people who commit offences against badgers or other similar offences of cruelty. They are given a banning order, which prevents them from keeping dogs. It is for them to actually dispose of the dogs or they commit a further offence of being in possession of a dog while subject to a court order.

[James Daly]

Q I understand that, and I appreciate the point you are making. Clause 33(4) says:

“Any dog taken into possession in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) or (2)”—

which is the disqualification order—

“that is not owned by the person subject to the disqualification order is to be dealt with in such manner as an appropriate court may order.”

That covers a number of different circumstances. I am concerned that dogs that have not acted in an inappropriate manner, shall we say, are potentially going to be disposed of and destroyed. That seems remarkably unfair.

Rob Taylor: No, absolutely. We see it time and again with wildlife offences and other such offences. If you are subject to a disqualification order, it is your responsibility to dispose of those dogs, whether by rehoming them, giving them to somebody else or making sure that they are given to a dogs home. You cannot possess those dogs. Previously in my evidence I said that the problem we have is not with the dogs. It is about irresponsible dog ownership. You could have a great dog, but if the owner is a bad owner, they are going to continue to commit these offences. This is exactly the same. I am aware of numerous people in north Wales who are banned from keeping animals. There are numerous people throughout the UK who are banned from keeping animals, and quite rightly so. They are irresponsible and they treat animals in an appalling manner.

[James Daly]

Q I have one final brief question. We clearly do not want to be in a situation where, if a disqualification order is made, the person convicted of a criminal offence is given responsibility for rehoming a dog. That seems ridiculous, but that is what you are suggesting would happen.

Rob Taylor: I do not see an issue with that.

[James Daly]

Q So you do not see it as the responsibility of the police or somebody else to rehome a dog in an appropriate way when it has been taken, to ensure that its welfare is maintained?

Rob Taylor: If people are caught hare coursing or badger baiting and they have a disqualification put on them, it is their responsibility to rehome the dog and move it on; otherwise, they commit further offences. It is as simple as that. The two choices we have here are that we actually do that or we let the person commit an offence, such as the 100 sheep killed in Kent a few years ago. That person might go out and buy five Alsatians the next day. Where does it stop? There has to be a point at which that person is recognised as an irresponsible dog owner and not fit to keep dogs.

[James Daly]

Q There is no dispute regarding disqualification from future purchase. What I am concerned about is the dog that is already under the ownership of a person and what happens to that dog, which has done nothing wrong whatsoever.

Rob Taylor: But that dog has done nothing wrong whatsoever up until that point. Dogs have a natural instinct to chase and attack. If the person’s dog that has committed the offence is no longer being walked, that person is walking his two whippets, Jack Russells or Yorkshire terriers and is irresponsible. That person remains irresponsible and that dog, once it attacks, will have a natural ability to chase. If the person decides to walk his dogs through a field without a lead or suitable responsibility, they will commit an offence and we are back to square one. We then have to get a disqualification order for the dog, which gets disqualified, and we carry on disqualifying that person, who could then have 20 dogs. We would spend 20 years trying to get that person not to be able to take their dog for a walk.

[James Daly]

Thank you.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Q I also want to ask Mr Taylor a few questions, sticking to part 2 of the Bill, specifically clause 39, on the meaning of “worrying livestock”. We heard in evidence this morning from both the Blue Cross and the RSPCA that there are some concerns that the definition of a dog “at large” is far too broad and that it could have unintended consequences. I am interested to know whether you share any concerns about clause 39(3)(b), which elaborates that a dog is “at large” unless it is

“within sight of a person and the person—

(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and

(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.”

Do you think that this may have unintended consequences for your ability to enforce to the law?

Rob Taylor: No, not at all. It needs to be clarified here that an act that takes somebody to court is the upper echelon. I can see five phases with regards to a livestock attack. If a dog is at large in a field or is loose beyond the control of the handler and no sheep have been chased or worried, that would be a word of advice or a lead letter, which is a standard letter that we send off. If there is an attack where a dog is chased, it moves up to a community resolution, whereby we can impose things such as the dog owner having to have control. It is a bit like a yellow card in a football match. It can then move up to a caution, then it moves up again to a prosecution. The prosecutions and destruction orders tend to be the ones that are repeat offences or where the dog handler is irresponsible from day one. That is a decision for the police managers, such as me, to make.

There are five phases. It does not mean that every single offence would go straight in at level 5 and that we would prosecute; there are various ways we deal with this. The problem we have is that the people who are at level 5, who are irresponsible and keep committing the same offences, keep buying dogs and keep going out and letting their dogs attack sheep. The problem we have is at the level 5 area, but I should say level 1 is that we do not take any action. Level 2 would be advice, level 3 would be community resolution, level 4 would be a caution and level 5 would be prosecution and possibly destruction.

Not every prosecution ends in a destruction. That would be a decision for me as to whether there are aggravated features within the offence, such as the dog has done it twice or three time before, it is a continued offence or the number of animals killed is on such a massive scale. For example, 11 cows were chased in Anglesey and had their udders ripped off. They ran across walls, broke all their legs and died—£22,000-worth. In my opinion, that would be a high-scale offence. Sadly, that offender was never caught.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you very much; that is very helpful.

[James Daly]

Q Hi Rob. I have just looked on your organisation’s website. Your organisation advises the Government on important dog and cat health and welfare issues and standards. Is that correct?

Rob Quest: Yes, the Canine and Feline Sector Group is made up of a wide range of organisations, such as Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, which you have already heard from, and the British Veterinary Association.

[James Daly]

Q If the state is detaining an animal in kennels, for whatever reason, for a lengthy period of time—potentially up to 12 months, or longer—would you advise the Government or have any views as to the welfare issues for that animal, which will almost exclusively be a dog, in respect of the legislation?

Rob Quest: Overall, animals in kennels under long-term official control are usually under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, rather than this legislation, but we would always advise that dogs should be in kennels for the absolute minimum amount of time. The sooner we can get them out of kennels and put in a proper home, the better.

[James Daly]

Q But where there is no other option, if a dog is detained by the police or any authority, perhaps for very good reason, are there any facilities other than kennels where it can be looked after for a lengthy period of time? I am asking in complete ignorance, so please forgive me.

Rob Quest: No, if a dog is not compliant on import it would have to go into one of the authorised quarantine kennels. The maximum time in those kennels to make a dog compliant is currently four months, and then it can come out. The minimum time is generally 21 days, but it may be less, depending on what subsequent paperwork turns up regarding that non-compliance.

[James Daly]

Thank you very much.

[Dr Hudson]

Q Rob, I noted your comment that, sadly, you have noticed an increasing number of dogs with cropped ears coming through Heathrow, which really rams home the importance of visual checks. The legislation aims to reduce the movement of animals that have been mutilated, so I wanted to ask if you have seen a similar increase in the number of cats coming in with their claws removed. That will be much harder to detect visually than a Dobermann with cropped ears. Have you picked up on that at all? We need to ensure that cats that have been mutilated are covered by the legislation as well.

Rob Quest: No, we have not, but that might because, as you say, it is much more difficult to know if a cat’s claws have been taken out. We have not noticed that, but it is certainly something we could look for in future. As you say, it is very easy to see if a dog’s ears have been cropped when they are taken out of the container. We have not seen anything like cropped claws. I imagine that would be mostly from the States, because that is quite routine practice there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

Thank you. I think we have answered the “lead or no lead” question.

[James Daly]

Q In Scottish law, is there an offence similar to what we are talking about where a dog attacks or worries livestock?

Mike Flynn: Yes. It was in the original 1953 Act. The Member’s Bill that Emma Harper put through last year updated it to include a wider definition of livestock—ostriches, llamas and all that kind of stuff—and to increase the penalties up to 12 months’ imprisonment and a £40,000 fine.

[James Daly]

Q One witness who has given evidence stated that in certain cases that are proceeding or have proceeded through the Scottish courts, dogs are kept in kennels for long periods—we were given one example of up to four years—while legal proceedings are ongoing. Do you have anything you can say in respect of how dogs’ welfare is maintained while legal proceedings are ongoing?

Mike Flynn: The case that Paula referred to earlier of a spaniel did take just under four years to conclude in court, because it kept getting postponed, for various reasons. Thankfully, the law in Scotland has recently changed—as recently as a month ago. Up until then, in any case that we took—because we are a reporting agency to the Crown Office, authorised by the Scottish Minister—we had to keep the animal as a production if the person refused to sign it over, until the conclusion of the criminal case. It was that or we had to take a civil case against them, which could cost up to £60,000. So that led to animals being kept in our kennels. We have the best staff and best kennels in the world, but it is not welfare friendly to keep a young dog, which is a two-year-old adult by the time it gets out of there. The law has recently changed the emphasis: animals that are seized in certain circumstances can now be disposed of after a three-week period. We have to issue a decision notice on the person, stating our intention is to dispose of the animal. “Dispose” does not mean destroy; we can rehome it, but it can be put down on veterinary advice. The person can appeal that decision, but that would be very, very unlikely.

This was originally designed for the big puppy farming cases, because we have had cases where—well, the biggest that I think we had was one where we seized 109 dogs, and they were in our care for just under 18 months. First, it is very bad for animal welfare; secondly, it is a horrendous cost to a charity, because we never get that money back. I think the biggest cost we have had was from a case with 58 dogs that had been in for 23 months. It works out at £15 per dog per day—that cost us £440,000.

There is a compensation element. W have to notify the person in the event that they lose the case or the sheriff decides otherwise. They are compensated for the current value when the animal was seized. In that individual case, the maximum compensation would have been £25,000, so we would have saved £415,000 and protected animal welfare.

[James Daly]

Q Indeed, and I think you are highlighting the problem where an offender or somebody who has been involved in this behaviour is on state benefit; they may be asked to repay the debt at £5 per week. Is that right?

Mike Flynn: Well, there is provision to recover reasonable costs, but sometimes the people that we deal with—I am sure the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals experiences the same—have no financial means. Where is the punishment in £5 a week for the rest of their life or something like that? If the animals are signed over, or with the new provision, we can get them into loving new homes a lot quicker and then it does not matter how long it takes for the criminal proceedings to commence. If Westminster has any power, I am sure the RSPCA would love you to introduce something similar down there.

[James Daly]

Thank you very much.

[Dr Hudson]

Q Thank you, Mike, for appearing before us today. I was very encouraged by your response to the Minister about the importance of the devolved nations working together on this important legislation. In your answer, you said that it has to be joined up; otherwise there will be loopholes. Can you give us examples in, perhaps, previous legislation where loopholes have opened up and where that has adversely impacted on animal welfare? I am specifically thinking of things like Lucy’s law and third party sales. Have you experience of that in the United Kingdom where there have been discrepancies in different parts of the UK and it has had adverse animal welfare impacts inadvertently?

Mike Flynn: There must be several examples, but one that springs to mind is that until about nine years ago, when a consequential amendment to sentencing powers was brought in, somebody banned in England was not banned in Scotland. It was not UK-wide until that amendment came in, so people from Manchester and Liverpool who were banned were moving up to Scotland and evading the ban—I am sure there would be Scottish people doing the same. But the amendment closed that, so if people are banned in England and Wales, they are also banned in Scotland, and vice versa. So you have things like that.

Lucy’s law has been widely talked about, but there are loopholes in that. Somebody can say, “I bred it myself.” People who bring in pregnant bitches did not breed the dog, but they hand the bitch over when it gives birth. Let us be honest: a lot of the people we deal with are out-and-out criminals. I am talking about the puppy trade. They just use puppies as a commodity, and if they can find a loophole, whether it is through England, Wales or Scotland, they will find it and use it because the profits are so huge.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Grundy]

That is incredibly helpful. Thank you very much.

[James Daly]

Q Dr Wright, thank you very much for your evidence, which has been very helpful indeed. One issue is that if the vast majority of attacks on livestock come from animals that are in somebody’s back garden or that escape from some form of premises, there are obviously some legal difficulties in respect of that, because no Bill will ever be able to say that someone must have a fence that is 6 foot tall, 7 foot tall or whatever. What is your feeling about that? I think you would probably accept, Dr Wright, that we cannot ever produce legislation that will be specific enough to cover every possible eventuality. One of the things that we are talking about is criminalising the behaviour of people who do not know that their animals are potentially attacking sheep. You can commit a criminal offence, even though you did not know that you were doing so. Then the definition of “irresponsibility” becomes very difficult when a dog is in somebody’s back yard. Do you have any views on that?

Dr Wright: We have had a lot of conversations with members about how things happen with livestock worrying after the horse bolted, because, in effect, you are trying to find the culprit of an attack that has already happened. I do not think that we will ever get to a situation whereby we can prevent every single attack—that is absolutely correct. I am hoping that the Bill will increase the seriousness of the offence, so that people understand that even if they are not present at the time and there are no witnesses, a police officer could knock at the door with a warrant, take a DNA sample from the dog and compare it with DNA collected at a crime scene. You do not have to have been around at the time of the offence.

I am hoping that intelligence within communities will help as well. When you do not legitimise something and say that it is just one of those things, when legislation comes in and says, “Actually, we’re taking this seriously, because this is a very important issue,” the fines, the powers for police, the enforcement and the investigation display our strength with this and how important we feel it is, and that will feed back to communities where there have been problems and help the police in their ability to do something about it. In some respects, I know it is after the horses have bolted, but I am hoping we can close the door to stop any more horses escaping. That is the analogy I give to farmers, because as you say, you would never solve it 100% of the time. What we need to get to is that when dog owners are thinking about their dogs, they understand that there are serious consequences to this.

There is a responsibility on industry to communicate that as well. I happen to sit on the Animal Welfare Network Wales, which has a lot of animal charities on it as well, and I have been using their groups to disseminate to their members—the people who would not necessarily speak to the union but would speak to, say, other animal charities about how to look after their dogs. So there are ways and means to get the intelligence out there to those people who maybe would not have known about it before. As you say, we are not going to get everyone, but I am hoping that by committing what we have done so far to it we can potentially stop future attacks.

[James Daly]

Thank you, Dr Wright; that is very helpful indeed.

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

Q Thank you, Dr Wright. Nice to see you. I just want to play devil’s advocate on a quick question. We have heard a lot about animals that escape and they tend to carry out the vast majority of the attacks. Is there any leverage—again, this is me definitely playing devil’s advocate—in farmers and landowners constantly updating the signage on their gates and fences? If you live in the same area and there is always a livestock grazing sign on the same field and you know that three quarters of the year there is not anything in there at all, people become complacent about walking their dogs and will let them off, not necessarily knowing that the livestock might be over the brow of the hill. Would your members be open to doing something like that if you think it might help? Is that something you think we should be writing into the Bill, or that just gets out because it is good practice?

Dr Wright: It is interesting, because we provide signs for members but we have been constrained by what we can and cannot say legally, because we cannot say that dogs must be kept on a lead near livestock. What we say is, “Please keep your dog on a lead” near livestock at the moment. I am hoping, with the Bill, assuming that I get the change that I would like to see, which is that they must be on a lead and not just with this arbitrary “proper control” definition, that members can put more enforcing signs up that are a bit more important than the ones they put up before. When a dog walker sees a sign that says, “Please keep your dog on a lead”, it is quite gentle, is it not? If the sign says, “It is a legal requirement for your dog to be on a lead in this field”, it is a different conversation. I would like a farmer to be able to do that. Without the Bill allowing them to do that, you put them in a position where they are still having to just be polite, and I would like them to be backed up by legislation to do that.

Microchipping of Pets

James Daly Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. These two very important petitions essentially deal with the same matter—the fact that there is no legal requirement on veterinarians, local authorities or highways agencies to scan dog or cat microchips in any circumstances, and variations of legal problems that flow from that fact. I will confine my remarks in the main to Tuk’s law, for reasons I will outline in a second. However, I fully support Fern’s law. I will not add to what other hon. Members have said, but I do not think the Minister will be unsuspecting of what I am about to say. Fern’s law asks for it to be made compulsory to scan and check all microchips, to reunite stolen dogs and cats. The request behind Gizmo’s law is that more legislation should be brought in for deceased cats and other pets, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister—she is the most fantastic Minister on such issues—to ensure that Gizmo’s law is given due consideration at the earliest opportunity, which I know I say to the Minister every single time I meet her in and outside the main Chamber. Gizmo’s law is an important part of the animal legislation that I believe the Government should bring forward.

Like many other Members, I am a dog owner. My friend is Bertie, a 16-month-old black lab, and I do not know what I would do without him. Tuk was a 16-month-old rescue dog—the same age as my dog—and, sadly, he was destroyed on 22 December 2017. This debate follows on from that event and that sacrifice. Tuk was not scanned prior to euthanasia, and his rescue back-ups were not contacted or notified of his death, even though he had full rescue back-up registered on his microchip and on the original database. It required only the microchip to be scanned for the rescue back-up to be contacted and for Tuk to be saved, which highlights the importance of the legislation.

I have worked with Sue Williams, Dawn Ashley and Dominic Dyer. I introduced a private Member’s Bill on Tuk’s law, which sadly fell, in the last Session, but I have decided to make my remarks about Tuk’s law their words, because they are the passionate campaigners who have driven the campaign forward. They are the people who have got over 100,000 signatures in their desire to protect animals.

What is a rescue back-up registration on a microchip? As part of the adoption contract, rescue organisations register their details on the original database as a secondary contact. In times of vulnerability, the secondary contact is there to protect the animal from being unnecessarily euthanised and to alert the veterinarian that an alternative is in place.

What is rescue back-up? Once an animal is adopted and rehomed, the rescue remains a presence in their life, offering rescue back-up to the adopter for the duration of the pet’s life. The rescue is available for advice, and should the adopter no longer be able to care for the animal, the rescue will support them and find an alternative new home. For those reasons, I am therefore delighted that Tuk’s law has been included in the Government’s action plan for animals, and I thank the Minister and the Government for that.

I want to point out some of the concerns of the Tuk’s law campaign. I know the Minister is aware of them, but they bear repeating. As ever, the Tuk’s law campaign continues to lobby the Government to ensure that all microchipped details, including the rescue back-up contact details for the rescue organisation, are confirmed on the original database prior to the euthanasia of a healthy or treatable animal. The Tuk’s law campaign also requests that, once confirmed, any identified rescue back-up details, including the rescue organisation’s contact details, are registered on veterinarian practice databases, and that should an animal ever be in a vulnerable position, the veterinarians agree to communicate with the rescue or second contact prior to the euthanasia of the healthy or treatable animal.

Obviously, we have heard that DEFRA, the RCVS and BVA have taken some positive steps to prevent the unnecessary euthanasia of dogs. However, the Tuk’s law campaign is dedicated to ensuring that lives are not unnecessarily lost. The campaigners consider that the commitment in its current form does not go far enough, and they believe that the omission of the word “treatable” in the recent change to the RCVS code of conduct leaves many animals still at risk. Although there is appreciation that the BVA has concerns regarding the levels of intervention that the veterinarian profession is willing to undertake, those steps should be taken when the life of any animal is at risk.

This is a subject that I could speak on for a long time. It is rooted in common sense, legality and the desire of all our constituents to ensure that no healthy animals— like Tuk, Bertie and the pets that right hon. and hon. Members have talked about—are ever in a position, be it through theft or loss, whereby they lose their lives through no fault of their own, even though a rescue back-up is in place to help them, to protect them and to ensure that they continue to be the constant companions that we all value and treasure as part of our everyday lives.

Animal Welfare

James Daly Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Mundell. I endorse the things that all colleagues have spoken about.

I will concentrate my remarks on e-petition 574305 regarding ear cropping of dogs in the UK, which is an abhorrent practice. In recognition that there is no medical justification for ear cropping, the procedure has been banned in the UK for over 100 years and is currently covered by section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as an illegal mutilation. I am grateful to Pennine Vets in my constituency for briefing me on this important issue.

The current position in the UK is that although it is illegal to conduct such mutilation, it is not illegal to import a dog with cropped ears, which has resulted in several issues. The first is that owners and breeders can send their puppies abroad to be cropped and then returned to the UK, only to claim that the dog is a legal import. This quite frequently involves transporting a puppy that is too young for travel, but it also means that if the cropping is done in another country where cropping is illegal, the enforcement agencies in that country are not able to bring any prosecutions, as the evidence—the cropped puppy—has left their jurisdiction.

The second issue is that pro croppers have relied on the ability to import cropped dogs in order to hide a very dark back-street practice, whereby breeders or owners undertake illegal do-it-yourself cropping, frequently with no medical knowledge or training, and with rudimentary equipment, no anaesthetic and no post-operative pain relief for the dogs. As the ability to import cropped dogs also extends to rescue dogs, it is imperative that genuine rescue dogs are protected and are not demonised due to the abuse they have suffered. The pain and suffering caused to the dogs does not cease post procedure. One of the breeds frequently cropped is the Doberman, which is a large and noble breed. For Doberman puppies, ear cropping can mean not only the severance of a significant part of their ear flap, but months of splinting and/or taping in order to encourage the remaining ear to stand erect. This is not a guaranteed result; it can and does fail, leaving the dog either having to go through further surgery to try to obtain the original desired look, or with one ear erect and one ear flapping. Wound infections are not uncommon. The practice is utterly abhorrent, and I fully support the Government’s move to include ear cropping in the action plan for animal welfare.

I have to finish by echoing something that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) said—not forgetting the cat. On numerous occasions, I have stood with my hon. Friend the Minister and talked about Gizmo’s law, which is not included—I stand to be corrected—in the plan for animal welfare. It is an animal welfare issue that is incredibly serious and very important to people in my constituency, and I know that other colleagues, including the shadow Minister, have had meetings with Helena Abrahams—a force of nature—to try to put this important law into statute. I am grateful that the Government adopted Tuk’s law, which was part of a private Member’s Bill that I introduced, and I hope that Gizmo’s law will follow very shortly.