Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Karin Smyth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about this really important Bill, which I fully support. It is good to see it coming forward. As she outlined, we are still waiting for a consultation response from the Government, but does she agree that it is deeply disappointing that the Government dropped their Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which would have looked at these issues more carefully? We need greater action from the Government on animal welfare. Even though this Bill will help, we need more.

[Selaine Saxby]

This Government have done more on animal welfare than any previous Government, and we will continue to do so. Like everyone else, I was disappointed that that Bill collapsed, but that was due to amendments that changed the nature of the original Bill. I very much welcome the cross-party support for this Bill.

The amendments to the non-commercial pet travel scheme rules and related measures, which include the maximum number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be moved into Great Britain within five days of the owner’s movements will extend to England, Wales and Scotland. The Bill does not apply to the domestic movement of dogs, cats and ferrets within our United Kingdom, so travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britian will not be affected.

Many colleagues and hon. Friends are in the Chamber to support this Bill, and I know that some may think that we have not gone far enough, but we need to be pragmatic with this Bill and do not want perfection to be the enemy of the good. I believe that, as it stands, it will do a lot to safeguard the welfare of the thousands of puppies, cats and ferrets that come into Great Britain from overseas each year. It will also prevent the heartache and unexpected cost to families who unknowingly buy young and ill pets that often come with hidden health conditions.

The measures I have outlined aim to make vast animal welfare improvements to the current pet import rules. With secondary legislation, the measures will go further than the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill to ensure that loopholes are tightened. I again thank all the charities and interested groups that have shared their views about the Bill. I hope that the Bill has met some of the expectations and illustrated the positive steps that we are taking to stop this cruel trade. We are a nation of animal lovers—a Parliament of pet lovers—and this legislation will ensure that the UK is leading the world when it comes to animal welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his considered intervention and agree wholeheartedly that we need to make sure that public information and education is improved. Many people do not understand the impact and possible implications of taking a young puppy or kitten so early. They often do this out of the goodness of their heart, and with the best intentions of wanting to look after a young puppy or kitten or get one for their children, but we need to ensure that people are aware of the long-term and often permanent damage that can be done to young puppies and kittens in this way. By removing the ability to import puppies and kittens under the age of six months, we can likely remove the incentive for these animals to be stripped from their mothers at a critically young age and thus reduce the numbers of puppies and kittens suffering from the health and welfare consequences of premature separation.

We should also prohibit the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated, which several Members have talked about. Those animals have often suffered the trauma of unnecessary procedures such as ear cropping and tail docking. Such mutilations have no health benefits; they are abusive practices recognised in UK law as illegal. They offer only emotional and physical trauma to the animals on which they are inflicted. Preventing the importation of animals with these traumatic mutilations will also prevent the importation of animals which, as a result of the physical and emotional trauma caused by the mutilations, can develop behavioural changes.

Dogs with cropped ears or docked tails may be recognised by certain members of the public as being more aggressive or dangerous. We hear that regularly—or at any rate I do, in my surgeries. If people keep their own pets away from these animals, which they often do for fear of aggression towards them or their dogs, the animals will suffer further from a lack of socialisation and their behaviour will worsen further. Similarly, the banning of imports of dogs and cats with mutilations will protect puppies and kittens from harmful practices, and will hopefully instigate a decline in demand for pets with certain physical characteristics. If it is illegal to import a puppy with cropped ears, it is common sense that the incentive to crop that puppy’s ears at its location of origin will be diminished. If it cannot be imported and sold legally in the UK, it is logical to conclude that that characteristic will lose the value that it once had to the importer.

We may also hope that the criminalisation of certain mutilations will reduce the demand for these practices from the consumer, along with the education referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). In this place, I frequently hear the argument that the criminalisation of any activity may increase the attractiveness of engaging in whatever is being criminalised, but in the case of animal welfare I do not find that argument particularly convincing. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I believe that following the criminalisation of certain mutilations, those wanting to buy a puppy or kitten may understand better the harm associated with these practices and choose to shun the imported animals. We ban them because of the mutilations and because they are damaging, not just because this is a fashion that we do not like.

As for those whose conscience does not prohibit them from requiring a mutilated puppy or kitten, the recognition of their pet’s becoming illegal in the future might. We can hope that both the importer and the consumer will be discouraged from mutilating and acquiring mutilated animals respectively. The legal importation will all but disappear, and we may hope—optimistically—that the illegal smuggling trade will face several disruptions, with the broader recognition of the harm that mutilated animals have endured.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that although many of us have learnt a great deal about these practices, courtesy of the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), the wider public are not aware of some of the consequences? Could the Government not do much more to inform the public of these practices and support the wider provisions of the Bill?

[Ashley Dalton]

I entirely agree. The wider public are not necessarily aware of that or the wide range of existing legislation, let alone the provisions that will be introduced by the Bill if it proceeds successfully. By engaging in this debate we are helping to raise awareness, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on enabling that by presenting the Bill.

The proposed banning of the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats is another provision that will help to protect animal health and welfare. The plans of those seeking to circumvent new rules limiting the number of animals imported under non-commercial rules would be scuppered. Those seeking to abuse our laws will always try to find new ways in which to sustain their exploitative operations in any which way they can, but the Bill, well thought out as it is, offers great two-layer protection for puppies and kittens. Let us imagine a scenario in which a puppy smuggler wanted to import several puppies or kittens, under the guise of the animals being their pets. The limit to the legal importation of these animals under non-commercial rules on an aeroplane would now be three. Cognisant of that limit, a smuggler could have sought to import a heavily pregnant dog or cat which would then give birth in the UK to numerous puppies or kittens which could then be sold. This practice would be limited, with the further provision banning the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats. A puppy smuggler could not simply travel with a heavily pregnant dog or cat under the guise of pet ownership for the animal then to give birth as a commercial opportunity in the UK.

Crucially, the Bill will also support the health and welfare of pregnant cats and dogs, who are our pets and can suffer greatly from international travel when heavily pregnant. The physical and emotional upheaval of long-haul travel can prompt early labour without the necessary veterinary care, and therefore carries risks of harm or death for both the mother and the puppies or kittens involved.

In reviewing the specifics of the Bill in preparation for the debate, I was astonished to find that some of its provisions were not already enshrined in legislation. These are sensible and considered measures for which I can see little downside, and they are well supported by others outside this place. The support that the Bill has garnered from animal welfare stakeholders and charities demonstrates the benefit its provisions could have for the health and welfare of puppies and kittens in the UK.

The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home all support measures in the Bill, and they supported them when they were introduced in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Those stakeholders are the experts in the field, and their endorsement has reassured me that the measures are well considered and likely to positively impact the health and welfare of cats and dogs.

In fact, the importance of supporting the Bill has grown greater since the Government abandoned the kept animals Bill in May 2023. The Prime Minister rode back on the commitment he made during his ill-fated leadership election in which he pledged to retain that Bill in the Government’s legislative agenda. It was left to Opposition Members to try to revive that Bill in an Opposition day debate on 21 June last year. I spoke then in defence of greater regulation to ensure the welfare of animals imported into this country. Despite voting in favour of Labour’s motion, Government Members rejected our best attempts to revive the Bill.

I have since pressed the Government in this place on their failure to support better animal welfare standards. In January, on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, I pressed the Minister about the Government’s plans on puppy smuggling and ear-cropping legislation. However, as the title of that Bill suggested, the Government were concerned there not with the importation of domestic pets but with the exports of livestock. The absence of legislation in this area is exactly why I was keen to speak today in support of this Bill.

Northern Ireland Border

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

On the latter point, the legal obligations that exist apply to the relevant authorities, whether that is the UK Government or indeed the Northern Ireland Executive, so businesses should continue as normal. There is no legal liability to businesses for continuing to trade with Northern Ireland under any circumstances. On the former point, I hope that I have made it clear in everything I have said that the UK Government hope that the Northern Ireland Executive will continue and that they will pull together and find a resolution to this problem. That is the right thing to do.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

This is really the most farcical of situations among a number of farcical situations. It seems to me that what the Minister is saying here today is that everything is as was and as normal and traders can continue. Mr Poots seems to have lawyers; I wonder whether the Government’s lawyers are involved in any of this. It seems to me that the Government are involved in wishful thinking, following on from the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about what happens next. Can the Minister tell us what is plan B?

[George Eustice]

I am here to give the House an update on the current situation, which I am doing in all the detail that I am able to. If events change, I am sure there will be an opportunity to have to further such exchanges.

UK-French Trading Dispute

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Obviously if the French did carry through that threat, individual businesses would make decisions about how best to get their goods to market. The important thing is that we very much hope they will not. We do not think it is consistent with the trade and co-operation agreement. It probably is not consistent with the official control regime under EU law. The official control regime exists to manage risks—it is a risk-based regime—and it is not there to be used for retaliation, as it is being described.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Is it not really time to get rid of Lord Frost? [Interruption.] He obviously has a lot of friends. Presumably that is why he is there. He continues to damage the relationship with Ireland, our nearest neighbours. The Falkland Islanders have still not had agreement about their tariffs, because of a lack of agreement with the Spanish. Now, this long-running and long-brewing dispute with the French continues. The Secretary of State talks about constructive discussions, but clearly with Lord Frost at the helm continuing to destroy these relationships, that is not possible.

[George Eustice]

What the hon. Lady says is an absolute nonsense. I work closely with Lord Frost, who is a very able negotiator and stands up for the interests of our country in these discussions. I can assure her that he has very good relations with the negotiators that he deals with from the European Union.

The Climate Emergency

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

On 1 May, the Labour Party, led ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), forced the Government to declare a climate emergency. The motion gave the Government six months to bring forward urgent proposals to restore our natural environment and deliver a circular zero-waste economy. Six months on, the clock is ticking, and what did we see in the Queen’s Speech: piecemeal measures—some welcome—to tinker around the edges while the rate of climate change accelerates in the UK at an alarming rate.

This Queen’s Speech was used for propaganda by the Conservative party. The Prime Minister promises the earth, but he will deliver nothing and continue to ignore the enormity of the threat. Obviously, recycling and plastic waste are important, but they are not the critical issues facing people in my constituency. We need urgent support and investment in energy-saving measures—in solar, heat and water heating—and in our housing stock. This is a massive infrastructure issue. It is also a massive opportunity to bring decent jobs to the people I represent, but it is being missed by the Government.

In Bristol South, my focus has always been on post-16 educational opportunities, health and housing. Those are the key things that matter to my constituents, some of whom face the greatest deprivation in this country. Transport—to get jobs to them and them to jobs—is the other key issue. They can all be improved with better policy proposals and investment, which could also help us to meet the climate change challenge, but the Government are not bringing forward any measures for them.

There are some measures that we can welcome in the Environment Bill. In particular, I and my Bristol colleagues welcome the location of the new office for environmental protection, but that body needs teeth. At the moment, it is not truly independent or set up to really hold the Government to account, so we have some concerns about that. I hope that it will bring decent jobs to my constituency and that it focuses on the issues I have identified, as this would help people, particularly those in fuel poverty and in poor-quality housing, to achieve the standards we desperately need to meet.

When I first entered this place in 2015, my surgery was full of young entrepreneurs in Bristol South who had had the legs cut out from under their businesses by the Government’s changes to the infrastructure support, particularly for solar heating and so on. The Government have never supported businesses in Bristol South. I would really like to see them start to reverse that type of policy. Brexit dominates most of our debates at the moment. The idea that the Environment Secretary and the Prime Minister want stronger protections and greater investment in communities facing poverty, particularly fuel poverty, and the devastating effects of climate change is for the birds.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

Lots of things were said by both sides in the referendum that should never have been said, some of them by Members who have already addressed the House.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

One of the things that was said time after time was that there would be no consequences for peace on the island of Ireland. We have heard today from the Dispatch Box—the Secretary of State may want to come back on this—that a consequence of the Government not ruling out no deal tonight is, potentially, direct rule. That is a major shift in the Government’s position. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those are not fears, but the actualities we are dealing with?

[Keir Starmer]

I will come to the position in Ireland, because it was and has been treated casually, as if it is all a technical question of a line in the road. Anyone who has spent any time in Ireland in the past two years will realise the impact that Brexit is having on the politics of Ireland, which go well beyond the technicalities of the customs union and the single market.