Storm Bert

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend should be reassured, and so should the whole House, that in most affected parts of the country, warnings were given with adequate time for people to prepare. I encourage people to sign up on the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or of the Environment Agency for warnings and alerts if they live in an area that could be affected by flooding. I am aware of the particular concern that my hon. Friend mentions about the Met Office; I will indeed be speaking to colleagues in DSIT as they review the circumstances and look at how the situation can be improved for future such events.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to what happens after the acute phase of flooding, particularly in rural areas like mine. I have small areas and villages that are affected and then struggle to get things sorted out. For example, Witherley in my constituency is small enough to be affected heavily by flooding that goes up through its roads, but it then struggles to have the capacity to get all the agencies to sort it out because of the funding. When he looks at the funding model, will he consider the issue of size?

Also, trying to pull agencies together in one place has taken me more than a year. We are meeting on 13 December to plan, but it has taken 10 years of work to get them all together. Will the Secretary of State look at a way of ensuring that the process is clear, so that it is spelled out to all the agencies, including fire agencies and water companies, what they are accountable for? Everyone, and most importantly the public who are affected, needs to know who is accountable for what.

[Steve Reed]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in trying to bring the agencies together in his locality, which is precisely what we are trying to do at a national level with the floods resilience taskforce. In fact, it would be helpful for the taskforce to look into how co-ordination is happening on the ground in localities such as his, especially given how long he has been pushing for this to happen in a more effective way—so far, sadly, without success. I would very much like to see the national taskforce supporting him in that work so that he can deliver for his local residents.

Rural Affairs

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Another point we need to consider is the impact on food security if farmers decide to hand back their farms or have their farms broken up, as my right hon. Friend suggests. Does she have any thoughts or has she seen any evidence about the possible impact on food security? I have not seen any such evidence, which is a concern in itself.

[Victoria Atkins]

It most certainly is a concern, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. He represents a very rural constituency and knows only too well the concerns his constituents are facing. It is a good point, which I will develop later in my speech.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend and near neighbour is right to pay tribute to our food producers. One thing we know for sure is that we are going to need food into the future, and farmers are essential to the future of this nation and our economy. That is why we will treat them with the utmost respect and seriousness and have a serious debate about how we transform farming. Again, while this has not been picked up much in the debate so far, the effect of this Budget is to speed up still further that transition to an environmentally friendly, nature-friendly way of farming, alongside producing the food that our country needs. That is a really important transition—I pay tribute to the current Opposition, who started that process in government, but I have been unwavering in my support for it for a number of years and I am determined to see it through to a proper conclusion. My hon. Friend is also right that we will work with everyone involved to get good, sensible outcomes, because that is what this Government are about.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The National Farmers Union tweeted:

“In 2023 Prime Minister Keir Starmer looked farmers in the eye and said he knew what losing a farm meant. Farmers believed him. After today’s budget they don’t believe him any more.”

What is the Prime Minister going to do practically to resolve that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

When we came to power a few months ago, the thing I was asked most strongly to do was to provide stability for the future. Through a series of interventions over the past few months, I have tried to indicate that that is exactly what we will do, whether through the environmental land management schemes or any other issues. The Government faced a huge challenge at this Budget—we all know that. Decisions had to be made. However, I am absolutely convinced that farmers and all those other people who live in rural areas want and need exactly the same decent health services, housing and transport as others do. They will be able to carry on farming, as they have done, but the difference is that that will be in a stable economic system, which means they will not suffer in the way they have over the last decade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the online fraud charter—a world first—which sits under the Online Safety Act 2023. Twelve of the biggest tech companies are working together to reduce fraud on their platforms. The signatories are agreeing to undertake certain measures within six months, such as blocking, reporting and take-downs, to ensure that the vulnerable—such as children being exploited as money mules—are protected online.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in prosecuting people that have committed crimes while protesting.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)]

Non-threatening peaceful protest is fundamental, but those rights are not absolute and they must be balanced with the rights and freedom of others. The CPS works closely with the police to ensure that those who commit offences during protests are brought to justice and our streets are kept safe. Indeed, just last month the CPS successfully prosecuted a protester under the Terrorism Act 2000 after he wore a Hamas headband to a pro-Palestine rally.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister rightly points out that there is a clear balance between democratic peaceful protest and the tactics used by the likes of Just Stop Oil to disrupt society. We have seen mass protests, mostly peaceful, on the London streets, but we did see damage, such as that to the Ministry of Defence, which is completely unacceptable. How do the new laws that we have passed in Parliament aid the prosecution of those who are not interested in peaceful protest?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this extremely pertinent and concerning point. The police already have a full suite of powers under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986—as well as some relating to criminal damage, the offence to which he referred. To ensure that they act, the Government have, however, reinforced those powers under the Public Order Act 2023. The Crown Prosecution Service is working closely with the police in, for instance, providing round-the-clock charging advice nationally. My hon. Friend is right: it is unacceptable that those who are taking part in legitimate democratic processes commit criminal damage, and it is also utterly unacceptable that, for example, Jewish people feel threatened. The Government expect the full powers available to the police to be used so that offenders can be prosecuted.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I drew attention to my right hon. Friend’s long campaigning, and I will return, if I may, to the trajectory of this issue before addressing her point.

Calls for a ban intensified after 2012, when the Animal and Plant Health Agency intercepted a consignment of sheep due to sail from the port of Ramsgate and 42 sheep were humanely killed after being found unfit to travel. I welcome that, since the 1990s, we have seen export numbers decline significantly. In 2020, around 6,300 sheep were exported from Great Britain to the EU for slaughter, and around 38,000 sheep were exported for fattening. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the UK’s exit from the EU, there have been no recorded exports for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU since January 2021, and now is the time to enshrine that in law.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for making the point that, from 2021, there have been no further exports for slaughter. My farmers are concerned about reproduction. Can he clarify whether the Bill is just about slaughter? What can be done about the gene pool, by making sure that people are still allowed to trade genetic material across the world in order to strengthen stocks?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend characteristically raises a pertinent point, which I will address. He is right to draw a distinction between exports for slaughter and wider breeding programmes, particularly in the horse industry.

Given the demand from Europe’s slaughterhouses for livestock, especially British sheep, there is no reason to think that this trade would not resume at the first opportunity if we did not legislate now to ban live exports. That is why we must put an end to this unnecessary trade.

Long journey times can lead to a host of animal welfare issues, including stress, exhaustion, dehydration and injury. The journeys that once took young, unweaned calves from Great Britain to Spain for fattening were found to last on average 60 hours, and in some cases over 100 hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend must have read my speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), because we certainly want people to go further and faster. As the Secretary of State has already said, it has taken seven or eight years to get to this point. Although we are clear that the Bill is only one step towards improving animal welfare, the Government have dithered, delayed and let down livestock, our pets and animals. There have been 13 and a half years of inaction, failure and disappointment.

The Tories have taken a weak approach to animal welfare, from pulling Bills to caving in to their Back Benchers. There has been little commitment to following through on their promises and pledges. I say to Government Members—well, to those who are here—we will take no lessons from this Conservative Government that recently ditched plans to end puppy farming and trophy hunting, among other examples of letting us down on animal welfare. We cannot forget the much missed Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, because that is where the Bill comes from. Back in May, the Conservative Government threw out the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and instead decided to implement various measures separately, which is why we are here today.

The Tories’ track record on animal welfare has been nothing short of a disaster. They have shown themselves to be a party that cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting vulnerable animals, just as they have proven themselves to be a party that has no interest in helping vulnerable people. Will the Minister tell us where the ban on cages for farmed animals is? Where is the animal welfare labelling or the action to ensure that farmers from Newport West to Newcastle-under-Lyme, from High Peak to the highlands, are not undercut by low welfare imports?

In particular, where is the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) said:

“Hunting endangered animals is barbaric and must be confined to history. We must stop the selfish trophy hunters who want to slaughter then display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification. The Conservative government must stop siding with these killers. If they refuse to act, they will be complicit in the slaughter as they break yet another pre-election promise.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with that and, if so, what will he do about it? If he does not agree, why not?

There is even more. Where is the action to stop puppy smuggling? Where is the plan to stop pet theft? When will we finally see a ban on the importation of dogs with cropped ears? Will we ever see a ban on snares? The Welsh Labour Government have banned snares and, thanks to pressure from the Labour party, the Scottish Government are planning to do the same, so why is Westminster still dithering and delaying?

Many of these promises were contained in the 2021 action plan for animals. Has the Minister read the action plan? If so, why has he abandoned so many of the promises contained in it? Making changes through private Members’ Bills is not leadership. If Ministers really want Tory Back Benchers to lead on animal welfare legislation, the Prime Minister could make one of them animal welfare Minister.

[Dr Luke Evans]

As a Back Bencher who served on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee, the biggest problem was that lots of additional legislation was potentially being added to the Bill. Would the Opposition spokesperson like to comment on the Labour party’s position on halal slaughter, for example?

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue; I look forward to that discussion in Committee.

Making changes through private Members’ Bills is not leadership. Rather than Tory Back Benchers leading on animal welfare legislation, Ministers need to get on with it. I pay tribute to all the stakeholders and campaigners who devote their time and attention to fighting for the strongest animal welfare provisions we can deliver. The Opposition stand ready to facilitate a speedy journey through the House for the Bill, but we will seek to make it as strong, effective and durable as we can.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. She is doing a wonderful job raising many of the issues that I also see in Bosworth, which is an 85% rural community. She has hit on the issue of sparsity and its impact on the delivery of services that need to be able to reach people, such as care workers. Does she agree that the Government should consider changing the local authority funding formula such that it takes sparsity into account? That would make a real difference, because it is a real problem when it comes to hidden rural poverty.

[Sarah Dyke]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is very important for very rural areas such as Somerset, so I thank him for that.

Moving on to broadband, poor levels of rural connectivity and broadband impact rural economies, limiting growth and inhibiting people’s lives. New research by Vodafone UK revealed the extent of the rural digital divide across the UK. Somerton and Frome is in the bottom 6% of constituencies for mobile coverage, and nearly a quarter of the constituency is in a total 5G notspot. This has a significant impact on attracting businesses to the area, with rural businesses already struggling with online sales, services and accepting credit card payments.

For these reasons, many rural businesses rely on cash, meaning that access to cash is even more important in rural areas. Three banks have closed in Somerton and Frome in the last year alone, and the sharp drop in Government services through post offices has exacerbated the problem of post offices closing. Since 2010, Government services through post offices have declined by over 75%, as provision has been withdrawn. That affects the profitability of post offices and withdraws a valuable front-facing public asset from rural communities.

While the Government may brag about bringing inflation down to 4.6%, food inflation remains very high, at around 10%. The impact of food inflation can hit rural communities harder than their urban counterparts. Research by Which? found that people who rely on small local supermarket stores will almost never be able to buy essential budget-line items. Those types of stores are more prevalent in rural communities, with access to larger supermarkets more likely to be close to the urban centres.

Data from the Association of Convenience Stores shows that rural consumer visits to local convenience stores dropped from 3.4 times a week in 2018 to 2.5 times in 2022, suggesting that people are feeling the effects of food inflation acutely, which will hurt these convenience stores. When local convenience stores fail, they leave behind an empty space, which is often unfilled, depriving the community of vital provisions and forcing people to travel further for goods. Over the last two years, food prices have risen by more than a quarter. Examples of food prices now compared with 12 months ago reveal the extent to which people are struggling. In Tesco 12 months ago, 10 large eggs were sold at £2.70; now, they cost £3.85. The cost is 42% higher in just one year.

To tackle food prices and ensure food security, the Government need to provide support to those who grow our food. We need sustainable food production here at home. The common agricultural policy reform was welcomed, but the Government have botched that, leaving many farmers on the brink. The farming budget for England has not increased in line with inflation, despite the cost of farmers’ inputs and energy costs increasing significantly. Also, the latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that the average farm in England is £5,000 down this year because of departmental underspend.

Before the autumn statement, the National Farmers Union president was clear that British farming needs more investment. That is something that I, as someone from a farming family, fully agree with. It is also something that my party fully agrees with. The Liberal Democrats want to boost the farming budget by £1 billion to provide farmers with the relief that they so desperately need, alongside giving food producers more energy support.

Our rural communities have an intrinsic relationship with farming; 91% of land in Somerton and Frome is agricultural. Farming and its supply chain are major employers throughout rural communities, but they are struggling to get the workers that they need, which points to the major workforce problems in the sector. A report last year by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that covid and Brexit had had a huge impact on the sector. A lack of workers severely affects the productivity of our farms, resulting in higher food prices. The Liberal Democrats want to act on that by ensuring that we provide visas for agricultural workers and allow our farms to produce the food that they so desperately want to produce.

Farms have also been heavily affected by increases in energy costs. The Government reduced energy support for farms drastically—by 85%—in replacing the energy bill relief scheme with the energy bills discount scheme, and with farms not being classified as an energy and trade-intensive industry, farmers have been denied extra support, despite the industry being highly energy intensive.

The high costs of energy have also massively impacted domestic consumers. The higher likelihood of rural communities not having a direct relationship with their energy supplier has posed different difficulties for rural consumers from those faced by their urban counterparts. A quarter of homes in Somerton and Frome are off the gas grid and rely on alternative sources of fuel. Between 2021 and 2023, heating oil prices rose by 77% and the price of liquid gas doubled. The energy price guarantee introduced by the Government to cap people’s energy costs did not cover off-grid homes. They were forced to wait for the Government’s alternative fuels payment. It was initially £100, but after extensive lobbying, including by some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, the Government increased that to £200. However, it was not rolled out for those completely off grid until March 2023. Those who are off grid are still suffering high fuel costs, with liquified petroleum gas twice the price it was two years ago. I believe that the Government need to introduce a cap on domestic heating oil to support rural areas.

The rural premium applied in rural areas needs to be recognised by the Government, and support needs to be in place to alleviate the current high cost of living. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to help rural people. This Government have shown that they do not.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) on securing this debate.

The United Kingdom boasts a rich tapestry of rural communities, each with its unique charm, heritage and challenges. Over the years the UK Government have strongly recognised the significance of these communities and have implemented various measures to support their growth, sustainability and resilience.

Earlier this year, when I was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I wrote the foreword for, and indeed owned the whole document called “Unleashing rural opportunity”, in which we set out really important ways to ensure that our rural communities thrive. Whether it was about investing in the rural economy, removing barriers to enterprise or improving connections, we have already seen significant improvements in digital connection, and under Project Gigabit we will go even further.

There have also been connections on transport. I recognise what the hon. Lady said in that regard. Particularly in some rural areas, the sparsity of communities is challenging when it comes to providing a consistent public transport service. However, I hope that she welcomed the £2 bus fare cap, which I know has significantly improved the use of bus services in Suffolk. There has also been other support, which can often go towards things such as community volunteer transport or transport on demand, which, to be candid, I think is still going to be the most likely way to have an on-demand service for most of our very rural communities.

I also believe that there is more that we need to do on aspects of affordable housing and on aspects of energy. A decade ago, I was strongly involved in the fuel poverty challenge for properties off the gas grid. In fact, the Government changed the law under the Digital Economy Act 2017, a change that I helped to secure. That was to allow the opportunity to get information that the Government had but which was collected with certain powers that restricted its use, in order to open up that information to energy companies, so that they were able to go and identify the communities, or people in the community, who were off the gas grid, to try to help with the energy company obligation support. However, it was not unique to people who were off the gas grid.

I believe that it is that sort of thing where we probably need to put some more momentum behind what the energy companies are actually doing to be able to distribute that sort of support. It is there, but too often quite a lot of the money still goes, as I think the National Energy Association has said, into trying to identify people who might be eligible for support rather than going into delivering the solutions. I think the willingness is there. Now that I am back on the Back Benches, I perhaps have the opportunity to say that we should get that sort of connectivity going again and challenge things in that regard.

Regarding connectivity more broadly, enhanced connectivity lies at the heart of empowering rural areas, and I think that the UK Government have been dedicated to bridging the digital divide, ensuring that even the remotest villages have access to high-speed internet. The rural gigabit connectivity programme aims to deliver lightning-fast broadband to over 1 million homes and businesses in rural areas. That will bring economic opportunities and facilitate remote working, online education and, I hope, online healthcare, so that instead of having to travel long distances to get specialist care, people in rural areas might be able to receive such care online.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before the right hon. Member gives way, may I just say something to her? I am sorry, but I forgot to ask her if she could sit down at 4.48 pm, so that I can get the other speakers in.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

And I will just repeat that the motion is:

“That this House has considered Government support for rural communities”,

because I am failing miserably in the Chair. Sorry. [Laughter.]

[Dr Evans]

Sir Charles, your failure is met by enthusiasm and has been offset as a result.

I thank my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the point she is making. On digital connectivity, the percentage of my constituency of Bosworth with 1 gigabit has increased from 0.1% to 67%. This kind of thing gives huge opportunity to businesses and folk in my community. Is that not exactly the kind of thing that the Government want to do, in order to unlock opportunities for businesses, so that they can create new reasons for people to be in a rural constituency, apart from the beautiful countryside?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. About a decade ago our ambition was to get to 10 megabits as the universal service obligation. We have much greater ambition that that now. Of course it is about delivery, and quite a lot of legislation in the past few years has been about unblocking some of the barriers to making delivery happen, but it is good that the process is under way.

However, I share the concerns about mobile phones. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) has undertaken an assessment, and will be working with DEFRA and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Ofcom needs to look again when it says an area is covered for mobile phones. All of us have examples from our constituencies of that not being the case. It is particularly distressing when I think about the removal of copper-line communications that is due to happen this decade and the impact that could have if Ofcom is working off not totally reliable communication points.

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 624876 and 643611 relating to legislation in respect of dangerous dogs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.

Jack was 10. His mum, Emma, described him as “our perfect boy”. On 8 November 2021, Jack went to call on a friend. He was attacked and killed by an XL bully. Jack suffered fatal injuries. He was 10 years old, and his life was over—absolutely tragic. Jack’s mum, Emma, told me that their lives will never be the same again. The community came together and showed huge support for Emma and her family, but sadly Jack is gone forever. I have had to lead petition debates on many subjects, often in circumstances where a life has been lost, but I do not believe that I have ever had to speak when there has been a loss of life in such horrific circumstances.

We have two petitions before us for debate. The first calls for the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to be repealed; the second calls for the Act not to include the XL bully. Having heard Emma’s story and taken evidence before today, and having seen and heard of many of these attacks, I can understand why the Government have announced a ban, but before I move on to the arguments, I will make it clear that Emma never called for the ban, as she believed that it would never happen. Shockingly, since the announcement of the ban, Emma has received real abuse from people who disagree with it. Doing that to a grieving mother is abhorrent, and I hope that if those responsible are caught, they are dealt with severely. Emma has suffered enough. Her only goal is to ensure that no one else has to go through such an ordeal. My heart goes out to her.

I will turn to the position of the Government and the petitioners. Following a concerning rise in attacks and fatalities caused by XL bully dogs, the Government have added the breed to the list of dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. To help current owners adapt to the new laws, the changes will come into force in two stages. From 31 December 2023, it will be against the law to sell an XL bully dog, to abandon an XL bully dog or let it stray, to give away an XL bully dog, to breed from an XL bully dog and to have an XL bully in public without a lead and muzzle. From 1 February 2024, it will be a criminal offence to own an XL bully dog in England and Wales unless the dog has a certificate of exemption.

There is help with getting an exemption certificate on the Government website. If people want to keep their dog, it must be microchipped, kept on a lead and muzzled at all times when in public, kept in a secure place so that it cannot escape, and neutered. The owner must be over 16 years old, take out third-party public liability insurance against their dog injuring other people, and be able to show the certificate of exemption when asked by a police officer or council dog warden, either at the time or within five days.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about what the Government have laid out on their website. One of my concerns is about the ban coming in so quickly. Does he believe that the public have enough information, or know where to find the information, to enable conscientious owners who want to look after these dogs and protect them to make an informed decision? Is there enough time to ensure that the information about what is needed from responsible owners gets out?

[Nick Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is right is right to raise that point, which I will come to later in my speech.

I have discussed these petitions with many friends and colleagues. Like me, after hearing of such horrific attacks, they found it hard to believe the numbers that support repealing the ban. We have banned other dogs in the past, and these dogs are obviously dangerous, so who would not want to ban them? What is the reason? Let us explore further. During my research, I spoke to many professionals in this field; I attended six evidence sessions, and I attended the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in October.

What has been said by the petitioners? Anita Mehdi, the creator of the main petition, states that she believes that adding another breed to the Dangerous Dogs Act is not the right way forward. She also believes that the media is to blame for fearmongering, and there is no official data on dog breeds and dog attacks. Anita hopes for a platform where accurate data can be recorded. Anita also believes that it is dangerous to class a dog by its type, when it is irresponsible owners that need to be targeted. She believes that the Calgary model is a good example that the Government should take into consideration when looking into responsible ownership. When asked about muzzles, Anita explained that responsible owners will comply and use them, but there will be owners who will not, and they need to be tackled.

Glyn Saville, a petitioner against the XL bully ban, who is here today, says that the number of XL bullies is in excess of 90,000 and that implementing the ban will therefore be very difficult. He also says that these dogs are not bred to be aggressive to humans—although some people may disagree—and that if a ban is brought into effect, families living in social housing will be at real risk of losing their pets if they wish to stay there, as landlords can refuse exempted dogs. Another petitioner, who has called for muzzles not to be part of the ban, said that her dog can now not defend itself and that it has being attacked by other dogs, since having to wear a muzzle.

Even the professionals have concerns. The British Veterinary Association stated that banning one breed will not work. The BVA representative compared it to the banning of a single weapon and explained that it may work in the short term but that the ultimate goal is surrounded by so many complex social issues that it would be difficult for it to last in the long term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I would say to my hon. Friend that the guidance is as clear as it can be. It gives a number of physical characteristics, and I am sure the Minister will say more about that and the process being gone through. I suppose that in introducing the legislation, I very much wanted to put across that the issue is not being considered lightly and that a lot of care and attention has been given to the detail.

I must admit that I have had several death threats about this legislation and I am conscious that it is driving those strong emotions. What I will say is that the Government took an approach that would allow time for people to rehome an XL bully-type dog if they felt they could not keep it. Also, the situation is very different from what has happened recently, when people have had a pit bull or similar: owners can still apply to get a certificate and join the index of exempt dogs. The default here is that every person who registers their XL bully-type dog will get a certificate automatically and will automatically join the index. That is a significant difference, even though I am conscious it will cost some money to do that.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State, and the point she is making should be considered. From 31 December, breeding, selling, advertising, gifting and abandoning XL bully dogs will be illegal, but there is also the issue of rehoming. A Sky report over the weekend said that 246 of these dogs are waiting to be rehomed. I had a constituent stop me on the high street who wanted to rehome one of these dogs but was struggling to get the information on how to go about doing that. I am slightly concerned because rehoming is one way of saving these dogs by ensuring they get support from a responsible owner who will take on a licence. Could a carve-out for rehoming be considered, so that it is pushed back to 1 February in line with the rest of the exemptions coming in?

[Dr Coffey]

I am not in Government anymore, so that is a question for the Minister. I think that was done to bring to an end the opportunity for the transfer of dogs. It is admittedly on a rapid timescale, but we must remember the reason why we are taking this approach at all: to try to stop attacks. People read about attacks every week, and they are happening around the country. Somebody may absolutely want to help a dog by rehoming it, but they need a certain amount of training to look after such a strong animal.

If we think about an adult XL bully dog, we are talking about something that weighs about 70 kg. These are big dogs. They really have a lot of strength and, frankly, the only way to unlock their jaws once they latch on to somebody is basically to choke them. Do not kick them in the head or anything like that—that will only make them grab on even tighter. That is what we are dealing with. Sadly, some of these dogs do get out of control and it is their characteristics that lead them to have that physical strength. Also, we must not get away from the fact that they were originally parts of various bits of pit bulls, mastiffs and similar.

It is, of course, understandable why people who have their XL bully dog next to their children every night, with the dog probably licking the children to death—if that makes sense—think it will protect them. But there is the risk and the results of that risk are happening too often.

I am not planning to linger in this debate; I will just say briefly why I think this an effective piece of legislation. I am very conscious of the reviews that have happened and how different Select Committees have called for more extensive action. I am also very aware that the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and similar charities do not think the legislation effective. However, the reality is that the number of attacks by pit bulls basically went away when this legislation was put into place. The muzzling and the different licence approach are things that we need to happen as quickly as possible for the existing XL bully dogs in this country.

As for alternatives, there has been a lot of talk about licensing. Well, licensing to own a dog was scrapped a long time ago. I do not think that councils would welcome having to take on the whole licensing of dogs right across the country. Of course there has to be enforcement on breeding and disreputable practices. In section 3 of the 1991 Act, there is a wider approach for all dogs; any dog can be dangerous. So far, however, five specific dogs have been singled out, because of their characteristics.

I am very conscious that the job of politicians is to make law. I appreciate that one of my hon. Friends does not think this law is necessarily the right way. But this is what we do—one day something can be legal and the next day it can be illegal. We do these things because we believe they are the right thing to do.

It is of course open to Members to pray against this statutory instrument, but I really hope that does not happen because it is important that people get certainty and can take positive action. As I say, anybody who has an XL bully dog right now will be granted the certificate to join the index of exempt dogs. In effect, that will be automatic, as long as the conditions are complied with and they can say so on that register.

I am conscious that many people want to speak today. In conclusion, people must have time to rehome and everybody who loves their XL bully should be able to keep it. I commend the legislation, which is still passing through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. I declare my professional and personal interest in this matter: I am a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

I fully understand the passion and emotion on both sides of this very important debate, but I have sadly come to the conclusion that the Government are doing the right thing in banning the American XL bully dog. We have heard accounts of recent attacks, and some of us have seen videos; we need to act swiftly. This has been a difficult decision, but the Prime Minister has called for a ban and the Leader of the Opposition has supported him, so the ban is coming and as legislators we need to ensure we get it right. As a veterinary surgeon and MP, I believe we can get it right, but we need to work with all stakeholders.

This is not a party political issue. How we think about human and animal welfare unites us in humanity across the House. We need to protect people and other animals. The ban is coming, and we need to make it work practically, sensitively and compassionately. As we have heard, we also need a longer-term piece of work in parallel to reform the legislation and look closely at responsible dog ownership.

The 1991 Act covers four types of dogs—the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo argentino and the fila braziliero—and the American XL bully will be an important addition to that list. I am aware that many XL bullies are friendly pets in the right homes and with the right ownership, but sadly, because of their sheer size and weight, they can become uniquely dangerous. They are hugely powerful dogs, with a hugely powerful, muscular jaw structure, and they can weigh more than 50 kg or 60 kg.

We have heard public statements from consultant human surgeons about the severity of the wounds that these dogs can cause. The bites cause crushing or tearing injuries that are worse than the wounds from other types of dog bites; the statements back that up. The implications of being bitten or attacked by that type of dog, compared with a dog such as a French bulldog or a Jack Russell, are orders of magnitude worse.

Some of these dogs are bred for exaggerated conformation and extreme conformational features, and some have had their ears horrifically cropped. The breeding of these animals has been fuelled by the uptick in unregulated canine fertility clinics, which are not supervised by veterinary surgeons although acts of veterinary surgery, such as blood sampling and artificial insemination, take place in them. The EFRA Committee has looked at that issue closely in our “Pet welfare and abuse” inquiry, and we will be making recommendations about that. Unscrupulous breeders are fuelling the trade in these dogs, some of which are used as status symbols—I emphasise again that it is not all XL bullies, but it is a significant number.

Ear cropping is not clinically indicated in the dog; it is a cosmetic procedure that is illegal in this country, although there are loopholes that mean that the dogs can be imported. I am pleased that in this parliamentary Session the Government will introduce legislation to ban the importation of ear-cropped dogs, because that loophole means that some dogs are being illegally cropped horrifically—potentially in people’s back gardens because kits can be bought online. The procedure does not benefit the animal but it makes it look more intimidating.

Popular culture also has a role to play. Look at some of the really popular animated films: some of the dogs in “Up”, one of my favourite films that I have watched with my kids, were cropped; and one of the lead characters in the film “DC League of Super-Pets” from a couple of years ago had his ears cropped. People going to the cinema and seeing dogs with their ears cropped normalises the practice in society. People think, “Well, that’s normal” and “That’s what dogs should look like,” when actually the procedure is horrific and should be outlawed completely.

As we have heard, there is complexity in typing and defining. The Government have engaged closely with police, veterinary and animal welfare experts, and local authorities to produce guidance and advice, but I stress that this is an evolving, iterative process, and I urge the Government and stakeholders to continue to work together to stay around the table so that other types of dog are not inadvertently caught up in this ban.

I firmly believe that we need to be very careful about some of the language we use in this debate. We should not be talking about mass culls or killing of animals. Very early on, when this debate came to a head in September, the chief veterinary officer, Christine Middlemiss, spoke of this ban dovetailing with the humane and sensitive managing of the existing population of XL bully dogs. I stress that if these dogs are safe and responsibly owned, people can keep them. They can register them as long as they are neutered, insured, and kept on a lead and muzzled in public.

I urge the Government and local authorities to work with and support all the animal welfare charities. We have heard about the stresses and strains on the animal welfare sector. It was already under significant pressure, and the pandemic put it under much more. I also urge the Government to continue to work closely with the veterinary sector and look at expert opinion, such as that articulated by the British Veterinary Association last week in its letter to the chief vet, which talked about elements like neutering. I think the Government will get the veterinary profession to come along with them by having some flexibility and potentially extending the neutering deadlines, under which many of the dogs will be neutered when they are under 18 months—the age recommended for heavy types of dog. Extending the deadline until the end of June 2025 for dogs of this type that are under seven months at the end of January 2024 could help. It could benefit health and welfare, as there have been studies suggesting that neutering some of these heavy-type dogs too early can lead to an increased risk of developmental orthopaedic disease and some other medical conditions. It is important to try to work closely with the veterinary profession; working collectively will help.

That brings me on to some of the mental health implications of what we are talking about today: for the owners of these animals, the general public at large, the veterinary profession, and the animal welfare sector, which are taking some of the hit on this. We looked very closely at some of these issues in our EFRA Committee inquiry on pet welfare and abuse and in our rural mental health report, which we published this year. Many charities and veterinary professionals will become involved in euthanasia in cases where the dogs cannot be kept. We need to be cognisant of what that means for the veterinary profession, for the paraprofessionals and professionals working in it, and for the animal welfare sector, which works with them.

I have spoken with many in the sector. As has been mentioned, a couple of weeks ago I spoke at the London Vet Show, where I heard significant disquiet and distress among some vets and practices. I firmly believe that if we take that on board, work collectively and responsibly with the sector to see whether we can evolve some points such as the neutering guidelines, and think about the capacity issues with regard to euthanasia, that will help us to get a more practical and sensible ban moving forward. Responding to some of those concerns will get more vets on board. Vets do not like doing things to animals if they do not think there is a clinical benefit for those animals, so some movement would help—the neutering extension would be only six months. From December, it will be illegal to breed from these animals. We want to get the existing dogs neutered so that no more of these dogs come into being, but having a little bit of flexibility in working with vets may help.

Equally, I have spoken to some vets who agree that we need to go ahead with this. There are views very much on both sides of the debate. We need to work together to get through this—it is not an easy thing to do. I do not believe that it is a politically expedient issue: the Government and, now, the Leader of the Opposition have backed it. It is a tough thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.

Some vets and charities will disagree with my view. People talk about judging the animal by the deed and not the breed. As far as I am concerned, once that deed is committed, it is too late: that child or adult is maimed, or worse. We therefore need to look at this in the round and think about the deed and/or the breed. In the short term, however, adding this type of dog to the list is the right thing to do.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I will be grateful for his expertise on this question. Currently, there are no legal ramifications for a dog that attacks another dog. Are there any precedents for introducing such legislation or for starting to collect data on whether that is predictable; and, in his professional opinion, is a dog that attacks another dog predisposed to attack further dogs or even humans?

[Dr Hudson]

My fellow clinical colleague—in a different profession—makes a strong point. During the Select Committee inquiry, we found that there is a paucity of data on this. We have certainly seen an uptick in attacks on people, but there is a lack of data on dog-on-dog attacks. Part of this legislation is very much about keeping people safe, but part of it is about keeping other animals safe. The more data we can get in order to make evidence-based decisions, the more it will help.

As other Members have mentioned, a longer piece of work needs to be done in parallel with this short-term legislation. We need to look at responsible breeding, responsible dog ownership, responsible training and responsible socialising of those animals, and we need to tackle some of the issues that have been raised, such as the iniquitous existence of puppy farms and unscrupulous breeders.

We also need to tackle puppy smuggling, and again I am grateful to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has been supporting—as the Minister will be doing—private Members’ Bills to take elements of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill through the House in order to tackle some of the issues and ultimately to help us to improve animal welfare.

The longer-term changes to address the people who are working with these dogs will not happen overnight. That is why the Government are right to carry on with the short-term ban while the longer piece of work is done. We need to make people better at looking after their dogs, but, in the meantime, we need to keep people safe from this particular type of dog.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support the mental wellbeing of farmers and other members of rural communities.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

The Department’s farm welfare forum brings together England’s largest farming welfare organisations, many of which provide excellent mental health support. In October last year we opened the third phase of our future farming resilience fund. It provides free expert business advice to farmers and supports mental health and wellbeing where appropriate.

[Dr Evans]

We know that farmers are among those at the highest risk of suicide. In light of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry on rural community mental health, and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution report on mental health in farming, what more can we do to support the mental wellbeing of our rural communities and farmers?

[Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. DEFRA supports community action to tackle loneliness in rural areas via our ongoing funding of Action with Communities in Rural England, and initiatives that address the mental health impacts of social isolation. We have worked with the Yellow Wellies charity to provide advice and information to delivery partners on how to identify potential mental health issues, and tools for addressing them. We also regularly bring together rural community organisations to look into issues around transport connectivity and community in a rural context.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

The Minister is in listening mode and is going to respond now.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (First sitting)

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Three Members have caught my eye: Dr Luke Evans, Apsana Begum and James Daly. I am mindful of the time, so if anybody else wants to ask a question, could it be tight, and could questions be—well, as full as they need to be?

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Q Following up on Vicky’s point about future-proofing and imports, do you think there is a way we can future-proof against trends such as brachycephalic—short or flat-nosed—pets? One in five pets bought now has this big potential problem because of the trend for short-snouted dogs. In the legislation, we are talking about banning imports and setting standards. Is there a way to do that in legislation, or is it too difficult, practically, to protect and future-proof against trends?

Paula Boyden: That is a really good question. It is quite difficult with brachycephalics. We are always treading a fine line, because we do not want to demonise these breeds. We have been working very hard, as has the RSPCA, on groups such as the Brachycephalic Working Group, with the Kennel Club and breeders to try to improve breed standards, so that we are not breeding for extremes. That is obviously a slow burn; it is not something that will happen overnight. It is quite difficult to predict the next trend. Certainly, when I was growing up, it was Rottweilers and Dobermanns. There is a big surge in hybrid crosses at the moment.

We have to get the message across that health matters over the looks of a dog. Again, it is very easy for us to say that—we have all the information about how one should go about getting a dog—but unfortunately we live in a demand society, where it is, “I want that, and I want it now.” That is part of it. As it is all about supply and demand, part of it is educating those who are looking to get a dog, so that they take their time and get the right dog, rather than getting one virtually at the click of a button. That is one of the challenges.

[Dr Evans]

Q In the current market, what is the drive from imports? We now have the chance to block or ban things in certain ways, to stave off a trend. How much does demand drive imports? If, for example, Italian greyhounds get more popular and become the next trend, how much do you see the outside market respond to that, so that we get those imports? How responsive is it? We seem to have a chance to drop that, if practicable.

Paula Boyden: The importers are very good and adaptable, and we have seen this. We have been running the puppy pilot for six years. You will not be surprised to hear that the majority of dogs that have come through our care have been French bulldogs, bulldogs and pugs; dachshunds are now the leading breed. During lockdown, because so many people were getting dogs, we saw a bit more variety, but they are the key breeds that are coming through, so we will see that adaptability.

Kennel Club registrations of French bulldogs went up exponentially, but only a small proportion of them were registered. If we do a back-of-the-envelope calculation, there were 9 million dogs in the UK at the time, with an average lifespan of 12 years. I am not saying that supply must equal demand, but it will. We therefore need 750,000 dogs a year. The Kennel Club registers about a third of that, so where do the others come from? That goes back to my comment about being holistic. We do not have true traceability. You need a licence to breed a dog only if you breed three or more litters a year, so where people produce fewer than three litters, we do not know who or where they are. That favours illegal importers, because they can easily advertise online.

One of my key points is that we need to step back and take a holistic view of the supply and demand of dogs. The demand is important. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing its “Petfished” campaign, which is fantastic, but we need to start joining these dots up a little bit more.

David Bowles: Certainly, importation has hugely satisfied the demand for cropped-ear dogs, and that loophole has led to an increase in dogs being cropped in the UK. With brachycephalics, it is really interesting. As you know, back in 2005, a handful of French bulldogs were being bred and registered each year, but now thousands are. Will that trend continue? Probably not. We are possibly seeing the start of a decrease in French bulldogs, but people will go on to something else.

You asked how to future-proof the legislation. At the moment, under the Animal Welfare Act, a breeder could theoretically be prosecuted for breeding a French bulldog that has not had its welfare needs cared for, because it cannot breathe. The difficulty is proving intent and where that started off. That is why there has not been any progress on that.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Q Do you think that the Bill contains a sufficiently robust definition of conservation?

David Bowles: Yes. The RSPCA is glad that, under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, conservation is in the Bill. The Bill will take that away and put it into the Secretary of State’s standards, but those standards are statutory. That is where we are very pleased that those standards will be statutory.

We have some concerns. There is a lot of power in the Secretary of State’s hands, because the Secretary of State can change those standards, possibly without consultation. We hope that if the Secretary of State is minded to change those standards, they would do a proper consultation and go out to everyone. But we are glad to see the standards becoming statutory.

We have slight concerns about the zoo standards, because different classifications of zoos seem to be being built up here. Obviously, the welfare needs of an animal are the same, whether it is in a big zoo, a small zoo or a medium-sized zoo. It is important that we focus through the lens of welfare, and try to improve the welfare of the animals, not worry about how big the zoo is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

Q Thank you, Chair. I declare an interest: with the all-party parliamentary group on zoos and aquariums, I successfully supported the levelling-up fund bid of Twycross zoo, which is in my constituency.

To summarise, I am concerned about the public’s perception around welfare. It sounds natural and very obvious to say, “Let’s ban primates as pets.” What we are hearing from you guys is that, practically, that is very difficult because they are complex animals that may build relationships with a specific keeper. You cannot suddenly move them into another group very easily. Alison, you pulled a face there—that is what I am interested by, because I am coming at it as a lay person. If we choose a licensing system over an outright ban, how can the Government explain that to the public with the understanding and nuance in the message that you have just put forward?

Dr Cronin: I would be perfectly happy to accept a ban, but I am not, as I said before, trying to make a judgment on where the animals are kept—that is not my purpose. I am here to speak for those who do not have a voice: the monkeys and apes. I am concerned about how they are being kept. I am just trying to stay laser-focused, so to me, it does not matter whether they are kept at Monkey World, at Twycross zoo, or in somebody’s back garden.

Depending on who they are or how wealthy they are, somebody’s back garden might have higher standards than either Twycross zoo or Monkey World. I am trying to be practical in saying, “That can happen; that is realistic.” Why should a person be stopped, simply because they are a private individual, from doing a good job, potentially in both conservation and welfare? Should they become incorporated, and then would it be okay for them to keep those animals? I am trying to stay focused on the purpose and intent of what is being proposed, not on the moral principle of whether these animals should be kept in captivity.

On your comments about which animals become attached to people, I suggest to you that if they have become attached to people, they are perhaps not being cared for in an appropriate manner, because they should be living with others of their own kind and living appropriate lifestyles as marmosets, tamarins, squirrel monkeys or capuchin monkeys. We have not encountered primates that we have not been able to rehabilitate. We are known around the globe for taking some of the most difficult species, including great apes, and rehabilitating them into large, natural—well, natural when living in captivity—social groups. It is possible to do; it takes a lot of time, effort and money to do, and you have to be dedicated to that purpose. That is where the rescue work that we do at Monkey World is different from the average—I do not mean that in a derogatory way—zoo or wildlife park: we have a specific focus, and it can be done.

Dr Judge: I agree with Alison that it has to be welfare focused. The argument is that these people are keeping them to a very high standard of welfare, and that is what is important. As Alison says, it does not matter where that is, as long as their welfare is being adequately cared for.

[Dr Evans]

Q We have heard from all three witnesses that this is going to drive up the standard of animal welfare. The danger of adding the conservation bit is that we are potentially a little blurred over what conservation looks like, and what standards are driven there. Could I ask you to comment on what the proposals will look like for conservation? Will it be a percentage of turnover? Is it the number of projects that you run elsewhere in the world? Is it the amount of expertise that you export? I guess that there is the danger that we need to be prescriptive, but being too prescriptive is problematic. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Depending on the noise levels, we will carry on.

[Dr Evans]

Human welfare is being looked after as well; that is good to see. Simon, I hope you got that question. The concern is that we need a good definition of conservation, but if it is too prescriptive we create a problem. What is your response to that as the ZEC?

Dr Girling: Thank you very much. It is a thorny issue, and I am confident that the conservation measures that are in the proposed standards that will go out for consultation are significantly increased in content and clarity. At the same time, they are not saying things like, “You need to donate £X to conservation in order to tick a box.” They focus more on the meaningful conservation measures that organisations can carry out. It is about enhancing and encouraging zoological collections—zoo-licensed premises—to engage in the process of research and conservation.

That does not necessarily mean that some of the smaller and less financially robust zoological collections have to release wildcats into England, or something of that nature. It is tailored to ensure that they are encouraged to collaborate, share data and information, and get involved in such things as local wildlife trust research and projects that are on their doorstep, all of which can be meaningful conservation. It is not about breeding animals that do not appear on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red lists, and calling that conservation. It is not about simply giving money to projects and saying, “That’s our conservation,” or “We’ve sold so many gifts at the gift shop, and we’re generating income for conservation.”

It is about being able to demonstrate to the inspectorate when it comes round for the zoo licence that they are actually engaging. Some of it is about outputs and publications. That does not necessarily have to mean peer-reviewed publications, but it is about communicating what they are doing to the wider public, contributing to organisations such as BIAZA, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, and wildlife trusts and so on in a meaningful way that demonstrates their engagement in conservation, rather than it just being a tick-box exercise. As you rightly say, that should be without saying, “No, no, no—you have to do this one very specific thing.” Hopefully, this will allow zoological collections—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. Simon, that is a very comprehensive answer. I just do not want anyone to have missed what you said. I did not realise that we were going to have an ongoing commentary about fire and leaving the building. Did everybody hear that answer, or would we like to wait a little while until the noise has stopped and hear Dr Simon again? I feel that we should give you the courtesy of being able to hear your comprehensive answer. We will hold off, and then, if it is fine with everybody, can I add this time on to the end? [Interruption.] I cannot. Okay, I just wanted to check.

Good—silence. Dr Simon, the floor is yours. We were all glued to what you had to say; it sounded comprehensive.

Dr Girling: The standards now have a specific section associated with conservation—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

There you go—you heard that, Simon.

Dr Girling: That is excellent news. There is now a specific section within the standards that deals with conservation. That allows us to put more meat on the bone and to better explain what we mean by conservation: it is not about simply breeding animals that are not endangered and calling that conservation or about simply giving money, x pounds, to conservation. It is about being actively involved—rolling up your sleeves and getting involved with conservation.

Depending on the size of the zoo-licensed premises, that can be anything from reintroducing a species back into the wild, right the way through to actively engaging with universities, colleges and wildlife trusts by sharing data and getting staff involved in local conservation projects. It helps that there is a wide spectrum of activities that would qualify. It also means that it is not just about saying, “Well we exist and we generate income, and that is conservation because we have a zoo-licensed premises.”

I am hopeful that this will enhance conservation measures within zoological collections, make them easier to assess when the zoo inspectorate go out to grant licences and give confidence to the Committee that we are genuinely trying to drive up conservation standards.

[Dr Evans]

Q In the previous answer, which was interrupted, you mentioned getting the message out to the public. The public are more aware of the situation, both with welfare and conservation. Do you foresee a traffic-light system, like we have in health or education with Ofsted, to say that this is adequate or that is good? Is a green, amber and red of conservation and welfare being thought about going forward, so that the public can make a decision about what they are going to see and what is being done? I appreciate that the issue is important for those looking at the standards, but getting that message across to the wider public would also be very interesting.

Dr Girling: Yes, there are certainly many merits to traffic-light systems. I know that Jo and BIAZA have promoted a system similar to that, which will help the wider public understand conservation measures. We do not specifically address a traffic-light system within the conversation standards; we are trying to keep it to a series of “musts”, and then provide guidance on that.

An awful lot of very good conservation is done in zoos in the UK. However, no matter what is done, in a lot of cases we are not good at communicating about it to the wider public. Education is clearly one of the main planks of the zoo licensing system. Getting the message out there is a really important point: what are they doing, how are they doing it and what difference is it making? Is it having a measurable impact?

[The Chair]

We have only 10 minutes left and I am hoping to include a further three Members.

Dr Judge: To add to that, Simon is right that BIAZA are looking at setting up an accreditation system, whereby we would not just be looking at animal welfare, but at the conservation, education and research outputs of zoos. There would be some kind of system, whether a traffic-light or Ofsted system, that would be recognisable to the public. They would be able to tell from that system exactly what the zoos and aquariums were doing. Through that there would also be much more education and information coming from BIAZA about what our zoos were doing, and making it so that the public were much more aware.