Legislation on Dangerous Dogs
Debate between Luke Evans and Neil Hudson(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill
Debate between Luke Evans and Neil Hudson(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for introducing this Bill, but in the top trumps of adulation, I do not think that I can compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt).
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is a proud champion of speaking up for the most vulnerable in society, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he has done in this area and for introducing this important Bill. I am really pleased that it has so much cross-party support, as it shows the importance of what he is doing. This House is at its best when we are united in the common good of trying to protect the most vulnerable in society.
I also welcome the Minister to her place, and I look forward to hearing from her later. What really resonated with me, as a vet and a scientist, was when my hon. Friend and other colleagues talked about the paucity of data in this area. If the data are not there, we just do not know what we are looking at. We can make good policy with evidence-based decisions, and we need the evidence out there. This debate today has highlighted the importance of that data collection.
It is clear that those who are protected by this Bill are among the most vulnerable in our society. I pay tribute to those across my constituency of Penrith and The Border who support the most vulnerable people. In the housing arena, I pay tribute to Eden Housing Association, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. I hope that the Bill complements the work of people up and down the land who are supporting the most vulnerable in society. At a time of economic crisis, when people’s livelihoods have been affected, forcing them to live from day to day, it is so important that we are putting forward good legislation to provide help in these troubling times.
I welcome the fact that the Bill will try to stamp out the awful practices that have been highlighted today of rogue landlords exploiting people. There have been some pretty harrowing examples from Members on both sides of the House, and it is so important that the Bill will clamp down on these practices and rid them from society. These people on benefits are really struggling, as are many people across the country. As we have heard today, this is a compassionate piece of legislation, and when we are driving Bills with cross-party support through the House, it is so important that compassion is at the heart of that. To get political, I welcomed the Conservative Government showing some of that compassion yesterday with measures in the autumn statement, and the fact that we are now uprating benefits in line with inflation is critical to that compassionate conservatism.
We have heard from many Members, including esteemed medical colleagues, about the mental health implications in the supported housing sector, and we have also heard about physical wellbeing. Something that has really resonated with me today is the mental health impact of the situations that these people find themselves in; that impact is lasting, profound and very damaging for them. The mental health stresses in this sector compound the trauma that many of these people have experienced, having faced domestic violence, homelessness and all other manner of challenges in their lives. If they are then challenged in their own homes, that exacerbates the awful problems in their lives.
In rural areas such as my constituency of Penrith and The Border in Cumbria, the factors that challenge mental health are compounded by rural isolation. I have pressed the Government to ensure that policy making reflects the challenges we face in different parts of the country. Rural communities often struggle to get the mental health support they need due to the long distances and poor connectivity, whether that is physical or virtual connectivity or even mobile phone signal. This is something I feel very strongly about. I sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I initiated an inquiry on rural mental health. We looked at some of the trigger factors for people in rural communities, and we found that challenges in the housing sector were among those.
The Bill has to be part of an holistic approach, to protect the most vulnerable in exempt accommodation. We have heard today about mental health, and I feel passionately that mental health needs to have parity of esteem with physical health. The two go hand in hand, and they need to be balanced together.
To segue into another issue, as a vet, I am passionate about animal health and welfare. As a dog owner, I know the impact that animals have on people’s lives and the importance of people being able to have animals in their accommodation. I have worked with Ministers on various types of legislation, and we want people in the rental sector to be able to have pets in their accommodation. Responsible pet owners should be allowed to have a pet, to give them that companionship and to help their mental health and the health of the animal. That is something we can move forward with.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the impact of animals on mental wellbeing. Does he agree that having an animal to provide that support is even more important in rural areas, where loneliness is such a big problem?
Dr Hudson
I very much agree with my medical colleague about the role of animals in society and in supporting us, and the support we can give to our animal friends, and that is pivotal in rural communities. We love animals in rural areas and in towns and cities. Our love for the animal world is something that unites us in humanity and across the Chamber.
I welcome the statutory requirement on local authorities to publish a strategy for supported housing, so that they can respond to the needs of their area. In rural areas such as my constituency, the importance of local councils and local democracy cannot be overstated. Local councils and parish councils are at the heart of these communities, in terms of community engagement and providing the key services on which we all rely daily.
I urge central Government to take care that the Bill’s statutory requirements on the Secretary of State at national level do not create inertia or an inability to act at local level. We have seen a bit of inertia in Cumbria with local government restructuring, as we move to two unitary authorities. Sadly, local democracy has ground to a halt as people jockey for position and decide who is in charge of which parts of the county. Parish councils are struggling to get things through, and grant applications are not being looked at. For local democracy, we have to make sure that we do not have inertia after decisions are made. This is a really good Bill and, when it gets on to the statute book with cross-party support, we need to make sure the process is lubricated.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) highlighting the lack of housing in rural areas, exacerbated by the upsurge in short-term holiday lets and Airbnb, which is also a critical issue for us up in Cumbria. I welcome the fact that the Government are listening to Back Benchers who have raised the lack of housing. In our rural communities, we see people being driven out of their local area because they cannot find rented accommodation, so I welcome the fact that Ministers are looking at this issue on a cross-departmental basis. There has been a consultation on short-term holiday lets, and I look forward to the Government working through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to make sure we have sensible legislation so that people in rural communities can live, work, study and have their kids go to school in their local community. I very much hope the Government move on that, too.
There is a huge impact on employers in rural Cumbria, as they are not able to attract staff to come and work in their pubs, restaurants and farms because of the lack of housing due to short-term holiday lets. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth has raised this issue, as have I in Cumbria and as have other colleagues from up and down the land. It is a key point, and I hope the Minister will look at it in parallel legislation.
Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for bringing forward this Bill. I welcome the strong cross-party support, including from the Government, as the compassion at the heart of this Bill has my firm support.
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)
Debate between Luke Evans and Neil Hudson(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Hudson
Q
Rob Quest: I would agree.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Rob Quest: We do not see many ferrets being imported, to be quite honest. We see literally thousands of dogs and cats, but a handful of ferrets.
Dr Hudson
Thank you. Hopefully the Minister and the Government can help us through this process. It is really helpful for us to hear that your view is that this important stuff needs to be done in either primary or secondary legislation, but on some of these issues, such as the health status of animals, it needs to be done quickly, so we can stop diseases coming in and stop cruel practices. Hopefully the Government can work with everyone on that.
Dr Evans
Q
Justine Shotton: Our main concern is that these are under review, and we and other stakeholders have not had sight of the new standards. We also do not know whether there will be a transition period. That is really important, particularly for some of the smaller, less resourced zoos and particularly after the pandemic. Zoos have really struggled during the pandemic, even the very big ones. We absolutely support higher welfare standards in zoos, but we need to be mindful that if there are changes that will take time, zoos need time to make those changes, otherwise there could be welfare harms to those animals, particularly with the challenges we are seeing around exporting zoo animals at the moment, which is very difficult. They could go into other areas of trade where their welfare may be compromised. Our key ask is around having sight of the new standards and a legitimate transition period for those smaller zoos in particular.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Luke Evans and Neil Hudson(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)