Pet Abduction Bill

Lyn Brown Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

How do people do that?

[Anna Firth]

It is unbelievable, isn’t it? Incredibly, two of the cats later reappeared in Leigh-on-Sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Can I say first of all that my dog is truly the most amazing small loving creature in the entire universe and that I will not be challenged on that in this Chamber? Can I also say that she was robbed at the Westminster dog of the year show? We had ensured that she would win the online poll by a zillion votes, but Mr Speaker managed to pick up the prize and Cara was completely and utterly ignored. I promised Cara that I would never, ever put her through such an outrageously unfair test of her beauty and her amazingness again.

Cara is truly a member of our family. She is amazing with constituents. She comes to my surgery. If a constituent is upset, she gets off the chair, waddles over and sits there to be stroked. In fact, she has got me in trouble more than once by recognising a constituent in the street and going over to say hello. I have said, “I’m so sorry—she’s very friendly,” and been told, “Yes, we met two weeks ago. She clearly remembers me.”

[Jane Stevenson]

It is wonderful to hear about the hon. Lady’s dog, who I enjoyed meeting at the Westminster dog of the year show. In the interests of today’s debate and our cross-party unity on the issue, it is important to realise that when we are talking about the best dog or cat in the world, many things can be the best together. Each Member’s pet could fulfil the role that the hon. Lady describes.

[Ms Brown]

I am not sure that Cara would agree with that, so I am hesitant to agree with the hon. Lady, but I take her point. Cara is truly a member of our family; the entire family would be absolutely devastated if somebody were to take her from me. I would go to pieces, to be honest.

A number of my constituents, particularly through the lockdown period, contacted me about dog theft—both the fear and the actuality of it. Sadly, my constituents did not get their animals back at all. I know that there was a big market for them during lockdown, and because of the cost of living crisis—I make no political point about this—we are sadly seeing many more dogs landing at Dogs Trust and the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home because people can no longer afford to feed them.

I will not keep the House long in addressing the Bill, but I want to speak on behalf of Kim, who has a disability. She absolutely adores her dogs, but she tells me she no longer feels safe in taking them out. She does not feel that she would be able to defend them if somebody should come and try to take them from her.

She was particularly impacted after a friend, who was 84 years of age, had her terrier snatched from her while she was out on a walk. I know how terrifying and how emotionally devastating that must have been, because it would be like witnessing an assault or a kidnap of a member of her family—of such an emotional support for somebody of that age. It would have been just horrific.

I know things are no different for cat owners, and I am genuinely very pleased that this Bill recognises the need to protect cats in the same way. There is clearly very broad agreement that greater legal clarity and strength is needed in this area of law so that our closest animal companions are not treated as property, but rather our relationship with them as a society is reflected in law. The Bill has been a long time coming, and I am genuinely very grateful to the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for bringing it forward. I am not going to delay the passage of this long-awaited Bill, so will leave it there, but I want to say how delighted I was to see it and how pleased I am to have been able to speak in favour of it today.

Shark Fins Bill

Lyn Brown Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christina Rees]

My hon. Friend has always been a doughty champion for animal welfare. I will come to her point later in my speech, but I agree wholeheartedly. If we can get the Bill into law, we in the UK will be the leaders in Europe in banning shark finning.

Sharks desperately need our help and protection. I am an animal lover; I have been privileged to open Westminster Hall debates about animal welfare as a member of the Petitions Committee, and it is a privilege to introduce the Bill today. I grew up near the sea. I spent most of my childhood with my granny, who lived in Porthcawl, a beautiful seaside resort in south Wales. When I was 10, I joined the junior lifeguards and became a surfer. My love and respect for the sea and the marine creatures that live in it has stayed with me throughout my life.

My close encounter with a shark about 10 years ago is typical of the many stories that I could tell about my crazy, unpredictable, funny life. One day, my wonderful daughter Angharad said, “Mum, we haven’t had a holiday since I was 10”; she was 26 at the time. I said, “Oh dear, time flies—go ahead and book one,” so Angharad booked 10 days in Australia followed by 10 days in New Zealand. It completely cleaned out my bank account; I was a poorly paid squash coach at the time and had foolishly thought that she would book a weekend in north Wales.

On the Australian leg, we stayed a couple of nights on Green Island, an absolutely beautiful and remote island off Cairns. One day, I was snorkelling in the shadows off the deserted shoreline. Angharad was standing on the rocks and keeping a lookout for stingrays, because we had been warned that they were prevalent in the waters. When I came up for air, she shouted, “Mum! Shark!” I thought, “Yeah, very funny, Angharad.” She was pointing out to sea, so I turned around—and I absolutely froze.

Swimming towards me was one of the most beautiful creatures that I have ever seen: a shark about 2 metres long, looking like a small, sleek submarine. By now, Angharad was shouting her head off, so I came out of my brain fog and ran out of the sea as fast as my little legs would carry me. We stood on the rocks and watched. We were mesmerised, absolutely gobsmacked and many, many other adjectives by how lucky we were to see that wonderful wild creature up close before it majestically swam out into the sunset. That was my encounter with a shark.

Shark finning has rightly been banned in the UK since 2003 and is illegal in many other parts of the world, but it still happens, so we must now ensure that shark fins are not being imported from places where finning practices still occur. This important and timely Bill will make it illegal to import and export detached shark fins. That will help to end practices that are forcing sharks closer to the brink of extinction. The Bill will be a significant step in helping to restore the balance of our ocean.

Clause 1 will ban the import and export of shark fins or items containing shark fins into or from the United Kingdom as a result of their entry into or removal from Great Britain. The ban applies only to fins that have been removed from the body of a shark. Clause 1 also contains a provision for exemption certificates and clarifies some key definitions. More information about the provision for exemption certificates is set out in the schedule. A very strict application process is followed whereby the appropriate authority can issue an exemption certificate only if the shark fins concerned will be used for conservation purposes. This will allow important conservation and educational activities such as improving shark identification skills to continue where needed.

The appropriate authorities for imports and exports of shark fins are the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland and the Welsh Ministers in Wales. Where someone has deliberately provided inaccurate or incomplete information for an exemption, the appropriate authority can impose a monetary penalty of up to £3,000, which will ensure that the exemptions process is not abused. The Bill contains a power for the appropriate authority to amend the upper limit of the penalty by regulations.

It is important to note that the Bill does not ban the sale or consumption of shark fins. If a shark fin is removed from a shark after it is dead, and the shark was caught legally and sustainably, I do not see why the fin should not be used. In fact, it would be wasteful not to use the whole carcase. Banning the sale or consumption of shark fins that have been obtained ethically would disproportionately impact communities where shark fin soup is considered a traditional delicacy, and that is not what I seek to do.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. After reading the Bill’s explanatory notes, I am aware that there is a separate exemption for individuals to import up to 20 kg of dried shark fin to the UK for personal consumption. Is that because it is about using the whole shark? I wonder whether something more could be done through the passage of the Bill to ensure that the 20 kg comes from the use of the whole shark, rather than from a shark killed only for its fins.

[Christina Rees]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that valid point. I am sure that the issue can be thrashed out in Committee, should we reach that stage. I have looked into the research and there are gaps in the data regarding how much personal usage is being allowed, but I know that Border Force does look at that.

Environment and Climate Change

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

On Monday, I was privileged to host students from the fabulous St Bonaventure’s boys school in my constituency, who are working with the East London Citizens Organisation and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, CAFOD, learning about politics and campaigning for social justice and a brighter future. They wanted to talk to me about housing, Brexit and the violence that has blighted our community, but most of all they wanted to talk to me about climate change. Their dedication and knowledge gave me hope.

Xavier told me that we need to stop trees being destroyed for developments in the UK. Ethan told me how important it is for us to invest more in research and development to produce the green innovations that will help us to reduce emissions. He wants to become a scientist and help with those challenges—I reckon he’ll do it. Arpon told me we needed to stop fracking and rely on renewables—not just because of the carbon consequences, but because of the impact on clean water and the local environment. Ethan—another Ethan—told me how inspired he is by the idea of a green new deal in the US, and what will make a green industrial revolution here. Thomas told me that we need so many, many more charging points for electric cars.

Thomas is right, Arpon is right, Xavier is right and Ethan—both Ethans—is right. What we need is a genuine commitment from the Government to act. Oceans rising, deforestation, wildfires, hundreds of millions at risk of flooding, displacement, drought, disease and starvation. Mass extinction, with huge numbers of species lost. That is what we face. We need a commitment to implement green policies on a scale that matches the enormous challenges that face us. Transformation of our economy, homes, transport, agriculture and energy systems. Transformation of our entire society, creating greater social justice as well as securing our very future on planet Earth. We know what we need to do. Let’s get on with it.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill

Lyn Brown Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The parliamentary agenda and timetable are somewhat unpredictable at the moment, but the point remains that we are committed to raising the maximum penalty for animal cruelty to five years’ imprisonment. Specifically, we will amend the maximum penalties set out in section 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That will cover cruelty caused by attacks on service animals, which is the second limb of the Finn’s law campaign.

As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, Finn was stabbed by an assailant in 2016 when he assisted his handler, PC Dave Wardell, in the apprehension of a suspected offender. Finn received serious injuries, but we are all thankful that he survived and was even able to return to duty, before later retiring and attending debates such as this. In August 2018, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of meeting Finn and PC Wardell at DEFRA’s offices. The Secretary of State stated clearly that

“every day service animals dedicate their lives to keeping us safe, and they deserve strong protections in law.”

That was why he undertook to continue working with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire in developing this law.

The Bill is concerned with the offences under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which relate to animal cruelty or, as the Act states, causing

“unnecessary suffering to an animal”.

When considering a prosecution for cruelty, the court must currently consider whether the defendant was acting in fear of harm. Relevant here is the list of considerations in section 4(3) that the court must consider, which include whether the suffering was caused for

“a legitimate purpose, such as....the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal”.

In other words, the perpetrator of an attack on a service animal could use that provision to claim that they were acting to protect themselves. The Bill amends section 4 so that that consideration shall be disregarded with respect to incidents that involved unnecessary suffering inflicted on a service animal that was supporting an officer in the course of their duties. It will therefore be easier successfully to prosecute people for causing animal cruelty by attacking a service animal.

Clause 1 amends section 4 to allow the self-defence provision relating to animal cruelty to be disregarded if it concerns a service animal under the control of, and being used by, a relevant officer in the course of his or her duties in a way that was reasonable, and if the defendant was not the relevant officer in control of the service animal.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

May I just say how delighted I am to be here this morning? I was the shadow Policing Minister during the first debate on Finn’s law, and I am so pleased that we are today passing this Bill, and that I am in the Chamber as well.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. I think that we are all delighted to be here today to pass such feel-good legislation, which we all support.

The provisions will apply to dogs and horses used by the police and to dogs used by prison officers—they tend not to use horses, unsurprisingly. Service animals are defined in the Bill by reference to the person who is in control of them. The Bill applies only to animals that are under the control of a relevant officer at the time of the attack. The definition of “relevant officer” covers a police constable, a person who has the powers of a police constable and a prison custody officer. The type of animal is not restricted either; it can include dogs and horses, or indeed any other animal in the service of a relevant officer.

Clause 1 also provides the Secretary of State with a power to amend by regulations under the affirmative procedure the definition of relevant officer, provided that the additional persons are in the public service of the Crown. That provides the flexibility to add additional officers in the public service of the Crown who might not have been considered at this stage.

The Bill also provides for situations in which a police or prison officer may be required to use restraint against their own service animal, for example, to protect themselves or a member of the public. It provides that new subsection (3A) will not apply in a section 4 prosecution where the defendant is a relevant officer.

Clause 2 provides for the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill, and sets out that the Act will come into force two months after it is passed, which is the normal time for the commencement of Bills following Royal Assent. It sets out that the Act will extend only to England and Wales, as does the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which it amends. The shadow Minister noted that Northern Ireland is not covered. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that is because the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the Bill amends, extends only to England and Wales. I should point out that Scotland has its own animal welfare legislation, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and Northern Ireland has the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, so they have the powers to make their own equivalent legislation, although I take the point about the absence of an Administration in Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, the Government have put animal welfare at the very top of our agenda. We are increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. We have made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses. We propose to ban the use of electronic shock collars on pets, and third-party sales of puppies and kittens. We have also modernised animal welfare standards for dog breeding, pet sales and other licensed activities involving animals.

It was noted at the start of the debate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire has been particularly dogged and persistent in championing this cause. I was very pleased to be able, as a DEFRA Minister, to bring forward the regulations that changed the licensing regime for puppy breeding, which is something I have championed since I was first elected in 2010. Today, let me underline the fact that attacks on service animals such as brave Finn will not be tolerated. That is why we support the Bill, which will provide additional protection for our service animals. We hope that it will now make a swift passage through the other place without amendment.

Sale of Puppies

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about resources. I am not disputing all the good work that has been put into licensing. However, a ban is simply much more effective and more cost-effective to introduce and police.

One of the points raised was about driving the trade underground. Trade can survive underground only if it has a sufficient market. But, unlike sellers of drugs and guns, commercial third-party sales of puppies are wholly dependent upon advertising to attract its customers. Although we commonly see and hear images and videos of puppies being smuggled and trafficked illegally, their route to market must be easily detectable if the ordinary member of the public is able to obtain the product overground, and it must be legal for them to be sold.

If third-party sellers are unable to utilise mainstream advertising channels, puppy buyers would continue to purchase from the most obvious and accessible sources, rather than deliberately seeking out illegal suppliers. The easier it becomes for people to buy puppies responsibly, the more likely they are to follow that path. Research has shown that prospective purchasers almost always aspire to making ethical and responsible choices. As they would have access to puppies from legitimate breeders, they would have no need to seek out illegally operating dealers. By comparison, if third-party sellers continued to be legitimate and licensed, there may be no means for buyers to discriminate between adverts placed by breeders and those placed by dealers. The continued existence of a legal third-party sector would also mask and provide a framework for the illegal trade.

It is worth noting that, if a ban were in place, online purchases from puppy sellers would always have to involve a final transaction, at which the pup must be seen with its mum in the place it was born. True online sales involve a delivery—that is, a third-party sale. As I mentioned, selling animals as a business is already illegal without a pet shop licence, so there is no “gaping loophole” through which a dealer could pose as a rehoming or rescue centre. Under a ban or a licensing regime, concealing commercial activity would be fraud and tax evasion as well as an animal welfare concern, so it would be far easier to police.

It has been suggested that there are too few responsible breeders in the UK to meet the demand for puppies. One of the primary requirements of a good breeder is that they enable puppies to be seen with their mother. There is no evidence to suggest that too few breeders meet that basic requirement. Furthermore, the suggestion that any deficit in supply would inevitably be met by unscrupulous breeders and sellers—either legal or illegal— is not pragmatic. That is a defeatist approach and an acceptance that the law cannot protect dogs in the commercial trade. I do not think we want to see that.

What owners really demand is a physically and mentally healthy puppy, not just any puppy. Banning the third-party sale of dogs may be a catalyst for changing expectations, so that buyers are able to buy a responsibly bred puppy from a legitimate breeder rather than having a huge range of puppies available to purchase immediately from indiscriminate sources.

The apparently inflated demand for certain fashionable breeds, such as the French bulldog, may be artificial. Puppies are being purchased simply because they are available for sale. A market that is saturated with cheap, readily available puppies by third-party dealers is likely to encourage impulse purchasing and significantly reduce demand for more responsibly bred puppies. Removing competition from irresponsible breeders and sellers would increase the market for responsible breeders, so a ban most likely would increase the number of responsibly bred puppies. Even breeders who previously sold through third parties would meet the baseline criterion for a responsible breeder—that puppies can be seen with their mum in the place they were born. I have said that a few times, and it is fundamental to the debate.

Requiring all dog breeders to sell their puppies directly would result in more responsible breeding and purchasing behaviour, as there would be no chain to confuse or cloud the process. Third-party sellers are only a distribution channel, which prevents buyers from witnessing breeding dogs and their conditions, so a ban would not need to affect the number of puppies that are bred. Lucy’s law is vital to any attempt to reform dog breeding and improve welfare. It is clear that if no attempt is made to restrict the legal market for puppies to responsible breeders, measures to improve dog welfare—those to do with genetic and breed-related health, breeding, rearing and selling practices—are unlikely to succeed.

That brings me to the question of why robust licensing is not an alternative. It is impossible to ensure the welfare of puppies sold through third parties by imposing robust licensing that still permits the activity to take place. As I explained, the process of puppies being sold by third parties is inherently damaging, so the aim of protecting animals from harm by licensing could not be met even if licence conditions were adhered to. If the welfare of animals sold under the licensing regime were little better than those sold illegally, regulation of the trade would not offer any real benefits.

Licensing third-party sellers would also fail to tackle welfare problems prior to sale, including in breeding establishments. A sufficiently robust regime of licensing and inspection would probably deter unscrupulous sellers from applying for a licence, so it would not prevent that part of the trade from going underground. It is considered possible that third-party dealers may attempt to masquerade as rescue centres under a ban. That would be equally possible under a robust licensing regime.

There is no evidence to suggest that a robust regime of licensing and inspection would be any easier or cheaper to implement than a ban. Enforcement of a ban would involve only detecting illegal activity and implementing sanctions against those engaged in it. Enforcement of a robust licensing regime would in addition involve monitoring businesses’ compliance, which would require highly trained inspectors and multiple site visits. The Government’s objective is to reduce rather than increase the regulatory burden for small businesses and local authorities. That does not fit comfortably with imposing and enforcing detailed, mandatory model conditions.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is completely and utterly unrealistic to expect cash-strapped and time-stretched councils to tackle businesses with full-time staff who will do their best to hide any criminality and frustrate any enforcement action that is taken?

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, which has been made a few times already and cannot be stressed enough. That is another reason why a ban would be far easier and more cost-effective.

The well-documented suffering that arises during puppy dealing by third parties demonstrates that those engaged in the trade have little regard for the wellbeing of the animals in their care. Without consistent monitoring and severe penalties for breaches, it is unlikely that demanding licence regulations would be complied with. The resources that would be needed to exert any sort of control are disproportionate to the small welfare improvements that may result from the process. There is no evidence that third-party sellers would be less likely to comply with a ban than with a licensing requirement, or that the number of illegal third-party sellers would increase if a ban were introduced.

Let me finish by considering the implications of a ban not being introduced immediately. Continuing to license the third-party puppy trade would legitimise and endorse animal suffering and leave consumers vulnerable to significant emotional and financial consequences. As long as third-party sellers create demand for a large number of cheap, intensively bred puppies, welfare problems will remain in high-risk breeding establishments. The regulation of breeding establishments cannot be improved where the incentives for substandard practice exceed the penalties.

Permitting the sale of puppies bred in Europe, both legally and illegally, under low welfare conditions and with little thought for genetic and physical health may deter breeders in England and the rest of the UK from having regard to those things. Continued competitive pressure from sellers who supply cheaper puppies without the constraint of having to adhere to demanding regulatory requirements may result in some responsible UK breeders reducing or even ceasing breeding activity. It may even reduce demand for responsibly bred puppies and increase the market for irresponsible dealers and third-party traders.

An immediate ban on the sale of puppies by pet shops and other third-party commercial dealers would be a major step forward in putting an end to unnecessary animal cruelty and would help to eradicate irresponsible forms of dog breeding and selling such as puppy farming, smuggling and trafficking. There can be no doubt that Lucy’s law would help to protect breeding dogs, puppies and owners by making all breeders accountable and transparent, and ensuring consistent adherence to the Government’s advice that purchasers should see the puppies they intend to buy interacting with their mother in the place they were born. A ban on dealing puppies for profit could only raise welfare standards, and one is needed now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I wholeheartedly agree. As I said, when I bought Godiva, I made that mistake: having paid £550 for her, I thought she would have been from a decent, legitimate organisation, but clearly that was not the case.

Lucy died in December 2016, and I am happy to say that her later years were happier than her beginnings. We must do more to save countless other animals from suffering similar horrors to Lucy. Pup Aid has been campaigning on overbreeding of females since 2009, and I would like to take this opportunity to again congratulate Marc Abraham on his hard work on the campaign, as well as Lisa Garner, who is present and who rescued Lucy and ensured that she had a good end to her life.

As the hon. Lady has said, the public clearly remain naive to the horrors of the puppy farming trade, and that is why legislation is necessary to protect not just the puppies but their mothers as well as the public from facilitating this abhorrent trade.

[Lyn Brown]

A number of people have talked to me about how they were taken in by the sob stories of families in a flat who could no longer take a puppy so they had to give it away, with children roped into a farce and deception. We all need to be aware of the lengths to which people will go to exploit not only the animal but the person they are selling to, but the Government really need to legislate to give us the teeth so that we can keep them all safe.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I remind everyone that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) has said, education is key to moving forward and ensuring that we save as many animals as possible.

Sale of Puppies

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

To make a wider point, a fantastic aspect of this debate is that so many people have come to me with solutions. The hon. Gentleman is right: there should be a multifaceted attack on puppy farms and illegal dog breeding, and it should include education and raising red flags, as he suggests.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and I am pleased to be attending it. Good friends of mine who are intelligent human beings who really worry about the care of animals have been taken in by puppy dealers, and by the role played by the child of the puppy dealer, pretending that the puppy in question is a loved puppy that has been with their family for ages. They can be completely unscrupulous in the stories they tell and the ways in which they dupe members of the public.

[Chris Evans]

These puppy breeders will go to any lengths to make a case and secure a sale; it is all about profit.

I will use the example of my current dog; he is a fantastic dog with a great temperament. The key difference between the purchase of my first dog, which my mother bought from a pet shop, and that of my current dog is that I went to a reputable dealer, and met the mother and father, and saw what the puppy was like. The dealer also provided examples of what other puppies from that litter were like. There was a lot of further important information, too. I also had an information pack, so I knew who I was dealing with. We have had a fantastic time with the dog I have now.

In this age of modern technology, consumers are increasingly turning to online shopping to purchase their goods, and it is no different when buying a puppy. However, as I have mentioned, online sellers are slipping through the net and are becoming increasingly difficult to regulate and identify.

Blue Cross has been working in partnership with classified ad site Gumtree, which has been able to track repeated advertisers of puppies. It found that online sellers were using multiple email addresses, placing hundreds of adverts over the course of 24 months, and selling in multiple local authority areas—all the classic signs of a puppy farmer.

These cases are only a drop in the ocean of the wider problem of unlicensed breeders abusing the legislation. The Pet Animals Act 1951 must be updated in line with modern internet use. I know the Department has in the past said that it believes the definition of a pet shop to be wide enough to include the sale of pets online, but the horrific reality of what is happening says otherwise. However, updating the legislation is only one way in which we can tackle the problem. It is also vital that we are firmer with the enforcement of licences and with inspections of breeders, which must be more frequent and thorough.

In Wales, we are steps ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to regulating dog breeders. The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014 enabled the Welsh Government to enforce stricter rules for those wishing to breed dogs for profit. This is certainly a step in the right direction and I urge England and Scotland to follow suit, but the legislation is only as strong as the practices of the licensing officers. As elsewhere in the UK, local authorities in Wales are severely underfunded, and licensing officers are therefore not fully equipped or trained to do the job at full capacity. Many juggle multiple job roles, from inspecting food outlets in the morning to assessing dog breeders in the afternoon. Without full animal welfare training, licensing officers are unable to properly assess how fit a breeding establishment is for purpose. As a result, many puppy farms are issued licences. It is important to realise that this is not a Wales-only problem, a Scotland-only problem, a Northern Ireland-only problem or an England-only problem. It is a problem not only for the four nations but across European borders, and we need joined-up thinking on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Lady knows, local authorities already have budgets for such things and departments that deal with animal welfare. We will be addressing exactly what is required by “suitably qualified”. Most local authorities already have people who are suitably qualified, although they might require additional training.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister was doing well up to that point. We all know that our local authorities are under particular pressure. If this is to mean anything, the Government will have to put some money into it.

[George Eustice]

Local authorities are already required to carry out such activity. They already have animal welfare departments and dog wardens, and they already issue licensing conditions for a range of things. They already have trading standards departments. I think I have addressed that point, so I will move on, because other important issues have been raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I enjoyed the visit with my hon. Friend. It was astonishing to see that that was a one-in-500-years incident. I totally endorse his view that there should be involvement of local people. I am happy for him to write to me, and we can negotiate with the Environment Agency. I strongly urge him to get his local councils involved so that they can participate in our partnership regime.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

DEFRA’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health. As the country continues to experience significant flooding, I would like to thank the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and public utilities for their tireless work in seeking to safeguard both life and property. Despite those valiant efforts, eight people have lost their lives as a result of the severe weather conditions over the Christmas and new year period. I know the House will want to join me in extending our deepest sympathies to their families and friends. With water levels still rising in many areas, I ask the public to continue to take heed of the Environment Agency’s warnings. We must remain vigilant. I shall chair a further Cobra meeting this afternoon.

[Lyn Brown]

Children growing up near busy roads in West Ham are, because of the quality of air that they breathe, likely to enter adulthood with smaller lungs. Now that the Secretary of State has abandoned proposals to reduce air quality monitoring—a decision roundly condemned by professionals—will he explain what action he is going to take to deal with this growing public health crisis?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important question about what is a real and growing problem in certain conurbations. In fairness, however, it is exactly the opposite of what she says, as we are consulting on how to bring in more effective regimes. She has raised a key question that affects large numbers of people.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

On the question of port inspections, I was concerned to note that only 45 out of almost 40,000 animals were deemed unfit to continue their journey when inspected at the port. Does the hon. Lady agree that there might be a lack of decent inspections on our side of the channel as well?

[Laura Sandys]

There are issues about the EU, and there are issues about the competent authority. The competent authority in this instance is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it needs to ensure that we have a gold standard for inspections, enforcement and licensing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, as it is directly relevant to my life experience. I am one of the livestock farmers that other Members have been talking about for many years. I have been indirectly involved in the live export trade. In the early part of my career I was a cattle farmer, and nearly all the British male breeding stock has changed since then. We are now using European breeds—Charolais, Limousin and Simmental. The quality of British beef has been completely transformed, therefore, simply through the relationship between this country and other countries. That process is still going on elsewhere.

The main part of my enterprise was producing sheep, however. Exporting to France was particularly common. Most of my stock were sold at the local livestock market, where they were bought by a dealer, who would put together a lorry-load. The standards of those who transported animals were very high. The lorries at the Welshpool livestock market were of a very high standard, and many people were watching the quality of the loading, which was very good.

Some 20 or 30 years ago I would sell my small hill lambs towards the end of the season. The tradition then was to take them to the small market in Llanfair Caereinion from where they were taken to Spain. They were kept in Spain for several weeks, and the feeding regime was changed so the quality of the product was changed. I discussed the whole process with the local transporter, M. E. Edwards and Sons—one of the finest transporters in Britain, with very high standards, who is still operating today. The point was made to me that transporting those lambs served to underpin the lamb trade in rural Wales, and that they were far better treated than lambs supplied from elsewhere to the Spanish market would have been. If the lambs had not been transported from Wales, in what seemed to me to be the highest possible standards, they would have come from other parts of Europe, where standards had not been checked.

I have a lot of sympathy with many of the points made in the debate so far. I am in favour of gold-plating the standards of animal transport. It is a lot more important to ensure there are high transportation standards than to worry about distances. I am not in favour of banning live exports, and it is not entirely logical to concern ourselves with distance. We must make certain that all transport is of the very highest standard, and we should demand that when journeys cross borders, too.

Most of the store cattle at my farm in central Wales were sold to central Scotland, where they were fattened. That journey probably took longer than some of the time scales we are talking about. I cannot see the point of such time limits, and neither do I envisage that they will ever become law.

Let me turn to the question of unintended consequences. When I was in my teens, I was involved in these issues. Many people will remember the demonstrations at Dover. They were a matter of some concern, as they were hugely damaging to the farming industry. The ferry companies felt under public relations pressure, and eventually decided no longer to carry the animals. They were then transferred to Ramsgate, Ipswich or other ports where the standards were far lower. The boats were far less safe and less comfortable for the animals, and the travel time is far greater, and the facilities at the docks are not as good. The unintended consequence of having created that huge rumpus at Dover was a lowering of the standards of animal welfare.

Those who transport livestock from Britain must meet the gold-plated standards we in Britain demand. If we stop live exports, European companies will still buy lambs to satisfy demand in their markets, but they will buy them from somewhere else. The result of a ban on animal transportation will be that the sum total of animal cruelty is increased, and no one wants that. We must be aware of the possible unintended consequences of the proposals we make.

I welcome the Minister’s recent statement on these matters. We want to maximise the proportion of slaughtering that takes place in the United Kingdom, rather than abroad. That will support the British economy and mean there are more jobs in the United Kingdom. European markets need to be educated, however. The French like to have lamb that has been in France for a day or two so they can describe it to customers as “Welsh lamb.” The Spanish certainly used to want to have the animals in Spain for quite a long period so they could have different feeding regimes and the resulting meat was different and more attractive to the Spanish market. We need to change the nature of the markets in Europe, therefore.

I am also pleased about the Minister’s focus on zero tolerance. If a transporter is found guilty several times, their licence must be taken away as they are not fit for the job. This is a highly sensitive job that is important to the farming industry, and the British people have a natural instinct to care about the animals we farm. It is unacceptable for anybody who has a record of poor behaviour to have a licence to transport animals. They must be kicked out of the industry all together.

The Minister referred to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Wherever there is the slightest doubt about standards—as there is in Ramsgate at present—the agency must check up on the situation very closely. There must immediately be a Government presence at the port in question and action must be taken if necessary.

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[Glyn Davies]

I was going to finish there, but as the hon. Lady wants to intervene, I shall pretend I have another half-sentence to say.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I listened intently to the points he made. I did not agree with some of them, but as his speech came across as a confessional, I felt I should not intervene until now. Does he agree that what happened at Ramsgate—some 40 sheep died—is unlikely to be an isolated incident? We need a proper review into the transportation of animals, and an inspection regime must be put in place. Does he agree, and will he call for a proper review by the Government, not a narrow internal one?

[Glyn Davies]

I am terribly sorry if my speech came across as any sort of confessional. Throughout my involvement in the business, I have been extremely proud of it. Indeed, if I lived my life again, I would probably do exactly the same thing. I see absolutely no reason to apologise for anything. May I also say how much I appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) about improved payment being a good thing for farmers in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, it is a despicable trade, and my hon. Friend, who has Gatwick airport in his constituency, will know how hard we work on our borders to deter it. We are working through the convention on international trade in endangered species to ensure that no further sales of ivory take place without firm evidence that such sales will reduce poaching. In the past year we have contributed £134,000 to Interpol and CITES precisely to combat the illegal ivory trade.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

T2. There are reports that the Mayor of London sprays suppressants on roads immediately around key air pollution monitoring sites to reduce pollution readings. Given that there are an estimated 4,000 deaths in the capital a year owing to the air quality, would that not be an outrageous and rather callous scam? Does the Minister support the policy of pretending an issue does not exist rather than using scarce resources to deal with it?

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

Suppressants are used as part of a wide strategy for dealing with pollution, and if the hon. Lady believes they are only used around monitoring stations, she is entirely wrong. They are used at pollution hot spots as a temporary measure, and as part of a wider strategy. The Mayor should be applauded for the measures that he is bringing in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I am disturbed to hear that there was any threat to Henry Moore’s beautiful sculpture on College green—that is news to me—but it reminds us of the dreadful depths to which these criminals have sunk in removing metal from statues and, particularly, from war memorials, which has brought misery. Yes, as part of this clampdown on metal theft, we will streamline regulations. From April, for example, the Environment Agency will consider convictions linked with metal theft alongside other criteria when scrutinising the applications for an environmental permit to run a scrap metal yard.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to protect production and jobs in the UK sugar industry.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

We benefit from two sources of sugar supply in the UK: sugar beet, grown by farmers in this country and processed by British Sugar, and sugar cane, which is imported and refined by Tate & Lyle Sugars. The European Commission’s current management of the EU sugar market is threatening the continuing viability of the cane side of the industry, and we are urging the Commission to provide a balance of competition and success between the two sources.

[Lyn Brown]

The Secretary of State is absolutely right. The proposed job losses at Tate & Lyle are not due to a lack of demand for sugar or a lack of modernisation by the company; they are actually due to a ruthless protection of the European sugar beet industry, which is putting up our sugar prices and putting my constituents out of work. Can the Secretary of State assure me that she will stand up against the bureaucrats and the vested interests in the European Commission, and stand up for British industry?

[Mrs Spelman]

I absolutely give the hon. Lady that assurance. I know that she is coming to see the Minister of State on Monday. Both he and I have strongly put the case that she has outlined. There are obvious employment consequences for London as a result of this threat to the viability of the cane side of the business. We believe that we need both sources of sugar in this country to flourish and be successful, and we believe there is room for both.