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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Pets are a part of our family. They provide support and companionship when we need it most. In time-honoured Friday tradition, I would like to name my own pets, from my childhood cat Perdita through to Phoebe, who I adopted while I lived in the States, my yellow Labradors Harry and George, and my current much-adored fox red Labrador, Henry.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Has the hon. Lady ever owned a ferret? If so, what was that ferret’s name?

[Selaine Saxby]

That is an excellent intervention. I will come to ferrets, but unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of one at home myself.

The companionship of pets was highly valued during the covid pandemic, when there was a surge in demand for puppies and kittens, which unfortunately led to even more upsetting cases of pet smuggling in the UK. During covid, legal commercial imports of dogs rose by nearly 60% to more than 70,000 dogs in 2021, and trends in illegal imports could be expected to be similar.

Puppy and kitten smuggling came on my radar as an MP shortly after the first lockdown began in March 2020, when I was one of those people trying to find a new pup, which were hard to find. I am grateful to my great dog-loving friend Bethany Sawyer for her advice not to see the cute puppy that was the wrong age without both parents available in the advert. While Henry, my fox red Labrador was not smuggled into the country—I met his mum and dad at their farm just above my North Devon home—I understand how the emotions in adopting a new pet and companion often leave some of the rationality and questioning behind. Prices for specific dog breeds doubled, and the UK market struggled to keep up. With huge profits to be made, that imbalance provided ample opportunity for people acting illegally and irresponsibly to import puppies and take advantage of innocent pet buyers, who may not have known that their furry friends were suffering. YouGov polling shows that 83% of the public want the Government to crack down on puppy smuggling.

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee, and I am delighted to be flanked by my Whip from that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) and other members of that Committee who are supporting this Bill. Just this week alone, more than 100 colleagues have dropped in to see the Dogs Trust and support the Bill.

When the kept animals Bill was withdrawn and divided up, I made a commitment to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Dogs Trust that if I came high up in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I would take part of that Bill through. As I am not a regular raffle prize winner, I was more than a bit perplexed to find myself come sixth. I looked at Henry—I am still not sure whether he fully understands all the media attention—and explained that we were going to be helping puppies for many months to come. I am delighted that I have been able to keep that commitment here today.

As a dog owner myself, I find it horrific to hear stories of puppies and kittens being smuggled across the border and the poor conditions they have to endure. Pets are more than just property; they are family. The Bill will ensure that pets are not sold or traded as objects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend.

The Bill is a declaration of our commitment to compassion and responsibility towards our furry companions. It seeks to address several pressing issues concerning the importation of these animals, ensuring their safety, health and wellbeing.

My constituency has always cared for animals and led the way on animal rights. Chester West and Chester Council was one of the first authorities to permanently ban the practice of trail hunting on council-owned land. The National Trust soon followed suit. The changes introduced by the last Labour Government have left an indelible mark on British history and have stood the test of time, from the bans on fox hunting and fur farming, to the action to stop experimentation on great apes and the testing of cosmetics on animals. We must ensure that we do not stop there. We should lead the way on animal welfare, and this Bill is another step forward and is long overdue.

Puppies, kittens and other animals continue to be illegally imported into the UK on an industrial scale, alongside increasing numbers of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and animals with mutilations, such as cropped ears. Every year, thousands of puppies are illegally imported into the UK to be sold to unsuspecting dog lovers, having been transported thousands of miles with little or no food, water or exercise. I am concerned that there is widespread abuse of the pet travel scheme to smuggle animals illegally, often under age, unvaccinated and in poor welfare conditions.

Dogs, cats and ferrets can enter the United Kingdom in one of two ways: as non-commercial pet travel movements or as commercial imports. More stringent requirements apply to commercial imports than to non-commercial movements. Evidence has shown that commercial movements are frequently being described as non-commercial movements to avoid the more stringent requirements.

In 2023, more than 500 landings of dogs and cats were intercepted at the port of Dover and found to be non- compliant with import requirements. Of these, 116 puppies and kittens were quarantined for being below the legally required minimum age for import. That data does not include animals detained at airports or found inland. We cannot know the true extent of puppy smuggling operations, so these figures likely capture only a small portion of the animals smuggled into the country.

According to Dogs Trust, since the relaxation of the pet travel scheme—PETS—in 2012, the number of dogs entering the country via PETS has increased exponentially. Dogs Trust has conducted five investigations, which have exposed smugglers using PETS as a cover to illegally import dogs into Great Britain for sale. In 2015, Dogs Trust set up the puppy pilot through which it funds the quarantine cost of illegally imported puppies seized at the border and then rehomes them responsibly through its network of rehoming centres. Since 2015, more than 2,256 illegally imported puppies have been cared for by Dogs Trust through the puppy pilot, which, if sold to unsuspecting members of the public, would have made more than £3 million for the illegal importers. As many as 75 dogs coming in through the Dogs Trust puppy pilot have had their ears cropped, despite this cruel mutilation being illegal in the UK and the EU.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting contribution. From her research, has she any idea to what extent the regulations are enforced to crack down on ear cropping, which is already illegal in Britain, but which we know still goes on? It is all very well not bringing in dogs that have had their ears cropped, but what does she think is happening to enforce the current law?

[Samantha Dixon]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said in his intervention, the Government need to commit to enforcement if they accept this important piece of legislation in order to tackle serious issues like ear cropping. I thank Dogs Trust and other animal welfare charities, such as Cats Protection and the RSPCA, for the important work they do to support the wellbeing of our beloved animals.

Talking of the RSPCA, I thought that I would take the opportunity to talk a little more about ferrets, which do not seem to have been mentioned much during this Session of Parliament. With the obvious exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), I do not think we have talked about ferrets in this place at all—we have been more likely to talk about reverse ferrets than actual ferrets.

I am grateful to the RSPCA for its fun factsheet on ferrets, to which I shall refer. I have learned a great deal about ferrets in doing research for this debate. Apparently, ferrets—or Mustela putorius furo, which translates as stinky, raging thief—are a close ancestor to the European polecat and, because of their charming and cheeky characters, have become popular pets.

Ferrets have a number of characteristics, which the RSPCA draws out. Ferrets enjoy exploring and are very curious. They are obviously predators, which is a characteristic for which they are more widely known, but they are also very sociable, which is probably why they have risen in popularity as a pet. They are playful and they also like sleeping. Apparently, they can sleep for between 18 and 20 hours a day, which is quite a feat.

Ferrets use a range of methods to communicate. They use a smell to hunt and they are also very vocal, which made me think—in a particularly vocal debate—about how they communicate. An excited ferret will make a “dooking” noise, which is also called chuckling. They can also produce a bark-like sound, and sometimes do that if they are afraid. Continuous screaming is an indication that they are highly alert in the presence of danger. Ferrets are flexible, colourful and can catch cold. They sound like a fascinating animal and I am so pleased that the debate of the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) covers ferrets as well.

Let me return to the Bill and welcome some aspects of it. I welcome the fact that it will ban the import of puppies and kittens under six months old, and dogs and cats that are heavily mutilated or heavily pregnant. It will also address the current abuse of non-commercial rules that compromises animal welfare and buyer security, by making it more difficult and less profitable for traders to import animals for sale fraudulently in the guise of owners travelling with their own pets.

At its core, the Bill seeks to establish comprehensive regulations and standards for the importation process for dogs, cats and ferrets. By implementing stringent health checks, vaccination requirements and documentation procedures, we can effectively safeguard against the spread of diseases and prevent the introduction of infectious agents into our communities. These measures are essential not only for the protection of the imported animals, but for the welfare of domestic animals and the public at large.

Furthermore, the Bill advocates the humane treatment of animals throughout their journey. From the moment they leave their country of origin to their arrival at their destination, animals deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We must ensure that they are transported in safe and comfortable conditions, free from stress, fear and unnecessary suffering. Additionally, the Bill seeks to combat the cruel practices associated with the illegal trade of dogs, cats and ferrets by cracking down on unscrupulous breeders and traders who exploit these animals for profit. In that way, we can protect vulnerable species from exploitation and abuse.

The Bill goes further on the importance of responsible pet ownership. Owning a dog, cat or ferret is not merely a privilege; it is a responsibility that requires commitment, care and compassion. On behalf of my constituents in Chester and the many animal lovers across the country, I once again congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on this important and long-overdue Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It was unfortunate that, even at that point, we still had not managed to bring anything forward around the importation of pets, and it was disappointing that the kept animals Bill was abandoned. We were told in the House that the Government expected such measures to come forward through private Members’ Bills, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on her Bill. I am delighted that what I considered to be something for the birds at the time has come about, and I am delighted on this occasion to have been wrong.

If the moral arguments for the Bill—greater protections for the health and welfare of domestic animals—are not compelling enough for Members across the House, the biosecurity threat posed by a poorly regulated and exploited importation industry should be. That is of particular relevance to my constituents in West Lancashire, which is also a farming community and so relies significantly on biosecurity.

Puppies, kittens and ferrets imported into the UK illegally pose a significant risk of parasitic disease. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took oral evidence on its puppy smuggling inquiry in October 2019, but the written evidence submitted to that inquiry and published for all Members of the House to read was particularly interesting. Dogs and puppies illegally landed in the UK were recognised as presenting a significant biosecurity risk. The pet travel scheme requires microchipping, rabies vaccination, a mandatory pre-travel waiting period and, depending on the country from which the pet is travelling, tapeworm treatment and a rabies antibody test result to create a pet passport.

The commercial importation scheme has greater requirements, as I referenced earlier, and has all the conditions of the pet travel scheme alongside a pre-importation veterinary examination, an animal health certificate and pre-notification to the authorities to ensure welfare during transportation. The illegal smuggling of pets, where there is not compliance with PTS or commercial importation standards, leaves our residents’ pets, animals and us at risk of infectious diseases that may spread to other animals or, in some cases, people in the UK.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is making points that others have not made, so this is a very valuable contribution. Will she say something about how animals coming in that perhaps have not had those vaccinations, or that are not properly certificated as such, can cause devastation to farming communities like hers, because the diseases they carry do not necessarily stick to one individual species? This can be a real issue for an entire community. It is all very well having a law, but enforcement is the key to stopping these problems arising.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising how important this is in farming communities such as mine. This is crucial, and we have legislation in place, some of which many farmers find quite onerous, to protect the biosecurity of their livestock and land. It is particularly relevant in my constituency, which has wetlands and bird sanctuaries.

Some protections are difficult to put in place, and I have had long discussions with chicken and wildfowl breeders in West Lancashire about the things they have to do to protect our nation’s biosecurity. We need to ensure there is continuing awareness of the legislation because, obviously, parasitic infections take no notice of borders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a joy to follow that incredible speech. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on introducing the Bill. Not only does it help the Government to continue to fulfil the commitments in the Conservative manifesto on animal welfare—an area of great concern for a vast number of my South Derbyshire constituents—but crucially, it directly and effectively legislates against those who might attempt to illegally smuggle puppies, kittens and ferrets across our border. I am sure that colleagues across the House can support that sentiment and will want to get on with this. I have received many letters from my constituents about the Bill, all asking me to pledge my support, and I submit to do that on the record now.

This illegal trade is appalling. The puppy trade in the UK, as has been noted, is valued at £3 billion, with around 2 million puppies—a phenomenal number—being sold annually. The numbers are staggering and when one considers that as much as 50% of the trade is illegal or unlicensed, the enormity of the issue is really brought into focus. In any industry or trade where the numbers and profit margins have the potential to be as large as these are, we can always predict that there will be a degree of exploitation. On an issue such as this, however, which involves the welfare and treatment of puppies, kittens and ferrets—in some cases, barely weeks old—it is incredibly important that we act. Again, I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the Floor of the House.

The criminals who perpetrate this trade are motivated purely by greed. In most cases, these poor animals are either pregnant or newly born and are kept in conditions of squalor and filth until they are then subjected to the cramped conditions of their smuggling. They are subsequently sold to unsuspecting owners without any knowledge of the hardship that their new pet has undergone. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have taken a large chunk of my speech out to make sure that colleagues can get in.

Towards the end of last year, I visited Daisy Brook boarding kennels in my constituency. The owners of the business frequently and legally transfer pets from the UK and Europe across our border and have had plenty of run-ins with those who smuggle puppies and kittens illegally. They told me that the smugglers have a staggering lack of regard for the animals they are smuggling. These young puppies are nothing more than future profit and any thoughts of the welfare of these animals are non-existent.

The Bill is crucial to restricting smugglers, and it will prove yet again that we are a Government for whom the welfare of animals is a top priority. We left the EU so that we could make our own decisions on these issues.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Member is obviously very passionate about this issue. Does she have any thoughts about enforcement? There is widespread support around the House for the measures in the Bill, but the issue of enforcement is key to ensuring that we really do stamp out the puppy smuggling trade.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention, and I know the Minister will reply fully later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Animal welfare is a top priority for my constituents. I regularly get hundreds of emails a month from concerned residents who want to see action on a raft of animal welfare issues, from puppy smuggling to cat declawing and animal testing. As the husband of a veterinary surgeon, I completely concur with my constituents on the importance of this hugely significant policy area. It would of course be remiss of me not to mention my own pet cat, Frank, and the unfortunate recent passing of my cat, Smudge, and my dog, Roger.

I fully concur with the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby): pets are indeed part of our family, and are missed as much as family members. I am sure Mr Speaker will concur with that. I have yet to meet Attlee the cat—I do not know whether you have, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I hope to do so at some point in time.

Many of my constituents have written to me about the abhorrent practice of ear cropping. As colleagues may know, in 2022 the RSPCA recorded a horrifying 621% increase in the number of dog ear cropping reports it received over the previous five years. Of course, ear cropping has been illegal in this country since 2006. The previous Labour Government made sure of that—I will come to Labour’s animal welfare achievements shortly. The RSPCA has real concerns that an increasing number of dogs are being sent abroad for ear cropping to circumvent UK law. Let me be clear that there is absolutely no evidence that ear cropping is necessary or has any medical benefits for dogs. Innocent dogs’ ears are clipped, often simply because their owner wants their dog to look scarier—for cosmetic reasons. Most horrifyingly of all, far too often the procedure is carried out by amateurs with basic DIY tools and no anaesthetic for the dog. We must be clear that ear cropping is mutilation—it is cruelty.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) for her very interesting insight into the world of ferrets. And just to broach the inevitable question from my family when I return home, no we cannot have a ferret.

I am immensely pleased to see such an important Bill receive parliamentary time. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon for all her hard work in securing and bringing forward the Bill. She is a powerful campaigner on ecological and environmental issues, and on animal welfare. I have immense respect for her. But I have to say that it is a damning indictment of just how far this Conservative Government have given up on governing. They have their own MPs legislating from the Back Benches via private Members’ Bills, because Ministers refuse to pass an equivalent Bill in Government time.

The Tories repeatedly promised to progress the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but failed to do so, abandoning ship after two Second Readings despite it supposedly being a key manifesto priority for those on the Tory Benches. Colleagues may recall that Labour attempted to revive the Bill last year. How foolish we were to assume that, just because it was in the Tory manifesto and promised repeatedly during the last election and by Tory Ministers countless times since, the Government would actually stick to their word. I am glad the Government seem to be content with the Bill progressing, but it seems bizarre that they have to be reminded of a key plank of their own manifesto from one of their own MPs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), the shadow Environment Secretary said, it is as plain as day that the Conservatives have simply bottled it.

In contrast with this Tory Government, I am immensely proud of the contribution the previous Labour Government made to animal welfare. In 1997, Labour banned the practice of experimenting on great apes and introduced a ban on testing cosmetics on animals, extended to include cosmetic ingredients in 1998. Labour then passed the groundbreaking Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000.

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, because it was my private Member’s Bill that led to the 2000 Act. Although it was talked out on Report by then Opposition MPs who did not like the word “prohibition”, it was adopted by the Labour Government and passed into law, which was a very good thing and led to a European-wide ban on fur farming.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and for all the work and effort she made to make that possible.

Labour passed the Hunting Act 2004, which banned the hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, hares and mink. We banned the use of drift nets in fishing, freeing dolphins, sea birds and other sea creatures from painful and cruel ensnarement. Labour’s Animal Welfare Act 2006 saw, for the first time, animal owners responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals were met. Labour has a proud animal welfare legacy and it is a privilege to represent a constituency that continues to take these issues so very seriously.

This Bill will finally make provision for restrictions on the live importation of dogs, cats and ferrets, as originally attempted in the failed Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I am pleased the Bill has the support of many others, including Pets at Home and Vets for Pets, who have long supported action on this issue and whom I recently visited. The conditions on importation set out in the Bill are vital for efforts to continue to drive up animal welfare standards in the UK. The Bill’s banning of the importation of kittens and puppies under the age of six months, and dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant, or which have been mutilated by ear cropping, declawing or tail docking, are welcome provisions that will bring a wave of relief to my constituents in Wakefield who care so passionately about this issue.

Touching briefly on cat smuggling, I am pleased that the Bill has the support of Cats Protection. Its research found that 50,000 cats were obtained overseas in 2022-23. Without stronger restrictions on import conditions, there is very little that we can do to ensure that these cats get the veterinary treatment they need for legal entry into this country. Without stronger laws, there is very little that we can do to ensure that a cat’s travel conditions or point of origin were not traumatic, which is so often the case. Stress from long journeys is well documented and, as my husband has attested, can cause cats painful cystitis. It is critical for animal welfare that we get this right.

I particularly welcome the provisions for the regulation of the number of cats, dogs and ferrets that can be imported at a time per vehicle or foot passenger before it is deemed a commercial import. This is a vital part of the Bill that will go some way towards addressing the scourges of puppy and kitten smuggling and of animal mutilation, both of which blight our animal welfare reputation and actively harm the welfare of hundreds of animals every year.

I welcome the Bill, and I sincerely hope that the Government provide the parliamentary time for its progression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I can give the hon. Lady a categorical reassurance that the veterinary profession is strongly looking at the issue very closely. It also has a role in educating the pet-owning public about where to source their dogs responsibly and to ensure that those dogs have a good and happy life. But yes, the veterinary profession is looking at this closely. What comes into frame with ear-cropped dogs is an upsurge in the past few years of unregulated canine fertility clinics, where acts of veterinary surgery are being performed by people who are not qualified. In future, we need to ensure that we strongly clamp down on those practices as well.

I am absolutely delighted that the Bill includes cats. The mutilations include those cats that have been horrifically declawed. There is no benefit to the cat in being declawed. The Bill will help an awful lot of cats.

In future, we need to look at whether secondary legislation is needed. We will ban the import of ear-cropped dogs, but we need to think, too, about banning the onward sale of those dogs in this country. However, I hope that the Bill will stop the importation, so that that may not be necessary. Again, we need to keep a watching brief.

Many colleagues today have talked about diseases. The importation of animals presents a risk to not only animals in this country, but people. One major disease that we are concerned about is canine brucellosis, caused by Brucella canis. There were 143 positive cases in dogs from 2020 to 2022 and 160 positive cases in 2023. There have been two laboratory-confirmed cases in people. This is a disease—zoonosis—that can be transmitted from dogs to people.

The Bill will ban the importation of heavily pregnant dogs. One of the main exposures to brucellosis is when a pregnant dog comes into the country and whelps here—the birthing fluids are a potential risk for people. Vets, nurses and practitioners on the frontline are at risk, as are owners. As I said, two people in this country have contracted the disease.

Brucellosis is an unpleasant disease for the dog. Treatment is not recommended; the prognosis is poor and often euthanasia is recommended. It is also an unpleasant illness in people, especially in vulnerable and immuno-compromised people. It is a salient point to make that we need to be cognisant that laws like this will help the situation, because we have seen an increase of dogs coming in that have such diseases.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Given his experience as a vet, to what extent does he think that enforcement is an issue? I think that there is widespread support around the House for the provisions in the Bill, but enforcement is key. Does he think that that is getting better or worse?

[Dr Hudson]

Enforcement is pivotal. I chaired the EFRA Committee this week, in the Chair’s absence, and we had a special session on issues facing the veterinary sector. We looked closely at biosecurity, animal health and welfare, and things like the Animal and Plant Health Agency. It is about being vigilant about diseases and monitoring them. Later in my speech, I will touch on how we can do more in that area.

On the importation of dogs, as we have said, in the UK people love their animals. A lot of people think that they are doing the right thing by importing and rescuing those dogs. We have seen a surge of dogs coming over from the continent of Europe—from eastern Europe, Macedonia and so on—and some of those dogs have had diseases like brucellosis and leishmaniasis, and that is where we need to be careful. People think that they are doing the dogs a favour, but unscrupulous people are probably rounding up street dogs to bring them over, when that does not benefit the dog in its own country. At the same time, we need to remember that we have animal welfare charities in this country absolutely full of lovely dogs that need to be rehomed. People in this country can do a better thing by seeking their dogs, cats and other pets from such charities.

May I give a huge shout out and say thank you to all those animal welfare charities and shelters that do so much to rescue these animals? We have seen a real upsurge in pet ownership through the pandemic—people talk about pandemic puppies. People took on animals in different circumstances, and now many have gone back to work and cannot deal with them. Many of these animals were not socialised. In the EFRA Committee inquiry, we have seen an increase in behavioural issues, with animal welfare charities picking up the slack. I pay tribute to those charities; they have a really important and stressful job, and we are very lucky to have them.

We need to keep vigilant when it comes to biosecurity. We should think about introducing secondary legislation on pre-importation checks for dogs, so that we can check them for brucella canis when they come in.

In 2012, the EU stopped the mandatory treatment against ticks and tapeworms in some animals coming in. Now that we have left the European Union, we have the opportunity to reinstate that mandatory treatment. Let me illustrate how that could be important. Madam Deputy Speaker, just up the road from your constituency in Epping Forest is Harlow. A few years ago, a dog picked up babesiosis on a walk in Harlow. The dog had never been out of the country, so had picked up that disease from a tick in a field in Harlow, Essex. Obviously, a dog had gone out of the country, or come back in, and had not been treated, dropped the tick and a dog here got that disease. That illustrates how a simple change through secondary legislation could protect dogs in this country. That is something that we need to consider.

We have talked a lot about biosecurity, and we have mentioned today the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which does fantastic work in keeping our country safe. It has dealt with incredible threats in recent years: it has been tackling avian influenza; it is working closely on bovine tuberculosis; and now there is the increasing threat of bluetongue, which the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) is looking at very closely. As the midge season approaches, this virus will put everyone under pressure. Again, I pay tribute to those people on the frontline who are trying to do so much to keep the animal and plant health of our nations safe and, indirectly, human public health as well.

The Minister knows where I am going with this. We had the chief veterinary officer in front of the EFRA Committee this week, again reaffirming the importance of upgrading and doing a full refurbishment of the APHA headquarters in Weybridge. It needs a £2.8 billion refurbishment, which is a lot of money when we are financially constrained as a country, but that money needs to be spent because it will save a lot of heartache and money in the future. I urge the Government to move forward on that; we need to be prepared.

Now that we have left the European Union, there has been much talk about enforcement and checks of animals coming in. Prior to our leaving the EU, these animals were coming in with no checks at all, so we have a real opportunity now to strengthen our biosecurity. There is now the border target operating model, which has been the subject of many questions. Our Select Committee is taking a close interest in that, so we have been down to Dover. As I said, we have an opportunity now to strengthen our biosecurity and we must get it right. We must fund it right and staff it properly. We need to make sure that we inform these bad people—the unscrupulous people who will try to unpick this legislation and find loopholes—that there will be random checks on ports to make sure that, if they are coming in on a weekend, on a different day or through a different port, they could be detected. That will protect animal health and welfare in this country.

I digress a little, but we have talked a lot about animal health and welfare and cropped dogs, so let me mention the XL Bully dog, which has had an awful lot of ear cropping. The Government have now introduced, in my view, the necessary legislation to protect people and other animals from some of those dogs. Some are fine, but some are really very dangerous indeed. I am very appreciative of the Government, including the Secretary of State and Ministers for listening to me, the BVA and the EFRA Committee on extending the neutering deadline for young dogs under seven months at the end of January this year. The neutering deadline has been extended to June 2025. That might seem a small point, but it is important for exempted registered XL Bully dogs. There will be health benefits—if they are spayed or castrated too early, they have clinical difficulties— and this will relieve pressure on the veterinary sector moving forward.

I am glad to welcome the legislation. The Conservative Government have a strong record on animal welfare, as we: passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022; instituted the Animal Sentience Committee; introduced the Sentencing Act 2020, which increased sentences for cruelty to animals; introduced compulsory microchipping of cats; and banned the keeping of primates as pets. We also have further Bills coming in, including on pet theft and livestock worrying.

We are a nation of animal lovers. We have the highest animal welfare standards in the world. With Bills like this, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. Animal welfare unites us in humanity and across the House. As a Member of Parliament and a veterinary surgeon, I welcome the Bill, which has my full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on bringing forward this important bill.

Feltham and Heston is a community of animal lovers, and animal welfare is one of the issues that is constantly prevalent in my inbox—I am sure it is the same for colleagues. Constituency-level polling shows that two thirds of my constituents feel that animal welfare should be a priority for political parties. I thank my constituents Judith Ross, Brenda Pugh, Elaine Fogarty, Shirley O’Leary, Jacqui Meades and many others for their consistent championing of animal rights.

The hon. Lady made a very strong case for reform in support of animal health and welfare, and to tackle the exploitation of very vulnerable animals. Changes introduced by the previous Labour Government left an indelible mark on British history and have stood the test of time. They include the bans on fox hunting and fur farming and the action taken to stop experimentation on great apes and cosmetics testing on animals. The belief in protecting animal welfare, shared by the Labour party and colleagues from across the House, is a matter of principle and conviction.

My constituents were rightly appalled that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, a 2019 manifesto commitment, was shelved by the Conservative Government and that Conservative MPs also voted against Labour’s plan, which I supported, to ensure that the Bill had parliamentary time last June. It is important that we are now having this debate and I am proud to have attended this week’s Dogs Trust event, which was sponsored by the hon. Member for North Devon. That highlighted its decade of work on ending puppy smuggling. I thank it for all that it does.

Although I congratulate the hon. Member on introducing today’s Bill, which clearly has cross-party support, it is puzzling that it is the responsibility of Back Benchers to bring in this important legislation. It can hardly be said that we have a crowded legislative agenda in the House. There should be enough Government time to necessitate this. These issues were also raised by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in 2016, 2019 and 2021. Given that the Government have been so enthusiastic about taking advantage of Brexit bonuses when they relate to sacking striking nurses, scrapping consumer rights or undermining environmental protections, it beggars belief that it has taken so long for us to have proposals on much-needed and uncontroversial tweaks to the EU pet travel scheme.

The Bill will close three important loopholes in the pet travel rules that apply to non-commercial movements to prevent unscrupulous traders from exploiting the rules. Puppy, kitten and ferret smuggling is a significant problem that causes immense pain and huge distress to the animals affected. It is a widespread and horrifying practice.

In 2019, Dogs Trust told the EFRA Committee that as many as 450,000 puppies each year come from unknown sources. Investigations conducted by Four Paws have revealed that almost a third of surveyed classified ads related to puppies illegally imported from eastern Europe. These puppies are often bred in puppy farms, removed from their mothers before they turn eight weeks old, and subject to horrific mutilation practices such as ear cropping or docking tails. Dogs Trust told that story again so powerfully this week. They may also be subject to abuse in transit, with puppies sometimes as young as four weeks imported into the UK, often travelling across Europe in cramped conditions without food, exercise or toilet breaks and minimal water. They are then sold to unsuspecting owners, making huge profit for the smugglers. Given the poor condition in which these dogs are raised, many then face serious and chronic health problems and socialisation issues.

The Bill will ensure that smugglers cannot subject puppies to mutilation practices, further cracking down on these cruel practices that are illegal in the UK and the EU. I acknowledge the powerful contributions that have been made today, which include points about the illegal trade and, importantly, the awareness of where the mothers and fathers have come from and their welfare, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said. There were also important contributions from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) about diseases that come with illegal importation. We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) for her discussion of ferrets, including her challenging some of the myths and highlighting the character and companionship of ferrets.



I also want to speak to some broader issues that are important to consider in the context of the Bill. I particularly want to mention XL Bullies, because I have had representations from some very concerned constituents. I will mention some of the issues that they have shared with me. It has been suggested that the Government dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill because there are wider issues that need to be considered, and individual reforms cannot always be considered in isolation. All animals deserve to live high-quality lives, and it is important that we have open and honest debates about the challenges that we still need to address. The fact that animals have a right to live high-quality lives is the reason why the last Labour Government passed the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, which was led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Dame Margaret Beckett).

On XL Bullies, there have been calls to review the implementation of changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and breed-specific legislation. Written evidence was submitted in October by the Dog Control Coalition, which comprises Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, Dogs Trust, Hope Rescue, RSPCA and others. It recognises the importance of taking action and the deep concern about recent dog-bite incidents, their horrific consequences, and the injuries and deaths that have occurred. There is a clear need to tackle that issue, but there are concerns that simply banning a breed, for which there may be limited verifiable evidence, will not necessarily tackle the root causes of such incidents.

There is acknowledgment that the larger the breed, the greater the capacity for harm if the dog displays aggressive behaviour. However, there can be a false assumption that all other dogs are safe, when the reality is that any dog could have the capacity to be dangerous if irresponsibly bred, reared and socialised. The Dog Control Coalition has raised concerns about the potential consequences of breed-specific legislation, which could impact on far more dogs and owners than intended, and lead to many thousands of dogs that are behaviourally and medically sound being put to sleep, as they would be included in a broad standard, even if they are cross-breeds. The coalition also raised concerns about the enforceability of a ban, and about the surge in demand for the involvement of police, local authorities, veterinary clinics, and rescue and rehoming organisations.

[Maria Eagle]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before the right hon. Lady intervenes and the hon. Lady goes further down this route, let me say that I have a personal, passionate interest this subject. I am paying great attention to what the hon. Lady is saying, and she has rather moved away from the context of the Bill.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many XL Bully dogs are imported illegally? That is one of the reasons why what she is saying is in order. I hope you agree, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend is correct, and it is important that these issues are considered more widely.

Illegal breeding means that we cannot be sure about the safety of pets that people may purchase in good faith, and there will be challenges with how they have been bred and looked after. You may be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have much by way of illegal, backstreet breeders, and that is not just in the UK. There ought to be more regulation of breeding. Backstreet breeders in this country can breed three litters a year without a licence, so could end up with 30 pups a year being sold at £5,000 each, with those dogs reared to be aggressive. In fact, in the light of the recent ban, how it is being reviewed and how it is being enforced, other, more aggressive dog breeds are being bred through backstreet breeders.

My constituents have raised some concerns on what we know about pets and where they may have come from. They have also raised the devastating impact of having a pet—a member of the family—at risk of being put down. I have had constituents in tears who say they have come under the scope of the legislation and can no longer transport their dog in their car if they are driving alone, and they live alone with their dog.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on bringing the Bill forward and on coming up in the private Members’ Bill ballot. That is not easy—it has only happened to me once in 26 years—so she has done well.

The hon. Lady has picked an issue that is very important to many Members from across the House. I can say for sure that over the years I have been a Member—as I say, it is now 26 years—the postbag I have received, either by letter or more recently by email, text and social media, has been overwhelmingly dominated by those constituents who write to me about improving animal welfare. I suspect my experience is not dissimilar to that of many other Members, and that we all get a big postbag from our constituents raising animal welfare issues. We are indeed a nation of animal lovers, so she has done well to select this issue. I am not being unpleasant to her if I say that she seems to have had some help with the drafting. Given the issue’s complications, that is probably a good thing. I am sure the Government have improved on the drafting of the more comprehensive animal welfare Bill that they withdrew, which included some of these issues.

I can compliment the hon. Lady on one other thing, before I move on to the substance of the Bill, which is that she is implementing a manifesto commitment of her party. That is more than the Government have managed to do so far from their own Front Bench, so she should be congratulated on that too. It is not a usual or easy thing to do. The only issue is whether this Parliament will last long enough for her to get the Bill all the way on to the statute book. Obviously, it has to go through the other place and its remaining stages here. If the Bill passes Second Reading today, there are a few Bills ahead of it, so there is a bit of a queue in Committee. My advice to her, as somebody who sort of managed to get a private Member’s Bill on to the statute book by forcing the Government to do it later, is to not stop fussing behind the scenes: do not stop pressing and pushing them to make sure that if the Bill passes Second Reading, and it looks very much as if it will—

[Selaine Saxby]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words, but she clearly does not know me very well; I never stop pushing.

[Maria Eagle]

I am very glad to hear that, because it certainly gives her a better chance of making sure the Government do not go soft or slack when it comes to doing the necessary things to ensure the Bill ends up on the statute book. She would be congratulated by many from across the House if she managed that. Obviously, the regulations will have to be written and consulted on. The Bill has to go through the Committee and Report stages in this House. There is a concertina effect on when private Members’ Bill Fridays are coming up, so she will have to get the Bill through Committee fast. That would be my other little bit of advice: there is a queue of Bills ahead of her that have passed Second Reading, so she needs to keep pushing in the right direction.

The Bill takes up some of the provisions that were in the more comprehensive Bill that, as I recall, the Government withdrew in 2023. They have been trying to legislate on this issue since the 2019 election, when it was in their manifesto, so I think it is a good thing that the hon. Lady is bringing forward these provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said, there is a little extra detail in this Bill than was apparent in the original legislation. That is also a good thing. It is not correct, as is the modern fashion in legislative drafting, to leave everything to the regulations; sometimes it is a good idea to have the provisions in primary legislation. That might make me a bit old fashioned, but I do think that there is something to be said for it. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on getting a few more details on precisely what is going to be done into primary legislation. That holds to the feet of whatever Government are then trying to implement the legislation to the fire, and there is something to be said for that.

The change in the law that the hon. Lady is seeking to make is good in respect of dogs and cats, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Currently, the lower age limit to import a dog or cat is 15 weeks. Pregnant dogs and cats may be imported—as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who has extra knowledge of these things, mentioned— until the last 10% of their pregnancy. Up to five dogs or cats can be imported per person, and the owner can authorise somebody else to travel for them. The changes that are being made to those limits can only be entirely good, for the reasons that have been made by other Members during the course of this debate and that I will not repeat.

Ferrets are included in the short title of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Devon was kind enough to respond to me when I intervened on her, saying that the reason that ferrets had been included is that they can get rabies, so there is something desirable to be said about controlling the import of ferrets. That, for me, is a good enough reason to include them in the short title of the Bill, but I have noticed that we do not seem to have had a lot of representations about ferrets, or examples of the abuse of ferrets in the way that we have in respect of dogs and cats. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, can let us know whether ferrets are there purely as a rabies control measure, or whether there is evidence that there is abuse in the importation of ferrets? I do not have a wide knowledge of that, so I would be interested to know whether the issues facing ferrets are similar to those of dogs and cats, or whether the fact that they are in the short title of the Bill is simply to do with disease control. To my mind, that is a good enough reason, but I wonder whether there should be further provisions on the safety of ferrets that are not set out in the regulations so far. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Sarah Champion]

I am interested that my right hon. Friend is keenly mentioning ferrets at every opportunity that she can in this debate, so let me just put it on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend now has that on the record. I do not really know what else to say about that, except that I am sure that Oscar brought her brother great joy. That is what pets do. I am sure there are many other ferret owners who might attest to the same thing. My interest in ferrets is purely because they are in the short title of the Bill, yet there does not seem to be any evidence that there is abuse. That is why I keep raising the issue of ferrets. I am sure the Minister will be able to enlighten us when he comes to reply.

The other issue that I particularly wanted to raise—I have raised it a number of times in my interventions—is that this legislation has been taken in part from the old, comprehensive legislation, but there are no provisions in the Bill about penalties. It is all very well for us all to object to the cruel and appalling way in which animals have been abused and treated in great numbers by those seeking to make profit out of their misery, but the only way we can make sure that that ceases is by having good, effective enforcement and by ensuring that those who seek to profit in this way are made an example of through the courts.

I know that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the sentences for animal cruelty from a maximum of six months to five years, but it is not totally apparent to me—the Minister might be able to enlighten us, if he is listening—whether that Act provides the enforcement and penalty regime for this Bill. Will breaches of this legislation be punished through the provision of that Act, or is that to be done by some other regime of punishment and penalty somewhere else? Obviously, in a comprehensive Bill the penalties would probably be included with all the provisions. Given that the Government, with the help of the hon. Member for North Devon, have chosen to slice and dice their approach to animal welfare legislation and bring forward separate Bills, I hope the Minister will be able to explain where the penalties are written and what they will be. Are they being increased? Can they be increased by regulation? What penalties and punishments might he expect those who fall foul of this improved legislation to meet if they continue in their nefarious activities?

That brings me to the other point I wish to raise, which is about enforcement. I have raised this in a number of interventions during the debate, and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border had something to say about it too. Having the law on the statute book is a good first step, but it does not stop abuse of the law—it is enforcement that does that. So will the hon. Member for North Devon or the Minister say something about enforcement? Since the 2021 Act increased the maximum penalties for animal abuse, has the number of prosecutions increased? Have people gone to jail? Have they gone to jail for more than six months, which was the previous maximum term? This is a lucrative trade and those who smuggle puppies can make hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the enforcement, penalty and punishment regime needs to match the scale of that potential profit. If it does not, the law will sit there and not work in the way in which its supporters in this House, who come from across the Chamber, wish it to work.

I welcome the Bill very much. I congratulate the hon. Lady on choosing it, when she fortuitously came up in the ballot in the way in which she did. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure its supporters from around the Chamber—very many of us have spoken in support today—about precisely what will happen on enforcement and what the penalty and punishment regime will be. It is all very well getting the law right, but if we do not then enforce it by catching the perpetrators and pursuing them through the law to the maximum available opportunity, these lucrative trades will continue and we will still have problems with animal welfare in this country.

That having been said, let me finish by congratulating the hon. Lady on bringing forward this piece of legislation. She said she is tenacious and she will have to be to get all this done before the Prime Minister calls a general election. I know that she will stick at it, and let us hope that we will then be able to get this Bill on to the statute book and do some of the good that it purports to want to do. This will work only if the Government can reassure us that they are going to get on with the regulations and get this working as soon as possible. They have spent the whole of this Parliament saying that they are going to do this without managing to do it yet. Perhaps, at the end of this Parliament, the Minister will be able to stand up and say that he actually managed to do this and got it right to where it needs to be, and perhaps he will be able to reassure us about enforcement and punishment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on bringing forward this important private Member’s Bill. As we have heard from Members across the House, it is overdue. It is extremely welcome and it has cross-party support.

I congratulate Opposition colleagues who have participated. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) said that we rarely talk about ferrets in this House, and that is true. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) reminded us—or told us for the first time if we did not know—that 2 April is National Ferret Day. I suspect not many of us knew that, and I hope she will get the ferret she seems to have set her heart on.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked very pertinent questions of the Minister, who will be responding shortly, about the risk of rabies from illegally imported ferrets and the great threat to biosecurity in this country, which we should all be very concerned about. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) talked about the absolute horrors of ear cropping—a mutilation that is often carried out without any anaesthetic at all, to the torment of the animal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) talked about the cruelty of illegal puppy farming. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), talked about how, when going out to buy a new family pet, it can be difficult for families to identify a legitimate breeder, and how many people are concerned because that journey is so difficult. Families do not want to support the illegal importation and breeding of animals, but it is far too difficult to find out which animals have been bred legitimately and which have been subjected to abuse, including illegal breeding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) raised his constituents’ concerns about the Government dropping the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill after two years of development, and he urged the Government to do more to focus on animal welfare in the time remaining before the general election, whenever it comes. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) talked about the importance of rescue cats.

We heard some fine speeches from Conservative Members, too. I will leave it to the Minister to go through them in detail, but the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) made an outstanding, incredibly persuasive speech, with insights clearly drawn from his great professional experience.

I successfully introduced a private Member’s Bill in 2018, so I know very well the perils and pitfalls of steering such legislation through Parliament, and I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon for her success in building such widespread support, as is clear from this debate, for the important measures she aims to bring into law.

My private Member’s Bill, which became the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, also won support on both sides of the House, but six years later, very disappointingly, it has still not been brought fully into force. I hear what the hon. Lady says about the need to keep pushing and, if her Bill progresses, I urge her to keep pushing. I wish her more success than I have had with the current Minister for mental health, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who does not seem interested in carrying out the wishes of this House, as expressed in the unanimous passage of my important Bill. Other Health Ministers have taken much more interest and have helped to push the legislation forward, so I hope she will reflect on why she has not followed the will of this House, as expressed in a free and democratic vote, by ensuring that the law comes fully into force as soon as possible.

Animal welfare is of the highest concern to the British public, as we have heard from both sides of the House. I make it clear that the Opposition are pleased to support the Bill. We believe its measures are long overdue, and it has been very interesting to hear the personal testimony of Members on both sides of the House. Members have spoken of their experience of owning and buying pets, and of wanting to make sure that the animals they buy have been well treated and properly bred.

Other Members have mentioned their pets, and it would be remiss of me not to mention mine. I had a rescue cat called Tigger, who we sadly lost after 18 years in 2010. I have more recently had two rescue cats, Smudge and Pixie. We sadly lost Smudge last year to kidney disease, but the House will be pleased to hear that Pixie is still alive and well. They both achieved a modicum of fame when I entered them into the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home competition to elect the “Purr Minister”, becoming the first cats to be jointly elected. This is a matter of great pride to our family, although not so much to my partner, who is now the only member of our household never to have been elected to anything.

Our ownership of companion pets gives us an insight into how pets can be an important part of a family. We have heard about the horrible abuses of declawing, cropped ears and docked tails. That cruelty is brought home all the more because so many of us have experienced owning and loving a companion pet ourselves, as have many members of the great British public, which is one of the reasons why people are so concerned about these issues.

Puppy and kitten smuggling is an absolutely horrific abuse and legislation is required to prevent it from happening. That is why we are so pleased the hon. Member for North Devon has brought forward her private Member’s Bill today. Cracking down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies was a commitment that appeared in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, it is hugely regrettable that the Government did not in the end fully pursue their own legislation—Government legislation—to meet that commitment. I fully understand, and I am sure the Minister will repeat this when he is on his feet, that they are supporting the private Member’s Bill today, but those of us familiar with Friday sittings and private Members’ Bills know how uncertain that route can be. It is all too easy for a lone Member who is hostile to the proposed legislation to use procedural tactics to block the Bill from proceeding, even in circumstances where the vast majority of Members are fully in support of it.

My private Member’s Bill was talked out by a Conservative Member, for instance, despite having almost universal cross-party support. I was immensely grateful to Government Whips who later found time for it to come back, but despite that strong support from the Government, the legislation has still not been fully commenced. So I repeat that there are real concerns about whether and how the Government pursue private Member’s Bills even when they are enacted, which is why we would have preferred to see this Bill brought through as Government legislation rather than being subject to the vagaries of Friday sittings and private Members’ Bills.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the procedural issues of the private Member’s Bill process being a threat to a Bill getting all the way through. Does he agree that because many Bills have already got through Second Reading in this Session, there is going to be a pile up in Committee which will make it difficult to get this Bill through Committee in time to get it back for the Fridays that give priority to Report and remaining stages? That is also a concern, is it not?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course my right hon. Friend has experience herself of pursuing a private Member’s Bill through the House, and she is absolutely right. We have over 30 private Members’ Bills on the agenda just today, so it does look like we are going to have a big backlog, and we certainly need the Government to be prioritising Bills they want to support, and I hope we will hear from the Minister today that this Bill will secure Government support and will be a priority for getting Royal Assent and getting on to the statute book.

The Bill before us today started out as part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill introduced by the Government in 2021. It contained measures to crack down on puppy and kitten smuggling but, regrettably and incomprehensibly to many campaigners—they voiced this articulately themselves—the Government abandoned that Bill. It is hard to understand why they did that given the strong public support for the measures contained and the fact that the Government control legislation as it moves through this House—they control the business of this House. The full Bill was a golden opportunity to improve the health and welfare of millions of animals. The proposals had very wide public support, and animal welfare charities had worked hard to help shape the Bill before the Government regrettably abandoned it.

Members on both sides of the House and many of our constituents—I am sure we have all had letters about this; I am not unique in this House in having had hundreds of emails about the Government abandoning the kept animals Bill—deeply regret that the Government chose to ditch such a significant and important piece of legislation. As a result of that decision, countless animals have suffered needless pain and distress through the unscrupulous practice of puppy and kitten smuggling and through the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter in countries where animal welfare standards are far lower than in this country.

As has been expressed many times this morning, there is real gratitude to the hon. Member for North Devon for her efforts to bring back important measures that were part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, including those on puppy and kitten smuggling. The provisions that have been brought back today are important because there has recently been a shocking—indeed, a sickening—increase in the number of animals imported into the United Kingdom, with pitifully little attention paid to their welfare, either during transportation or, often, in how and where they were bred. The horrific reality is that the puppy trade has become a multimillion-pound transnational industry based on the abuse of living, sentient creatures and on the deception of well-meaning individuals who want to buy a family pet.

Two million puppies are sold every year in the UK alone. It is a trade with a total value of £3 billion. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home estimates that up to 50% of that trade is either illegal or unlicensed and takes place outside any oversight from regulation or enforcement. Half the animals involved originate outside the United Kingdom, often in completely unknown circumstances, with all the risk that that implies for low standards of animal welfare and animal health.

It is less well known that criminals who are involved in the illegal trade in puppies are often also engaged in other forms of cross-border crime. That includes drug dealing, money laundering and even people trafficking. The European Union’s “Strategy to tackle Organised Crime” recognises the illegal trade in companion animals in Europe as an ongoing concern with severe implications for human and animal welfare.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester pointed out that the Government’s decision to abandon the kept animals Bill delayed the much-needed clampdown on this vile and illegal trade. The delay has left criminals feeling emboldened during the intervening period. A recent report published by the charity Four Paws on the illegal puppy trade in the United Kingdom found that more than 30% of imported puppies were from Romania alone. That is simply unacceptable. How can it be that criminals have been able to bring so many vulnerable animals into this country from conditions over which there is little, if any, welfare or health supervision or control?

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that cracking down, with proper enforcement, and having tough penalties that are enforced is a way of not only tackling this vile trade, but getting the additional benefit of taking some serious criminals off our streets?

[Steve Reed]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for any crime, let alone these particular vile and heinous crimes, is essential to deter others who want to profit from the same exploitation of animals and people that we see in this vile trade in puppy and kitten smuggling. Nobody wants to see that, but we could have had more focus on this, and sanctions, had the Government pursued the original legislation, rather than delaying it and then supporting it coming back—in part at least—as a private Member’s Bill.

The circumstances in which animals are bred are also changing. A growing number of puppies are bred not only in vast, industrial-scale puppy farms, but in sheds, repurposed smallholdings, urban tower blocks and warehouses. We have seen images of these poor, desperate creatures tied up, often left shivering in the freezing cold, in filthy cages, covered in their own excrement, and sometimes reduced to eating their own excrement. It is distressing beyond words to see any of these images and videos, so thank goodness we have this Bill before us today. But what a crying shame it is that the Government have done so little about this vile trade until now and then abandoned the original legislation that could have brought in measures far sooner to save countless defenceless animals from abuse by the most unscrupulous traders and criminal gangs.

The RSPCA is the world’s oldest and largest animal welfare charity, founded here in England in 1824. It has been at the forefront of raising public awareness and concern about puppy smuggling. I pay tribute to the RSPCA for its many years of campaigning on this and so many other animal welfare issues. The RSPCA has highlighted that many dogs smuggled into this country to be sold on the underground puppy market have long-term health problems, as well as behavioural issues because of their breeding and negative experiences early in life.

We are talking about puppies like Dobby, a 19-month-old French bulldog who was taken in by the RSPCA’s Mount Noddy animal centre in West Sussex. Dobby, who had been trafficked into the UK from Lithuania, was plagued with severe and painful health problems, which eventually required significant surgery. The RSPCA points out that importing sick puppies with zoonotic diseases into the UK not only poses a risk to public health, but can lead to the very sad outcome of the animal needing to be euthanised after enduring a short, wretched life of pain and suffering.

What about mutilation, which has been by hon. Members across the Chamber? Mutilation includes horrific acts of cruelty, such as tail docking, ear cropping and the declawing of cats. Ear cropping has been illegal for over 20 years in England and Wales—thank goodness—but the RSPCA reports a 1,243% increase in incidents of ear cropping in dogs between 2015 and 2021. That is such a staggering figure it is worth repeating—a 1,243% increase in incidents of ear cropping in dogs. How despicable! No wonder so many animal rights campaign groups have been pleading with the Government for so many years to bring forward measures to curb this cruel trade.

The RSPCA tells us that the current loopholes in the law that permit the importing of dogs with cropped ears offer a defence in court for those responsible for illegal ear cropping here in the United Kingdom. That helps them to avoid prosecution for abuses of dogs that were made illegal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Dog lovers across the United Kingdom are desperate for this horrific practice to be stopped once and for all.

Kitten smuggling raises further welfare concerns that I suspect will distress Members across the House. Cats Protection is the UK’s largest cat welfare charity. It provides administrative support to the all-party parliamentary group on cats, which I was proud to co-chair for many years before I was appointed to the shadow Cabinet by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The charity has produced a most helpful briefing paper on the Bill before us. It notes that its 2023 survey found that 3% of cats purchased in the United Kingdom over the previous 12 months had been sourced from abroad. We have no idea what conditions those cats or kittens were subject to during travel, but the long journeys they are forced to endure can cause them significant pain, fear and distress. That is not something anyone would wish to impose on a beloved family pet, or indeed on any animal, where it can be avoided.

The Bill is an important opportunity to prevent so much needless suffering. The Bill will crack down on puppy and kitten smuggling by closing loopholes in the law that have been mercilessly exploited by dishonest and criminal commercial traders. The Bill reduces the number of animals that may enter Great Britain in a motor vehicle during a single non-commercial journey to five. That will help stop smugglers who pretend larger cargos of animals are their own pets, when in reality they are intended for sale in this country. For similar reasons, the Bill reduces the number of animals that can be brought into the country by means other than a motor vehicle to just three. That will be of huge benefit in reducing the level of kitten and puppy smuggling into the United Kingdom.

The RSCPA has found criminal gangs using routes like this to smuggle animals into the country. The gangs then hire short-let properties, such as Airbnbs, to trick buyers into believing their puppy or kitten comes from a good home and has been well cared for by the animal’s mother. The animal’s new owners are incredibly distressed when they find out that their new pet may have a serious illness, an infection or behavioural problems caused by being removed from its mother far too young. It can even cost the new owners thousands of pounds in vet bills as they try to care for their animal. Of course, in many cases, the animal dies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour Members consider animal welfare to be important, and it is important that the Opposition can make these points on the record so that we can influence the Bill and, if possible, strengthen it. We think that the Government have been slow to the point of negligence in bringing forward these proposals that will ensure the welfare of animals. I welcome these provisions, but few such measures have been introduced in recent years.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Bill is to be a success, it is important that there are enforcement and punishment measures? Will he press the Minister, as I did, to be clear in his response about what those are and how they will back up the measures in the Bill to ensure that we put a stop to these evil trades?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making those points. I can see that the Minister was listening carefully to what she had to say, as I was. I look forward to his response.

Few measures introduced in recent years have as many parallel benefits for animal welfare, human beings and wider socioeconomic stability as this Bill. The third-party ban introduced in 2021 sought to address many animal welfare concerns about domestic breeding through tighter licensing obligations on breeders and a ban on third-party sales. However, it was full of loopholes, which allowed unscrupulous breeders to continue their activities with far too little change. The law proved so weak that not a single prosecution has taken place under it, and fresh legislation is urgently needed to close those loopholes and bring that abusive trade to an end.

If the United Kingdom is to maintain its position as a world leader in animal welfare, in the face of emerging threats and concerns, and in line with the wishes of the British public, this Bill must become law as quickly as possible. Puppy smuggling is a despicable criminal activity, which causes suffering to animals and heartache and financial cost to their owners. It helps to fund organised criminal enterprises, which exploit human beings as well as animals, and presents a significant threat of disease transmission, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood pointed out.

Labour is proud to support the Bill as it progresses through this House, and we will seek to make it stronger, just as we did with the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill before the Government abandoned it. It is of course regrettable that the Government have taken so long to act on these issues, and while I have congratulated the hon. Member for North Devon on her private Member’s Bill, it is disappointing that the Government chose not to include the measures in a Government Bill, which might have proved a more secure way of ensuring that the legislation was passed swiftly and intact.

Other animal welfare measures are being presented to this House as private Members’ Bills, instead of as Government legislation. The Pet Abduction Bill, introduced in December last year, is another example, and we should not forget about all the other animal welfare commitments made by this Government that appear to have disappeared into thin air.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend has corrected the record.

There were two ferrets mentioned, one of which has passed away: Roulette and Oscar. Of course, the House will want to advise my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) as he thinks about naming his next cat after a rock star; I put it to him that the name Chesney was not on his list.

Over the years, the number of owners travelling with their pets has increased significantly, with the number of non-commercial pet movements into the UK rising from approximately 100,000 in 2011 to over 320,000 in 2023. The number of dogs, cats and ferrets imported under the commercial rules has also increased significantly in recent years. In 2016, more than 37,000 cats, dogs and ferrets were imported into the UK, but by 2023 the figure had risen to 44,000, the vast majority of which were dogs. Alongside that growth in genuine pet movements, there is an increase in the number of unscrupulous people who are abusing the pet travel system to import dogs and cats illegally.

The Government take the issue of puppy smuggling and other illegal imports and low-welfare movements of pets very seriously, because it is an abhorrent trade that causes suffering to animals. Measures to tackle puppy smuggling were originally included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but in May 2023 the Government decided to withdraw that Bill because its scope had been extended beyond the original manifesto commitments and the action plan for animal welfare. At that time, we committed ourselves to ensuring that all the measures in the Bill would be delivered through other means, and I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government will fully support this Bill today. I am also delighted to say that this is the last legislative measure within the kept animals Bill to be brought forward, fulfilling the promise made when it was withdrawn less than a year ago.

This Bill will go further than the kept animals Bill. It will crack down on pet smuggling by closing loopholes in the current pet travel rules. It will reduce the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can enter Great Britain under the non-commercial pet travel rules from five per person to five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger. That will lead to a significant decrease in the volume of animals with which one person can travel, and will also help to prevent deceitful traders from cramming their vans with tens of dogs.

[Maria Eagle]

I hesitate to say “ferrets” again, but the Minister may recall that I asked him whether there was an issue of abuse with ferrets, of the same kind that we see with dogs and cats. This might be an opportune moment for him to tell the House about that.

[Mark Spencer]

I was about to come to this point, to try to satisfy the hon. Lady’s curiosity. I am tempted to say that ferrets were included purely because of the love for them expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), but the honest truth is that they were included simply because they are at risk of carrying rabies.

The Bill will also ensure that the movement of dogs, cats and ferrets into Great Britain must be linked with the movement of the owner to fall under the non-commercial pet travel rules. To move under the pet travel rules, the pet and its owner must travel within five days of each other. The Bill will make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to bring dogs, cats and ferrets fraudulently into Great Britain for sale under the guise of owners travelling with their pets. It will also provide further powers to tackle the problem of low-welfare imports of dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom, and will ensure that those powers will be used to ban the bringing into Great Britain of puppies and kittens under six months old, and dogs and cats that are heavily pregnant or mutilated.

Introducing these measures through secondary legislation allows the Government time to work with industry, enforcement bodies and stakeholders to develop robust measures with appropriate exemptions that can be enforced effectively. The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made a number of points about that. The Government are committed to delivering the secondary legislation as soon as possible following Royal Assent, but I hope the right hon. Lady will be assured that, as introduced by this Government, the maximum sentence for abuse of animals has risen to five years in prison, which is a huge deterrent for those who would abuse animals. Those working in Border Force and our ports—championed regularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke)— will do all they can to stop those imports and ensure that we are in the right place.

Let me thank my hon. Friend the Member from North Devon again for introducing this important Bill. I look forward to seeing it progress through its remaining stages in this House and the other place.

Sewage Pollution

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Last week, I and 17 of my north-west colleagues wrote to United Utilities about reported significant sewage releases into the River Mersey. United Utilities has simply denied that it was responsible and cited Environment Agency estimates that it is responsible for only about 30% of pollution incidents in the river. What will the Government do, on a speedier timescale than the one that the Secretary of State’s plan sets out, to make sure that investment in infrastructure is brought forward? The companies seem to have got into a very bad habit of treating the money that they make as something to be given out in dividends and payments to senior executives, rather than invested in the infrastructure that will make sure that this stops in the future.

[George Eustice]

The next pricing review period starts in 2025, which is not soon enough for me. That is why I said to Ofwat, and to the water companies, that they should bring forward any investments that they are able to. That is why, as I said earlier, there will be £3.1 billion of investments up to 2025, on 800 overflows, which will significantly reduce discharges by about 25% by 2025—so in the near term.

Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1225).

This statutory instrument serves three purposes. First, it makes a number of technical changes to existing statutory instruments, to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU. Secondly, it ensures that our statute book is closely aligned with the EU initially, to support our application for third-country listing for live animals and products of animal origin. Thirdly, it makes a minor correction to an earlier EU exit SI.

The SI was made under the urgency procedure, as it will be required to support the UK’s application to the European Commission for third-country listed status for animal health purposes, which is currently being considered by the EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed—SCoPAFF. As the Government have made clear, we seek a negotiated withdrawal from the EU, but we are also taking all responsible steps to prepare for all scenarios, including a no-deal exit.

The European Commission considered the UK’s request for third-country listing at the SCoPAFF meeting on 9 April, and based on guarantees and the relevant animal health and hygiene legislation being in place on that date, it agreed to expedite that third-country listing so that it was available from day one. However, another vote is now required, on 11 October, and this SI must be ready and on the statute book to provide the EU with the necessary assurances to be able to expedite that third-country listing. We are making an offer to the European Union, which it has agreed to previously and, we hope, will again, to align certain sanitary and phytosanitary regulations for a period of nine months, in return for its expediting that third-country listing so that it will be available from day one.

This statutory instrument, as with all such instruments, has a rather long title. I will refer to it simply as the animal imports SI, which I think will be easier for everyone. The animal imports SI transfers legislative powers that give the Secretary of State, with the consent of Ministers from the devolved Administrations, the power to amend, vary or add to the list of third countries that can export animals and animal products into the United Kingdom—a function previously carried out by the European Commission.

The SI also gives the UK the power to align with the EU by being able to add new countries to the list for commodities permitted to be imported once the relevant veterinary and scientific risk assessments have been made. Previously, this power was not considered urgent, since we have many alternative powers in other legislation to prevent trade from countries where there is deemed to be either an animal health or a food safety risk. However, this additional power makes it easier to align directly with the EU during that nine-month transition period, in accordance with the undertaking that we have given in order to expedite that third-country listing.

The SI also amends previously made EU exit SIs regarding animal and animal product imports. This is linked to that first power and will simply allow the Secretary of State, again with the consent of the devolved Administrations where appropriate, to publish lists of animals and products that require or are exempted from border veterinary checks outside of the legislation. This will mean that we can vary both the countries on that register and the products that each of those countries are able to export to the UK.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain why he is amending regulations that had already been made under the EU exit procedures in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 before we had even got to exiting? Was a mistake made the first time round or has there been a development? Why does he have to amend statutory instruments that were supposed to prepare us for a no-deal exit?

[George Eustice]

There are two reasons: first, as I said, the EU SCoPAFF’s April agreement has expired and it is considering the matter again on 11 October. Although the ability to amend and update the list in a quick and expeditious way was not considered essential the first time round, given more time we believed it would be helpful to put it in there to place beyond any doubt the fact that the EU would have all the assurances it needed to expedite third country status.

There was also an error, which I was coming on to. The statutory instrument amends the Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 by correcting a reference to the Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to enable certain EU, EEA and Swiss veterinary surgeons to register with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The error was simply that the previous SI referred to paragraph 43 of a regulation regarding professional qualifications that had been laid before the House by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The relevant paragraph in its final iteration became paragraph 44, so there was an error in cross-referencing to the wrong paragraph, and this SI simply corrects it.

Part 1 of this statutory instrument contains relevant definitions used in the instrument. The legislative powers to amend the list are transferred from the Commission in parts 2 and 3 of this instrument. In parts 4 and 5, amendments are made to a previously made EU exit statutory instrument, and to domestic regulations in England and Northern Ireland relating to the trade in animals and animal products. No policy changes were made by those amendments; they are simply technical.

The final purpose of this SI is to correct a genuine but minor error in referencing a paragraph that turned out to be wrong in the final iteration of the regulations that I have mentioned. The devolved Administrations were fully engaged in the development of this statutory instrument, and it applies to the whole of the UK. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

There is no ideal way forward now that will satisfy all. I will not be voting for the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister has negotiated. I am afraid it is a mess, and the way she has handled Brexit from the beginning of her premiership has been fundamentally flawed. If we go forward on the basis of her deal and the political declaration, I believe that terrible damage will be done to the jobs, life chances, finances and prospects of my constituents, and to many other people in the rest of the country.

Colleagues from across the House have talked today about compromise, but the Prime Minister and her Government have made no efforts to seek a consensus across this House, or across the country, on the best way forward. From the beginning of her negotiations two years ago, she has focused her efforts on keeping her warring party together, rather than looking to do what is best for the country. She has not sought to set out a range of Brexit options and lead a great national conversation about the best way forward amongst potential options or available choices; she has simply ruled out the ones that she does not think some in her party will support. She has not sought to heal the divisions exposed by the toxicity of the referendum campaign, and the fears and divisions it exploited, or to reconcile the differences between those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain that have been revealed as a consequence.

The Prime Minister has purposefully since run down the clock, to prevent anyone but a small group around her from having a say on the way forward. Her negotiating red lines were more about keeping her most uncompromising Brexit-supporting colleagues on board and preventing them from removing her from office, than about finding a consensus across our nation, but they have had the effect of ruling out sensible and less damaging Brexit options, and now we are being told that it is her deal or no deal.

In my view, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Government should rule out no deal straightaway. It would be the most irresponsible, self-harming stupidity, and should not be contemplated. Seeking compromise and finding agreement across the House has not been a focus of what the Government have tried to do, and we need to recall that when they now stand up and say they want compromise.

Let us recall that the Prime Minister did not want the House to have any meaningful say on Brexit at all. She wanted to trigger article 50 without allowing a vote in the House; only public-spirited citizens and the courts stopped her. She wanted to negotiate a deal and implement it without a meaningful vote in this House; only parliamentarians across parties have stopped her. She wants the Executive to take back control of our laws, with its full panoply of Henry VIII powers, not Parliament. Now, with her deal in deep trouble, she talks about compromise, but she has been trying to run down the clock and threaten us with catastrophe if we do not do her bidding, pulling the meaningful vote to waste another month—all to give the impression that it is her deal or no deal.

What are the consequences of the Prime Minister’s deal? The National Institute of Economic and Social Research said that the White Paper version of her deal would cost the UK up to £100 billion by 2030 and cut GDP by 4% compared with the status quo. No deal, which she threatens the nation with, would be even worse, seeing a fall of up to 9% of GDP, on the Government’s own forecasts, over the next 15 years. GDP would be cut in the north-west by 12% in the next 15 years, hitting manufacturing particularly hard.

My constituents are already reeling from the seemingly never-ending austerity imposed by the coalition and Tory Governments. Poverty is rocketing upwards. Food bank use is becoming institutionalised. The services towards which my constituents used to turn to get help and support at Liverpool City Council and Knowsley Borough Council are severely compromised; both had two thirds of their money removed by the Government. My constituents cannot afford the economic dislocation of the Prime Minister’s Brexit, much less a no-deal Brexit.

My constituents did not vote for this. They voted, like me, to remain. Research shows that, since that time, sentiment has moved further towards remain, currently standing at about 64-36, and that accords with my own sense of what is happening in the constituency. My own survey shows an 80-20 split for remain. I accept, of course, that it is not as scientific as opinion polls and research; it is a self-selecting set of people who reply, but they are my constituents. When I asked about the PM’s deal, 73% said that Brexit should be stopped altogether, with only 2% supporting her deal. A further 7% said that it was a bad deal but the only one available, so only a tenth were willing to back her deal. Some 80% told me that they expected leaving the EU to be bad for their families and an even higher number said it would be bad for the country, yet that is what the PM now expects me to vote for. I will not do it; I cannot do it.

I will not vote to make my constituents poorer just to get the PM off the hook on which she has ineptly but willingly put herself. The UK faces the biggest political crisis we have had in my lifetime—precipitated by the 2016 referendum, the subsequent general election, when the PM lost her majority, and the botched negotiations. The Government have no majority in this House, yet persist in acting as though they do.

Enough is enough: Parliament must take back control. It is showing welcome signs of doing so. There must be no more delaying tactics from the Government. If the deal goes down next week, Britain must find a new way forward. If we cannot have a general election because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011—although the possibility has yet to be tested—we should extend or revoke article 50, to enable a people’s vote on the deal, with the option of remaining in the EU.

Fur Trade

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

All my hon. Friends are so prescient that my hon. Friend has now stolen my peroration, but never mind; we will come to that in time.

On the subject of faux fur, I do not think anyone, on witnessing or reading the evidence given recently to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about the living space allocated to some of these poor animals, could help but be sickened.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It was my Bill, which was talked out in 1998, that became the 2000 Act. One reason I took it forward was that the Farm Animal Welfare Council had made clear that there is no way to humanely keep wild animals such as mink in cages and farm them—I do not really call it farming—for their fur, and that a ban was the only way to tackle the inhumanity that that implied. It is true in this country, which was the first nation to ban fur farming, and true in the rest of the world.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend’s comments, and commend her for the work she did all those years ago. Now we have the opportunity to build on that and go further.

Going back to the awful conditions faced by animals, sometimes they are overfed to become much larger than their frames are suited to. Apparently that yields more fur but, unsurprisingly, it can give the animals terrible health problems. As some hon. Members have already mentioned, while fur farms in the UK were at least regulated, we have no control over those fur farms abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we look hard at the people doing that, but in some cases it is not necessarily easy to tell. Hon. Members who were shown examples at the exhibition in the House a few weeks ago saw that, if it is only one or two pieces disguised within a wider piece, it is hard to tell. Some are very cheap indeed—fur bobble hats keep turning up in this context. The consumer is unlikely to know that fur is in the product. It is important that we crack down on those retailers, but to do so we must have a system. That means giving trading standards officers across the country support and resources.

Of course, if we ban fur imports in general, customers will no longer be in the position of buying what they think is fake but is actually real. Many organisations that made submissions to the EFRA Committee’s inquiry on the fur trade lamented the inadequate fur labelling regime we have in this country, which leads to some of that mis-selling. Hopefully, from that Committee’s work, we will see some practical recommendations.

It is worth noting in passing that the evidence from both the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Select Committee noted that the Government have not carried out any assessment of the size of the fur trade in the UK. That could show either a lack of diligence on the Government’s part, or that the contribution to the UK economy is of no great significance. I suggest it is probably the latter.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) asked whether we can ban fur should we wish to. The advice I have been given is that we can. Straying into trade territory, which is slightly controversial at the moment, I am told that the World Trade Organisation rules contain article XX (a), which provides an exception to the trading rules for measures that are necessary “to protect public morals”. In 2010, the European Parliament and Council banned trade in seal products in the European Union. That led in 2015 to a challenge from Canada and Norway, which fell when the WTO upheld the right of the EU to prohibit trade in seal products because it was a proportionate measure necessary to protect public morals. That may not be quite the terminology we would use, but hon. Members will get the drift. That important case indicates that WTO members have the freedom to define—with proof—their interpretation of that phrase.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because we no longer produce fur domestically, the WTO could not conclude that anything we did was about benefiting our local industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I was the MP who, 20 years ago—it seems like yesterday—introduced the original Bill on fur farming in the 1998-99 Session, and it was only because I was fortunate to come second in the private Member’s Bill ballot that I was able to do that with any prospect of success. It was as a consequence of that origin, as a private Member’s Bill, that the legislation was drawn narrowly. I wanted to succeed, and having a broad Bill when debating time is restricted is not a good strategy. I thought very early on, “I want this Bill to get on to the statute book, so let’s draw it narrowly. Let’s deal with fur farming in this country”—in England and Wales as it was—“and keep it to that”. The international fur trade was somewhat on the slide at the time and there was, I think, a reasonable hope that it was sinking and might not recover in the way in which the past 20 years have shown it to.

To my mind, the focus had to be on banning so-called fur farming. What goes on in these places can in no way be called farming; it is factory production of fur and it is as well to bear that in mind. When we say “farm” we think of nice socially useful things that feed the population and help to keep us going. There is no way the production of these animals for fur across the world—no longer here, thank goodness—could possibly be described as farming. Let us be clear about that: it is fur factory-farm production.

Coming back to this debate 20 years later, I hear the same arguments and see the same appallingly poor standards and conditions, and the animals going through the same terrible, unconscionable suffering wherever the fur is produced. There are no viable, humane standards for fur factory-farm production; they do not exist. The farm animal welfare people at the time were right that it was impossible to produce fur humanely in the manner in which the fur farms that existed in England and Wales were operating, and as farms operate now across some of the rest of the world. It is impossible. Colleagues from different political parties set out in their speeches some of the suffering that animals produced in this way undergo. There is no way of ameliorating that suffering. These are wild animals, and they should not be dealt with in the way in which they still are around the rest of the world. We banned fur farming in this country because it was impossible to produce fur humanely and with any kind of welfare standards in the way in which it was being produced.

I was somewhat shocked, on coming back to the debate 20 years later, to see that 135 million animals are killed for their fur worldwide and an estimated 2 million pelts are imported into the UK every year. That is a lot of unconscionable suffering that we, when we banned fur farming in this country, thought to put an end to. I had hoped that the trade would decline and decline, since it was clear that most people, certainly in this country, did not approve of treating animals in this way. When the public are asked, usually at least three quarters of them reply that they want to see these practices banned. So there has been no reversal of the views of our constituents about how animals should be treated, it is simply that the trade has gone back up and, unbeknownst to most people, the number of pelts being imported has gone up. It seems that fur is not the luxury it was once seen to be, and that is probably responsible, in part, for the increase in the trade.

Given that we have been disappointed that the trade has not naturally declined and given up the ghost, now is the time to remove the contradiction between our having banned fur farming ourselves and our still importing pelts to that level. Now is the time to say, “Okay. It didn’t die out naturally. Let’s kill it off.” There is no way in which fur farming can be done properly or humanely.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

One reason for the trade going up has been the phenomenal success of Canada Goose, a company that uses real fur trimming from coyotes that are hunted—humanely it says—in Canada. Leghold traps are legal there, but a mother animal, if caught, will chew off her leg to get back to her children, which can in no way be humane. We should call on companies that use fur trimming to do what their rivals do and use artificial fur.

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I do not think that it is possible to hunt humanely with those kinds of traps. Indeed, they have been banned in this country for decades longer than fur farming has been banned. We should not allow that kind of trade into this country.

This is not a party political debate. I hope that the Minister realises that there is widespread support across parties—as there always has been, and as there was at the time of my Bill—for banning this inhumane and appalling way of treating animals. It is not a party political issue, but perhaps the Minister would like to talk to some of his colleagues, particularly in the Lords, who appear not to have fully understood the nature of the ban introduced in 2000. When the Select Committee took oral evidence from Lord Henley, he said:

“I have no desire to close things down. I am not in the business of banning things.”

Lord Gardiner said he was

“committed to improving the welfare standards of animals across the world.”

Lord Gardiner ought to know that that cannot be done with fur farming; there are no welfare standards that are acceptable. He said that animals

“for whatever purpose are reared and then killed in a humane manner”

and that the fur industry needs

“to be thinking about how we produce fur in a more humane manner…fur farming, if it is to have a future, needs to be concentrating on humane and sustainable farming and trapping.”

The Minister needs to go back to his Department and have a seminar with his colleagues in the Lords about how impossible it is to do the things they seem to think are possible. If they represent the Government’s attitude to the issue, we are not going to see any progress. It is not possible—I cannot stress this enough—for fur farming to be done humanely. It has to be banned. After all this time, as the first nation in the world to ban fur farming, we can take a leadership position around the world, but we will only do so if Ministers in the Department understand that it is not possible to do this farming better.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The core of her argument—I agree with it—is that the ban can be done. Does she agree that it is within the scope of the Government and the Minister to change the practice of importing fur in a way that would please not only those of us taking part in the debate, but the majority of our constituents?

[Maria Eagle]

I think it is possible. It was certainly possible for us to ban fur farming in this country even though we were a full member of the EU at the time and were not talking about leaving. Leading by example is a very good thing. We have done it before: following our ban of fur farming—we were the first country in the world to do so—there have been full bans across many European countries, inside and outside the EU. Austria, the Netherlands, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, the Republic of Macedonia and, most recently, the Czech Republic have banned fur farming. I gave a seminar to Czech parliamentarians ahead of them considering their legislation, and I heard the same arguments from their fur trade people that I heard 20 years ago from the then remnant of our fur industry. There are partial bans in Belgium, Denmark and Hungary. The Germans have just increased their regulations to require all farmed mink to have water to swim in. I doubt that will do much for the viability of mink farming in Germany—in fact, I think it will make it completely unviable.

Progress is being made, but it is too slow. Given the statistics about the level of the trade and the fact that it has not died out, as we might have hoped 20 years ago, now is the time for us to take that next step. I do not agree for a minute that it matters whether we are inside or outside the EU; we can do it either way. We do not have to ask anybody; we can do it ourselves, and parliamentarians should do it. I think we will, and I hope that in considering the matter the Minister will take a view that his colleagues in the Lords did not sufficiently understand the nature of the trade to properly set out the Government’s position to the Select Committee.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to express that the Government, of which he is a member, will take forward the banning of this trade, because it is time. It is something that our constituents want. Over decades they have shown a very high level of support for banning the trade and for looking after animals properly. The idea that we can have 135 million animals killed for their fur every year, having put up with the most appalling suffering, is unconscionable. We need to act. We need to lead the world again. The Minister is in a position to do it, and I hope that he will. Perhaps he will tell us so today.

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on the way in which he introduced the debate. This is an emotive topic, which I know the public care about deeply. As hon. Members have pointed out, more than 109,000 people have signed the petition, so it is right that we have a long debate today to explore the issues in more detail.

The UK prides itself on being a world leader in animal welfare standards and, as hon. Members have also pointed out, this is a cross-party approach. Governments of all colours have advanced the case for improving animal welfare and tackling animal cruelty. We are at the forefront of international efforts to protect the interests of animals. For example, as hon. Members have said, we recently announced proposals to ban the sale of ivory to help to bring an end to elephant poaching. That Bill will start its passage through Parliament this evening, and I am sure that it will have universal support from all Members at today’s debate.

[Maria Eagle]

Does the Minister accept that it is not possible to improve the welfare of animals that are being farmed for their fur?

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that point, because I am aware that the hon. Lady introduced a private Member’s Bill on this subject. She recalled earlier how a number of Back Benchers frustrated her Bill. She joins an illustrious list of people before her and since who have had their private Members’ Bills frustrated. As a general rule, I find that if the Government do not support a private Member’s Bill, Back Benchers support it, and vice versa. It is one of those Catch-22s that we have to live with.

The hon. Lady correctly pointed out that the Farm Animal Welfare Council—now the Farm Animal Welfare Committee—did a piece of work on fur farming. It looked specifically at two species, mink and arctic fox, and concluded that because they are wild animals it was unable to come up with an industry code of practice to enable those two species to be farmed in a way that was conducive to their welfare. On that basis it recommended, and the Government accepted, a move towards a ban on fur farming. It is important to recognise, though, that—for reasons that I will come on to later—the then Labour Government introduced that ban but stopped short of a ban on trade in fur. Instead, they introduced a fur farming ban, which is far easier to achieve.

However, the hon. Lady put her finger on an important point—the difficulty of farming animals, and wild ones in particular, in a way that is conducive to their welfare. That point was made powerfully by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Clacton (Giles Watling), for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about the ethical difficulty of these issues.

The Government have supported higher animal welfare standards worldwide as the best way of phasing out cruel and inhumane farming and trapping practices that are banned here. Once the UK retakes its independent seat on international bodies, such as the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora and the World Organisation for Animal Health, we will have an opportunity to promote the British view on animal welfare in such international forums, and to support improved animal welfare standards internationally.

In the meantime, there are some EU provisions that the UK has always supported—indeed, in many cases the UK argued for them. First, there are regulations that include a blanket ban on the importing of furs from a number of animals, including cats and dogs, as well as seal skins and products from commercial hunts. Secondly, there are EU regulations that ensure that any fur that can be imported into the UK from the EU comes from animals that have been kept, trapped and killed humanely, as defined by EU regulations. Fur production is allowed in some other EU member states, and EU directive 98/58/EC applies animal welfare standards to farmed animal production, including animals farmed for fur. EU regulation 1099/2009 applies requirements to protect the welfare of fur animals at the time of killing. Those regulations are audited by the European Commission.

Humane Society International figures suggest that about 85% of fur imported into the UK comes from farmed species such as mink, arctic fox, racoon, dog and rabbit, with the remainder coming from trapped wild species. The EU does not allow imports of fur from wild animals caught by unacceptable trapping practices. EU regulation 3254/91 relates to fur from 13 animal species, and requires certification, including from third countries, that animals were trapped in the right way.

All of those EU regulations pertaining to trade from third countries and the standards we require will come across into UK law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament. I will return to the issue of additional trade restrictions in the WTO and the EU, which a number of hon. Members raised, but first I want to dwell on some of the other restrictions that we support.

In addition to the EU regulations, CITES controls fur from endangered species. For example, export permits and commercial use certificates strictly control the import of fur from endangered species. Those controls are implemented in the UK by the wildlife trade regulations. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is responsible for processing import declarations and granting customs clearance for regulated goods, and Border Force works to ensure anti-smuggling controls intercept any illegal products. Although there were no seizures last year, 19 consignments were checked because it was considered that they might have some irregularities in their paperwork.

There are legal frameworks for the farming of fur animals in some non-EU countries, including minimum standards and inspections of welfare conditions. However, there are of course no EU or UK checks on farming conditions in those third countries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I note that in Bury North superfast broadband should be available to 99% of premises by 2017, and I will be working very hard to ensure that the 1% also have access to high-speed services.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

A recent study by the Oxford Internet Institute has shown a growing gap in broadband access between urban and rural communities, with 1.3 million people in rural Britain being excluded from high-speed broadband and a further 9.2 million having a poor connection. Will the Secretary of State tell the House by what date superfast broadband coverage will be universal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I point out to the hon. Lady that in 2010 only 45% of properties were connected to superfast broadband. We are now up to 83%, and we have a commitment to get to 95% by 2017. By the end of this year, we will have universal access to broadband of 2 megabits per second. We will be making further announcements on the issue, because it is vital that rural areas have that connectivity.

[Maria Eagle]

I do not think that is good enough. The Secretary of State is letting the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and BT get away with a super-slow broadband roll-out in our remote rural areas. It seems she is too busy trying to bring back foxhunting, letting down our dairy farmers and allowing culling and pesticides to destroy our wildlife to do her job of championing rural areas across Government. When will she start punching her weight across the Cabinet table and get an end date for the superfast broadband roll-out? Until she does, remote rural areas will increasingly be put at a great economic disadvantage.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Frankly, I think Conservative Members will treat that statement with some derision, given the previous Labour Government’s failure to deliver for rural areas over many years. This summer we launched a rural productivity plan, which is all about ensuring that rural areas get good connectivity, good transport links and affordable housing. Under this Government we have seen the gap in productivity between rural and urban areas closing for the first time in years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. The dairy industry is vital to the future of food and farming. I was delighted when the Chancellor announced in the Budget that farmers would be able to “tax average” over five years, which will help to manage the current volatility. We are also seeing exciting developments in the dairy sector: for example, the producer organisation launched by Dairy Crest will improve farmers’ bargaining powers when they are selling their products.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

In a message to all the people of the world, Pope Francis will say that climate change is mainly caused by human activity, and threatens unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem. Does the Secretary of State agree with the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), her predecessor as Environment Secretary and a well-known climate change denier, or does she agree with the Pope?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I agree with the Pope. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling climate change. The Paris summit is coming up, and we have taken the lead in securing a deal to limit temperature rises to 2°, which is an important priority. Our Department is clearly responsible for adaptation to climate change, and we take that into account in everything that we do, whether it relates to agriculture, flood defences or protecting nature.

[Maria Eagle]

I am glad to hear it. The right hon. Lady has accepted the second-largest percentage cut of any Department—an £83 million decrease—in this year’s budgets demanded by the Chancellor. Can she assure the House that she will not repeat the mistakes of her predecessor in 2010, who is in her place, and who cut £100 million a year from the flood protection budget, only for the Department to have to put some of it back after the winter floods caused devastation in 2013?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Over the previous Parliament, we succeeded as a Department in reducing our budget at the same time as protecting frontline flood defences; we actually saw a real-terms increase in flood defence spending over that of the previous Government. At the same time we also protected our animal-disease response capability, so that we had the same number of vets working in our Department in 2010 as we did in 2015, and I will—

Rural Payments Agency: Basic Payment Scheme

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s failure to deliver a digital-only system for processing the basic payment scheme via the Rural Payments Agency, and what assurances she can give to UK farmers that the failure will not result in significant delays to the receipt of their basic payment?

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

I am grateful for this opportunity to update the House. This is the first year of the new basic payment scheme. As the new common agricultural policy is so complex, we needed to invest in a new computer system to administer claims; the existing single payment scheme computer system would not have been able to cope. The new system included a core, which was there to process data and which was based on an existing system used in other countries, and a portal that enabled farmers to register their details and to map land passes.

The core of the new rural payment system is working well. To date, more than 80% of farm businesses in England have registered successfully on it, so they can submit a BPS claim. We continue to engage and encourage farm businesses to register online as soon as possible. However, there have been performance issues with the online interface that enables farmers to input the data directly, especially when it comes to mapping land passes. We have been working to address those issues since February. Our priority has always been to ensure that farmers can submit their claims by the deadline. That is why we have made adjustments to our plans. The RPA is now offering farmers and their agents the option of using existing paper-based forms to finalise their claims. Information from those forms will then be input by the RPA on to the system.

There are two new ways in which farmers can complete their claims. Farm businesses with little change to their land will be fast-tracked by the RPA. In particular, those who predominantly have permanent pasture will not need to map those details. They will receive an e-mail in April that summarises the land and entitlement information already held on record, together with simple instructions on completing their claim by e-mail. The RPA has identified approximately 39,000 farmers who fall into that category.

Secondly, farm businesses that need to map new features can use blank existing forms to prepare their claims before they are sent a pre-populated form in early April. They can submit their claim by e-mail, by post, or through an RPA drop-in centre, and we have 50 of those now established. Separately, all agents will have received maps of their clients’ land from the RPA by the end of next week. Those dealing with the most complex cases will be offered additional support. The RPA is also exploring the option of giving some agents direct access to the system so that they can make applications quickly.

This is a pragmatic response that applies to the application process in 2015. It means that we will be able to make payments to farmers when the payment window opens in December 2015. All data entered so far on the rural payment scheme system have been saved and will be used by the RPA to complete farmers’ claims this year.

In addition, a number of other EU countries have had difficulties in getting their IT systems in place this year to process this first year of a new, more complicated CAP. In parallel, the Commission has offered an option to member states, allowing them to extend to 15 June the deadline for basic payment scheme applications. That was discussed on 16 March in a Council meeting, which I attended, and it was confirmed by the Commission on 19 March.

In conclusion, the core of the new system works and we are not abandoning anything. We will continue to use it and it will enable claims to be processed efficiently this year and will be the basis for service improvements in future years. However, the action that we announced last week will ensure that farmers can submit their applications successfully this year, and it has been welcomed by stakeholders and those in the industry.

Given the imminence of the general election, I am keen that we communicate with the Opposition on this issue and keep them in touch. I have written to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) explaining the current situation in detail, and, as she knows, I have offered to meet her, with Mark Grimshaw, to discuss the matter further. Our offices are in discussion about a date for that meeting, which I intend to happen this week. I am also more than happy to keep Opposition Front-Bench Members updated on the changes in the weeks ahead.

[Maria Eagle]

Many farmers will be depending on the basic payment scheme to keep their business afloat and on prompt payment to maintain vital cash flow. Given the seriousness of this matter, I am astounded that the Under-Secretary of State has been sent to this House to deal with it. Where is the Secretary of State? As well as refusing to answer questions on BBC’s “Farming Today”, she now appears to be running away from her duties to this House. Let us hope that the Select Committee has better luck getting her to appear tomorrow.

The disastrous late admission from Ministers that the mapping functionality of the Government’s digital by default system for making payments to farmers does not work is a serious blow to hard-working farmers, not least because the Secretary of State said on 11 March, in evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:

“The maps are up and running.”

We have all heard rumours for weeks, but the Government have blithely continued, heads in the sand, to insist that everything will work. As recently as 12 March, at the last DEFRA oral questions, the Under-Secretary of State was saying that his only plan was to make the system work; there was no contingency. As a consequence, many farmers who have endured incredible frustration trying to use the system to map the land, or have paid agents to do it for them, now face having to do it all again on paper, and at one of the busiest times of the farming year. How frustrating and wasteful of time and hard-earned money.

Will the Under-Secretary of State please tell the House why Ministers have repeatedly given assurances that the system works which have turned out not to be accurate? Will those farmers who have paid agents to make their claims online be compensated for now having to pay them again to submit the same information? It has previously been insisted that the scheme is too complex for paper. Now we have reverted to paper, so is there an increased risk of errors, which could result in penalties? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in future farmers will be able to access and use the information they have already submitted, or will they be forced to start again?

On Saturday, Mark Grimshaw, the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, referred to the fact that the EU payment window is open until the end of June. He said:

“I am absolutely confident that we will pay within the payment window.”

For farmers expecting their payments in December, that is far from reassuring. It is disastrous. Will the one-month delay in the deadline for applications cause a delay in payments? Mr Grimshaw has said:

“It will be foolhardy of me to commit to anything in December”.

What does the Minister expect farmers to do for cash flow while they wait for their cheques?

When did Ministers first hear that the digital by default system they chose to insist upon would not work? Why did they not implement contingency arrangements sooner, to save farmers the time and expense now wasted? How much money has been wasted? Finally, can the Under-Secretary of State assure the House that Ministers will now remove their heads from the sand, rise above the chaos and confusion their incompetence has caused, and come clean to the House: will the mapping functionality ever work, or will it need to be completely replaced?

[George Eustice]

I will begin by reminding the Opposition of their own record on the Rural Payments Agency. Let us not forget that in 2005, the system they introduced led to £600 million of disallowance for this country. Payments were regularly more than a year late—hardly any farmers ever received their payments on time. It took a Conservative-led Government coming to power in 2010 to sort it out.

The hon. Lady asks whether everything will have to be resubmitted on paper. As I made clear in my opening statement, for those farmers who have managed to enter their mapping details, the information has been recorded; they will not need to start again. She says that we have always maintained that the new CAP is too complex to be processed on paper alone and needs a computer. That remains the position. As I said in my opening statement, that is why we will still use the core of the system to process the data. We have, for example, coefficients on the areas farmers have of broad beans, leguminous vegetables, hedges and so on. It is complex, and that is why we are not removing a digital approach, but simply having RPA officers enter the information on behalf of the farmer. This is not a paper-only system; it is a paper-assisted system.

The hon. Lady said that Mr Grimshaw, the chief executive of the RPA, had said that he could not give guarantees about the payment window. Having worked with Mr Grimshaw for 18 months, I can say that he is cautious and he never gives guarantees. In all the time I have known him he has never said anything other than that we will make our payments within the payment window. In the past couple of years well over 95% of farmers have been paid on the first day of banking and paid early. I am confident, as I said, that once we have the information in and it has been processed, we will have a system in place that can deal with it.

The hon. Lady mentioned contingency plans. We have adapted our plans and acted to ensure that farmers can get their applications in time this year. That is the responsible thing to do. It would have been wrong to abandon the system and prematurely abandon attempts to sort out the portal, particularly the part that deals with land mapping. We have acted in time to ensure that farmers can get their applications in place, and the steps that we have taken have been welcomed by the farming industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

On the first point, I can report that over 75% of farmers are now registered on the system. Some of them are experiencing issues with the slowness of the mapping system, and we are working to address that. On my hon. Friend’s question about why they have to map, they have always had to map ineligible features—that is a requirement of the EU regulations—but they are entered on to the final application by digitisers, who check that the area is mapped correctly.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Stephen Wyrill, national chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association, says that the Department’s online system for farmers to claim under the basic payment scheme is “heading for carnage”, and Guy Smith, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, says that its concern will turn to “justified alarm” if full mapping functionality is not operating by this weekend as promised. Many farmers depend for their survival on this payment. Can the Minister give an undertaking that all farmers will be able to make their claim online by 15 May?

[George Eustice]

We have been working closely with the farming industry on this. Under this system, this was always going to be an iterative process. We wanted to put the system in place in stages and instalments. We have 75% of farmers on already, we are addressing the issue of the speed of the system, and we are looking at ways of expediting things for certain land types, so that they can bypass parts of the land eligibility criteria. I should also point out that we have a network of 50 digital support centres to help those farmers who require help.

[Maria Eagle]

With 25% of farmers not yet registered and the deadline fast approaching, Farmers Weekly is reporting that only 236 farmers have gone for help to the 50 support centres, which is fewer than five per centre. Those who have registered—96% of them did so by phone, not online—are reporting that the online system has constant error messages and general slowness, that field information is not appearing, and that the mapping function does not work. Is the Minister planning a paper-based plan B, in case his online system collapses or is not fit for purpose?

[George Eustice]

Our plan is to make the system work and to ensure that those farmers who need help can go into digital support centres. We anticipate that those centres will be busier in April, but we have ensured that they have sufficient capacity to upscale and to help farmers. It is important to recognise that about half of all farmers have only permanent pasture, and the requirement for them to map their details is lesser than it is for arable farmers. We are looking at ways of expediting this process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the vital work ACRE does and that is why, despite the fact that we live in tough economic times, we have been able to confirm the budget for 2015-16, so that it can carry on doing that valuable work.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), said on Monday in the House that the severely redacted report on the impacts of shale gas on the rural economy was prepared by a junior member in another Department

“and it was not appropriate for them to have done so”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 594.]

In view of those comments, will the Secretary of State tell us why it was done and which one of her Ministers was responsible for overseeing the production of the report? Or is that information to be redacted too?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The paper in question was not analytically robust and it was not signed off by Ministers. The responsibility for the economic impacts of fracking is a matter for the Department of Energy and Climate Change and it is looking at the issue. I am clear that fracking has a huge potential to provide jobs and growth and lower our energy costs. That is why it is so important that we proceed with this vital technology.

[Maria Eagle]

Ministers have responsibility for what is done in their Department. The report has been so heavily redacted that even the name of its author has been removed. Given that the Government have now caved in to Labour’s demand for extensive and robust regulation, without which there can be no fracking for shale gas, why does the Secretary of State not now publish the report, unredacted, in the interests of full transparency? Does she understand that refusing to publish it merely fuels suspicion that the Government have something more to hide than her junior Minister’s embarrassment at being asleep on the job?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The majority of the proposals the Government accepted were already Government policy and were being carried out voluntarily by the industry, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. We have agreed to accept the proposals to provide reassurance in law to give the industry the best chance of success in this important technology.