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

Mark Tami Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for introducing the Bill. I join everyone else who has spoken in support of it.

People in Croydon love their pets. We are lucky enough to be one of the greenest London boroughs with beautiful parks, as people will know. We have thousands of animal lovers and pets in our borough. As has already been mentioned, during the covid pandemic, there was a big increase in the number of people deciding that they wanted a cat or a dog. Croydon has seen a large increase in the same way. We need to ensure that, when people get a cat or a dog—or, indeed, a ferret, about which we learned much from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon)—things are done in the right way, and they are not buying an animal that has been illegally smuggled into the country.

Other Labour Members have pointed to the Labour Government’s record on animal welfare. My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) herself introduced legislation. In 1997, I was working for a Labour MP, and we were introducing the banning of foxhunting. I remember that we received literally hundreds of handwritten letters—we did not really use email back then—from people who were desperate to see an end to foxhunting, cosmetic testing and all the other things for which legislation was introduced under the last Labour Government.

I join colleagues in their disappointment that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was not passed. We are grateful to the hon. Member for North Devon for bringing in some measures that we can all support. Like other Members, many of my constituents have written, asking me to support the Bill. Jan, a big supporter of Cats Protection who writes to me often, says that according to the Cats Protection stats of 2023, 50,000 cats were obtained from an overseas source in the 12 months preceding its survey. Of course, it is unclear what condition those cats or kittens were subjected to during their travel.

When I was shadow Policing Minister, I would talk to senior police officers up and down the country about crime in their areas, and I heard increasingly about the smuggling of pets. I remember talking to a senior police officer in the north-east who said that they were dealing with very serious and large criminal gangs, with a presence across multiple countries, who would smuggle people, drugs, vapes and pets—it was big business. Of course, there was not much enforcement to stop that practice from happening.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. If someone smuggling drugs or arms is caught, the penalties are severe. For smuggling kittens or puppies, the penalties are virtually non-existent, let alone the enforcement.

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If someone is caught smuggling drugs or people, they face years in prison. From the information I have looked at, if the police do a sting—they do so sometimes, although not often, because they do not have the resources —and manage to catch someone who has been smuggling pets into the country illegally, that person will be looking at a couple of months’ imprisonment as a maximum, and probably not even that. For a criminal gang managing the risks, it is a worthwhile crime to introduce the puppies into this country, particularly given that their cost can run into several thousand pounds each. We need to do more to get rid of and stamp down on this practice. I welcome the Bill’s provisions, but, as other Members have said, I think we need to go further on enforcement and other measures.

I want to briefly touch on my journey trying to buy and getting a pet. During the covid pandemic, my children were pushing me to get a dog, while my husband was very against it, which I think is not uncommon in families. My children finally won the argument, and we decided to get a dog. I had not bought an animal before and I realised that the whole situation was a bit of a minefield. The first thing I did was to go online, where there are hundreds of websites selling pets, and I had no idea where they had come from or what their quality of life had been so far, nor whether they had been brought into this country legally or not. Pets4Homes is a big site; and Gumtree sells thousands of pets, as do puppies.co.uk and foreverpuppy.co.uk.

I looked on many different sites and did not know what I was looking for, nor how to avoid doing something I should not. I looked at some charities, which provide really useful information on what to do and what not to do; Dogs Trust has particularly good information about what to avoid. I found out that I needed to see good pictures of the animal with its mother, and to ring up the person who was selling it and have a conversation with them. I then needed to go and see the animal, make sure its mother and father were there, and look at the surroundings. On several occasions, that meant I was able to pick up on something slightly dodgy. I reported several cases because I could not see the animal’s mother or its background, and the owner was not asking me anything about my background; it did not feel right. I also reported a seller when I went to visit some puppies in a flat, because the flat was immaculate and there was no evidence that anyone was living there—there was just a crate of puppies and a man. I was just not comfortable that the situation was what it should have been, so I reported the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Tami Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What recent assessment the sponsor body has made of the impact of the restoration and renewal project on (a) roads and (b) air quality in London.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside)]

The restoration and renewal programme is committed to sustainability and meeting its environmental obligations. It had been working on developing a detailed and costed plan for restoration and renewal of the Palace, which would have included an environmental assessment on both the construction phase and the operations of the restored building. That work is currently paused following the decisions of both House Commissions in February.

[Mr Sheerman]

Following what the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, I thought that John Bercow as Speaker made some really good, radical reforms in this place.

The project of construction works that we will carry out in renewing this estate will be the biggest since its reconstruction after the second world war. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we could put much of the work on the river rather than on the roads, which will pollute the atmosphere, destroy lives and ruin London’s transport system? Unfortunately, for the first scheme—the new museum and learning centre—a contract has been given to put all its materials on the road rather than on water. Will he look again at contracts that include transport on the river?

[Mark Tami]

The sponsor body had been looking at using the Thames, and I agree that anything we can take off the roads is a positive thing. As I said, the work is currently paused. My hon. Friend may want to take the issue up with the Leader of the House in business questions to get some clarity.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly told us in detail about what has been done, and the environment and roads point is really important. Could the work that has been done be published as soon as possible?

[Mark Tami]

I agree that a lot of work has gone into the project and, whatever the direction of travel is, it is important that we do not lose the valuable work already done. I have been involved in the project for many years and can certainly say that the people involved have worked incredibly hard on it and done incredible work. Whatever direction is taken, it is important that we value their work and use it to ensure that the scheme is improved as well as to protect this place. At the end of the day, whatever individuals’ views are on the project, it is about saving this Palace.

[Mr Speaker]

That now brings us on, nicely timed, to the urgent question.

Glue Traps (Offences) Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, line 3, after “rodent” insert

“or any other vertebrate animal”.

This amendment, and Amendments 2 and 3, would create an offence of setting of a glue trap capable of catching any vertebrate animal, removing a potential defence of a user claiming that a trap had been set to catch a non-rodent vertebrate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, line 6, after “rodent” insert

“or any other vertebrate animal”.

This amendment, and Amendments 1 and 3, would create an offence of setting of a glue trap capable of catching any vertebrate animal, removing a potential defence of a user claiming that a trap had been set to catch a non-rodent vertebrate.

Amendment 3, line 11, after “rodent” insert

“or any other vertebrate animal”.

This amendment, and Amendments 1 and 2, would create an offence of setting of a glue trap capable of catching any vertebrate animal, removing a potential defence of a user claiming that a trap had been set to catch a non-rodent vertebrate.

Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would require that licences for glue traps be issued at a class or individual level only, in order to minimise their use only to exceptional and specific circumstance.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 25, leave out “all pest controllers”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Amendment 6, page 3, line 29, leave out from “provides a” to end of paragraph (a) and insert “pest control service, or”.

This amendment would clarify that individuals whose businesses may “involve” pest control, but who are not pest controllers by training and trade, cannot be licensed to use glue traps.

[Mark Tami]

First, I would like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) for bringing in this Bill. Particularly as she is a new Member, I hope she will get the Bill through. That would be more than I have done in 20 years in this House, so she will have done incredibly well.

Following other Members, I feel I must very quickly, before I upset you, Madam Deputy Speaker, mention Muffin, Bobby and Mrs Skittles, who are my cats. I would advise Members to look at the House calendar, because Mrs Skittles features in this month’s photograph. That was organised by the late David Amess, who organised the competition for many years. We certainly miss him in this place.

My amendments cover two key areas. The first area looks at where a trap is laid and an animal other than a rodent is caught. At present, the wording in the Bill is:

“A person who sets a glue trap in England for the purpose of catching a rodent commits an offence.”

I am sure Members of the House are well aware that it is not just rodents that are caught in glue traps—even though that practice, to me, is barbaric in itself. Birds are caught too. They are also probably aware of the tragic situation in which a pet cat was trapped for some time on a glue trap or a number of glue traps and had to be put down. I hope this provision is not a loophole; I am looking at the Minister. I am sure, as we have heard previously, that that is covered in other legislation and that there is not a problem with any loophole in this Bill. Clearly, if people look to get around the legislation by claiming that they are laying traps for a different purpose, that defeats what we are trying to achieve.

The second area looks at dealing with regulation. Pest control is not a very well regulated industry, and the concern I and a number of others have is that we cannot have a situation in which anybody can designate themselves as a pest controller. I would certainly want some assurances that that is not the case, so that a porter in a hotel or a restaurant—or the owner, or anybody else—could not suddenly describe themselves as a pest controller and have access to glue traps. It is important that the industry is regulated, or at the very least that there are some assurances that this is a person’s profession rather than something they have just decided to do for a period of time.

I would like those assurances, and if I receive them I will wish the Bill swift progress and will not push the amendments to a vote.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

I want to speak briefly to the amendments, as it gives me a chance to thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for all his work on glue traps. He has tabled an early-day motion on these barbaric traps and we share the aim of stopping the cruelty and suffering that, sadly, they cause. I want to reassure him: I have also been contacted by animal welfare charities and believe that clause 1(2) closes the loophole:

“A person who sets a glue trap in England in a manner which gives rise to a risk that a rodent will become caught in the glue trap commits an offence.”

I cannot think of a location where a trap could be set even if someone said they were setting it for parrots or for cats; I cannot think of an occasion when another animal could be in a place that could be guaranteed to be free of rodent access. For that reason I did not think that the amendments were necessary, but I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts.

The other points the right hon. Gentleman raises in the amendments give me the chance again to plead with the Minister to make the licensing enforcement regime watertight. I share the concern that people given licences should have to prove a very high level of competence in the ability to dispatch quickly and humanely any animal stuck on a glue trap. I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

Concerns have been raised about the training of those who are granted pest control licences. The Bill will allow licences to be granted only to those pest controllers who can demonstrate the relevant training or competence. We plan for the licensing regime to require that, and we plan to engage with stakeholders in the pest control industry and in animal welfare organisations on how to implement that effectively. I believe these amendments to be unnecessary.

[Mark Tami]

Having heard what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

[Jane Stevenson]

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

I am delighted to present the Bill for its Third Reading. I thank all hon. Members who have supported it to this stage, as well as animal welfare groups and members of the public who have contacted me in support of it. The Bill has broad support. I should also like to take a moment to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). Unfortunately, at the time of the Bill’s Second Reading, I was struck down by covid-19 and propped up on a sofa, so my hon. Friend very capably presented the Bill. Sadly, she cannot be here today for me to thank her in person, but it is good to put that on the record.

The Bill would ban the use of glue traps for catching rodents in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The important thing is that members of the public will no longer be able to use these traps. We heard distressing evidence while the Bill was being drawn up from people who had no idea that they would come down after setting a trap the night before to find a screaming, live, distressed rodent attached to a board in their kitchen in a small flat. They had no idea how to dispatch the animal humanely. They had no idea that they would have to deal with such a distressing situation. I received correspondence from people who urged others not even to consider using these traps because of the significant distress it had caused them to feel that they had to dispatch a suffering animal.

Glue traps cause immense suffering. The British Veterinary Association reports that trapped animals can suffer from

“torn skin, broken limbs and hair removal and die a slow and painful death from suffocation, starvation, exhaustion and even self-mutilation.”

Many other animals are caught on the traps, with over 200 incidents reported to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals over five years, involving cats, garden birds, hedgehogs, squirrels and even a parrot. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned Miles the cat, who was stuck to four glue traps. He had a large infected wound where he had tried to free himself from the traps, and his back legs had been stuck together. The RSPCA took him to a hospital to try to save him, but sadly his injuries were too severe and he had to be euthanised.

It is therefore not surprising that a 2015 survey found that 68% of the public support banning glue traps. While the Bill applies only to England, I note that since I introduced it in June last year, the Welsh and Scottish Governments have announced their intention to ban glue traps. I send my thanks to Members of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament for the work they are doing to move in step with this Bill in the name of animal welfare.

I would like to give some reassurance about the concerns raised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope)—he is not in his place today—that this is a rat protection Bill. It is not. There is no evidence to suggest issues in dealing with rodent infestations in Ireland and New Zealand, where such traps have been banned. There are so many other, better methods available. Effective rodent-proofing is the best solution and, when used with live capture and release traps, is the method that I would recommend. I used that method when I had a mouse visitor to my house in the past. There is no distress and no need to deal with a dead animal, which most members of the public do not have the stomach for at the best of times. Break-back traps are also available and, while they seem cruel, they do kill instantly in most cases, so they are much more humane than glue traps.

I have brought the Bill before the House because where we need to prevent rodent infestations, we have a duty kill animals in the most humane way possible, and that is at its core. It is right that glue traps will not be available for use by the general public.

[Mark Tami]

I raised earlier the availability of these traps on eBay and in other places. When the Bill comes in, we need to be sure that people cannot still access them—this is a problem with all sorts of things—via the internet.

[Jane Stevenson]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I hope that we will have that education around their sale. Most hardware shops, where they used to be available, have already stopped selling them, but they are still available online. Hon. Members have asked why the Bill does not propose an outright ban on their sale. With devolved Administrations travelling at different speeds, that was not possible. However, he raises a valuable point. It is crucial to educate members of the public that these traps will no longer be legal, and I would like people who sell them—well, they should not be selling them—to advise that they should be used only by licensed pest controllers with a licence to use them.

I hope we can agree that the Bill will provide significant improvements to animal welfare standards. The Government have made real progress in animal welfare over the years, including on puppy smuggling and live animal exports, and I am proud to join the large number of MPs pushing for better animal welfare. At this point, I want to pay tribute to Sir David Amess. The last time I saw him, we discussed the Bill at an event for the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation at our party conference where he was promoting Beatrice’s Bill: an end to hen caging. I hope that, at some point, we will fulfil his legacy by passing a Bill to that effect.

It has been a great honour to describe the Bill and I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions. It is crucial that we end the use of these traps as quickly as possible. There will be a two-year period during which a licensing regime will be put in place, and I hope that that will ensure that licences are given only in exceptional circumstances. In New Zealand, fewer than a dozen are granted each year, and I hope that our use of them will reflect that figure.

Environment Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

rose—

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I will not take any interventions because of the pressure of time, but I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow East will welcome that. I shall turn to air quality, on which so many Members and colleagues have had an input—unless the hon. Gentleman wanted to say congratulations?

[Rebecca Pow]

I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said; of course, we will consider all these things when we come to that point.

[Mark Tami]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I will not give way again.

Let me turn to air quality, which was mentioned by so many colleagues and Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).

On new clause 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), my Department is working closely with other Departments to improve air quality through the Bill. We are making it simpler for local authorities to tackle a key source of indoor air pollution—domestic burning—and strengthening the role of public authorities in tackling air pollution. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament on progress towards local air quality objectives, to review regularly the national air quality strategy and to publish an environment improvement plan.

Let me turn to the use of pesticides and air quality and new clause 13. The use of pesticides is not allowed where that usage may harm people. The existing regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 requires comprehensive scientific assessment.

Let me turn to water and new clause 3, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). Nutrient pollution from phosphates and nitrates is one of the main pressures on the water environment, with the main source being development and agriculture. Planning authorities must consider the environmental effects of increased discharges from proposed developments. By removing any need for the consideration of phosphate pollution in assessments, the new clause would threaten the protection of important wildlife sites.

I turn to amendment 3 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I thank him for taking the time to meet me a couple of weeks ago. Flow levels are incredibly important to the health of a river and the ecology it supports, and he is a great champion for rivers. Our new abstraction powers in clause 82 will strengthen existing powers for addressing environmental damage as a result of abstraction, including low flows. The Environment Agency will clamp down further on environmental damage caused by unsustainable abstraction of water through a variety of actions, including placing new conditions on existing permanent licences.

I can also commit to my hon. Friend that I will amend the explanatory notes for the Bill to include a specific reference to flow levels. That will make it crystal clear that low flows will continue to be assessed by the Environment Agency in the exercise of these new abstraction powers. I hope that he will not ask me to write to him again and that that is clear. I commend others who have raised water so eloquently: my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew).

Moving on to amendment 30, I assure the House that restoring England’s internationally important chalk streams is a priority for this Government and for me personally. A chalk streams working group has been formed, and it is developing an action plan. Actions being considered include improving the transparency and usability of data, which can be done without primary legislation.

I turn to amendment 42. I expect sewerage companies to develop statutory drainage and sewerage plans in collaboration with risk management authorities, and I will use the power of direction in the Bill if they do not.

I turn to new clause 18 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). While I am sympathetic to its aims, it is not necessary. The “last resort” is already a protected provision, and the Secretary of State already has a duty to review testing requirements in respect of reproductive toxicity.

Turning to amendment 24 on the REACH regulations, we have already included safeguards to protect the fundamental principles of REACH, and we cannot agree to proposed new sub-paragraph (1B) of schedule 20.

I am going to wind up now, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Are you saying that I have more time? If I did have time, I would wax a little more lyrical.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to declare that I am a tenant beef farmer’s son and a former member of the National Farmers Union. I also refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am delighted to sponsor the Bill. It is one that means a great deal to so many people. It means an enormous amount to me, to my family, who have been caring for animals for 100 years on our farm, to many hon. Members from across the House and to the many impassioned campaigners from across the nation. If colleagues support me in my quest, we can today progress this much-awaited step forward on animal welfare, delivering another important commitment from the Government Benches and helping to cement this country’s place as a world leader in the care and protection of animals.

I believe that every animal deserves a dignified life and that we should use our heads as well as our hearts when it comes to taking action on this issue. That is why I have decided to sponsor this important Bill, inspired by the story of my own dog, a four-year-old springer spaniel who I named Poppy. Poppy was abandoned on a stormy night in January last year. She had been dumped at the top of a hill miles from the nearest town or village. It was at the roadside on that hill top lane in my constituency that I found her while driving home.

Poppy was in a bad state when I found her. She had clearly been mistreated. Her pads were red raw and there were cuts to her legs. She had nasty growths and needed three teeth removed. Evidence suggested that, shortly before I found her, she had given birth to a litter of puppies. My dad, being someone who has taken care of animals on our farm for his whole life, took her for the emergency veterinary care that she needed before bringing her home to live with him and my mum on our farm. She now enjoys a wonderful new life as a member of the Loder family exploring the green and pleasant land of my home in West Dorset.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the hon. Member’s Bill. Does he agree that although it is very good, we need effective enforcement as well, because if we just have a Bill that is not actually enforced, that does not take us any further forward?

[Chris Loder]

Yes, I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I shall go on to address that in my speech.

The Bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which currently sets out a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine for the most serious prevention of harm offences. We have in this country a legal and, indeed, moral obligation to provide for the welfare needs of animals that we keep and should be safe in our care, whether they are pets, farm animals or in other captive environments.

Under animal welfare law, the maximum custodial sentence for the most shocking animal cruelty offences is just six months’ imprisonment. If someone pleads guilty to this crime at the first reasonable opportunity, the maximum sentence can be reduced to just four months. The UK is a nation of animal lovers—44% of all households have a pet—and as the Parliament of our great nation of animal lovers, it is right that we lead the way today in challenging this gross injustice. A mere six months discourages no one, so we must establish in the law of England and Wales a much tougher maximum penalty. By increasing the penalty tenfold, we hope to suitably discourage the shocking behaviour that leads to the neglect and cruelty of animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

One thing I have learned about this issue over many years is that the religious side has to be dealt with as well as the animal side. We have a real opportunity to bring the two together, because if we do not, I assure him that he will bear many scars, as I do, into the future. We have to deal with this, and I really think we can sort it.

It is also good to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). She did a lot of good work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I miss her being on it. I agree entirely with her that we need to get more dogs into schools. We have a charity in the west country that gets dogs into schools, so that children can see the right way to handle a dog and look after it. Most of us were brought up and live in families that look after pets properly, but there are children who are not reared in the same way and who see cruelty to animals. If we are not careful, that will carry on over the generations, so getting dogs into schools is so important.

This is a very great day; we will get the Bill through, and I gently chastise the Government that we have taken rather a long time to get here. We could have tagged it on to one or two other Bills over the years, but it is a delight that we have it here today. The UK is, without question, a nation of animal lovers. Some 50% of adults own a pet: 9.9 million of us own a dog, while 10.9 million own a cat. By the way, Wilberforce, our dog, who was Westminster dog of the year in 2011, is delighted that today’s debate is taking place. He is sitting on the couch in our flat in Battersea watching it as we speak. Seriously, though, this is a great moment.

Too often we hear reports from animal welfare charities of mistreatment and neglect. Last year alone, the RSPCA brought 1,432 convictions for animal welfare offences to the courts. Such offences range from neglect, often where the owners do not have the means to care for the pet, to cases of excessive violence and cruelty. We always have to differentiate those, because there are some people who do not necessarily understand what they are doing or have the resources. I do not justify it for one moment, but there is a great difference between that and the cruelty that is out there. Some do not mean to be cruel but are; others really go out to beat the dog to death. Those are the ones we need to ensure do not get away with a four-month sentence. I am adamant about that.

Animal cruelty can have a lasting impact on an animal’s physical state and temperament, affecting their ability to trust and function. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset made that point about the dog that he has now, which had obviously been very badly treated. Such abhorrent crimes have no place in our society, and we should do our utmost to prevent and punish such behaviour. In the 2019 general election, I, like all Government Members, and I suspect all Members across the House, stood on a manifesto that committed to introduce tougher sentencing for animal cruelty. This is a moment at which the House can come together in the very best way, and we can unite all parties, because we need to sort this out once and for all.

I strongly support the Bill, not only because it strengthens penalties and offences, but because it creates a stronger deterrent against animal abuse. In 2016, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published our “Animal welfare in England: domestic pets” report, which examined the legislation in place to ensure the welfare of pets. The report found several flaws in our current legislation and called for current measures to be strengthened to protect animals. One key recommendation was for tougher regulation of the buying and selling of pets. That could be puppy smuggling or all sorts. People need to be able to see the mother when they buy the dog. They should see the mother of the kitten as well, if they can, because they need to know whether the animal has been properly socialised.

[Mark Tami]

On the importance of seeing the mother of the puppy, does he agree that there are still very bad practices where dogs in particular are brought in from abroad, reared in very bad situations, and then placed in what appears to be a nice, clean environment, when the history of that dog and those puppies is in fact very different?

[Neil Parish]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. Unfortunately these gangs—because that is what they are—of criminals set up almost a sting operation. There is a dog there, obviously not the mother, and they have imported the puppies or brought them in in vans, very often under seats and all sorts of things, in very bad conditions. They could be suffering from quite a lot of disease and people do not realise that they are buying a smuggled puppy. Of course, a lot of the breeds are very expensive. We are talking about big money. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money to be made in smuggling in puppies and selling them illegally, and that is why it is something we need to take very seriously.

As I said, a ban on commercial third-party sales is now in force. Again, we have to ensure that that actually works. I question whether we need to be able to bring in five puppies legally from the European Union or anywhere else in the world. I do not think we need five puppies for domestic use. Very few people buy five puppies to keep themselves; if they wanted to do that, they could have a special licence for it. Let us reduce the limit to two. I think two puppies would be fine, but five is unnecessary; again, it is a legal loophole.

The Committee also recommended that animal welfare should be included in citizenship classes in schools and that DEFRA should continue to work alongside animal welfare charities to create public awareness of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Gentleman is being very kind. One issue that I have been worried about for a long time, which relates particularly to dogs, is the fashion situation: a breed becomes very fashionable and its value leads to a lot of the illegal trade and puppy farming. However, when those dogs become unfashionable, we have only to go to Battersea dogs home to see that, for all sorts of reasons, people no longer want them, and they end up looking for other homes.

[Neil Parish]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. Dogs become fashionable—perhaps a particular film is on television and everybody wants that particular dog—but then they go out of fashion, or they are very expensive to keep because they need to be clipped all the time and all these sorts of things, so they are discarded. There has also been a problem with pugs, where the fashion is to have them with shorter and shorter noses. The trouble is that eventually they cannot breathe. Breeders have even done that in this country. The Kennel Club has done quite a lot to try to improve that; but in the end, all these sorts of things are a form of animal cruelty. Some do not mean to do it, but again, we must be careful that we do not, through fashion, create a certain amount of animal cruelty by default.

The Committee also called for

“the establishment of an animal abuse register of those convicted of animal cruelty offences and who have been disqualified from keeping animals.”

It is very difficult for authorities to track people who have been banned. The Americans have done quite a lot of work on following those people. People who abuse animals often abuse people, too, and it is key that we make sure that we follow those who have been very cruel to animals.

The current penalties for animal welfare offences are feeble; the punishment does not fit the crime. Sentences for animal cruelty are woefully low. How is it right that a person in this country can maim, torture and murder a pet and receive a maximum sentence of only six months? Too often, those charged with the most violent animal welfare offences do not even receive a custodial sentence.

During the Committee’s evidence sessions, the British Veterinary Association pointed out that the maximum custodial sentence of six months was very rarely given, as the sentencing guidelines gave a starting point of 18 weeks for serious offences—a point that has already been made. I welcome the review of the sentencing guidelines in April 2017, which sought to ensure that the most serious cases of animal cruelty received appropriately severe sentencing, within the available maximum penalty.

Animal welfare offences continue to rise, however. As RSPCA prosecution figures show, from 2016 to 2018, the number of prosecutions secured in magistrates courts rose by over 200 to 1,678. Of the 1,000 or so people who are prosecuted for animal cruelty each year, on average only 10% are given custodial sentences. In 2018 alone, 862 people were found guilty of animal cruelty offences.

We have already heard of some horrible cases in recent years. In 2016, a pair of brothers filmed and sent images of themselves throwing a bulldog terrier down several flights of stairs. They then stamped on the dog’s body and viciously headbutted it. The terrier suffered serious injuries to her back, losing all ability in her hind legs, not to mention the terrible emotional trauma inflicted on the poor creature. Unfortunately, the dog, whose name was Baby, had to be put down due to her injuries. The fact that the dog was called Baby makes one wonder what these people could be capable of and whether that could include violent actions not just towards animals but towards humans, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that fair and square on the record. So he exercised self-discipline, and I must congratulate him on that. We will live in hope, as the hon. Member for Bristol East said, about when, if ever, the Government bring forward some of the other measures that she and, indeed, my hon. Friend talked about.

The Bill leads people to believe that our prisons will be filled up with a lot more people who are guilty of abusing animals. The explanatory notes are not just notes made up by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. They come with the authority of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which provided them. They explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice and provide background information on the development of policy.

[Mark Tami]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is about not so much putting people in prison, but trying to stop them doing these crimes in the first place?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely. I agree that the deterrent effect of legislation is a very important aspect of it. However, there is nothing clear as to what the evidence is on that. One of the shortcomings of private Members’ Bills is that there are no procedures to enable us to have a regulatory impact assessment. We would not have known about the financial implications of the Bill unless they were set out in the explanatory notes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), but I am going to take the debate back to our dogs, if I may. I am delighted to support the Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). It was disappointing, to say the least, that the Bill fell in the last Parliament due to timescales, so I am delighted that he has picked up the mantle and will see through its implementation.

In the spirit of fostering European relations, I am owned by three French bulldogs, although, judging by the photographs I am sent from home when I am working away in this place of them taking over my sofa, they appear to own my whole family. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mimi, Olly and Piper are delightful little dogs, each of them champions, not in a Crufts sense but, respectively, in snorting—and worse—laziness and annoyingness. But no matter how annoying, smelly or noisy they are, and no matter how many times I tell them that I am sending them to the dogs home, I could obviously never do that and would certainly never wish harm on them.

As a child, I always wanted a dog. When I was in secondary school, I volunteered on Saturday mornings with a local charity called Animal Concern, which at the time was based in Northside in my constituency of Workington. It had kennels in what were originally allotments with a fence that was 8 or 9 feet high topped with barbed wire.

Not many weeks or months went by when volunteers did not find a dog thrown over the fence or tied to the gate during the night. What is most depressing about that is not a single dog would have been turned away at the gate, no questions asked. Some of the residents had incredibly depressing stories, and some we would never know the background of, which made 12-year-old me wonder how some people could inflict the harm that they did.

When I was only a few years older, my mother deemed me responsible enough to get my own dog—a decision she no doubt came to regret. Even today, I am not entirely sure that she would deem me responsible again. Since Jess, there has been only one small stint when my home was without a dog. I was supported through the shock of the first 10 years of my married life by a wonderful English springer spaniel called Ben, who took his last walk over the rainbow bridge a couple of years ago. As we have heard, the love of a rescued springer spaniel puppy inspired my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset to take up this Bill.

The love between a dog and their family should never be underestimated. The youngest of our three dogs, Piper, was born in our house when our youngest daughter was a toddler. They are now inseparable—the best of friends—and I am sure that Piper sees Olivia as any other litter mate, as well as a source of food when Piper is hiding under the table. Olivia sees Piper more like one of her dolls that she can attempt to dress up and place in a cot, but Piper’s a bit too wily for that. For those reasons, among many others, I despair of anyone who can inflict deliberate cruelty on an animal, and I warmly welcome the provisions of the Bill.

The working title of the Bill—Finn’s law part 2—takes its name, as we know, from a tremendously courageous police dog who was horrifically attacked in the line of duty. It is right today that we pay tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) in marshalling through this place the original Finn’s law, the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill, in 2019. It sought to provide increased protection for service animals, abolishing the abhorrent defence that a defendant could claim that they were protecting themselves.

Finn and his handler, PC Dave Wardell, have shown extraordinary determination and resilience in the past four years, dedicating a huge amount of time in ensuring that the animals that serve us on the frontline and in other service roles and also those at home that provide us instinctively with the love and affection that we need when we require it are protected in law. My inbox tells me that this is an issue that a large number of my constituents in Workington care deeply about. They were delighted when the original Finn’s law gained Royal Assent and they will be even more delighted, I am sure, when this Bill does.

Across the House, Members will have been shocked by some of the stories of animal cruelty we have read, and in every instance we will have asked ourselves how anyone could do such a thing, but it happens and it is right that we in this place be the voice of those who cannot speak for themselves. While I talk mainly of my own experience as a dog owner, it is not just about dogs of course, in my home or in the general debate. Our house is also home to three goldfish. The latest addition had to have the colours of Spiderman or Batman, at Olivia’s request. We have Spike, a bearded dragon belonging to Harry. We previously had Ezra, a royal python of Elliott’s. We have had ferrets, rabbits, chickens, quail, ducks. We have rescued hedgehogs, blackbirds, seagulls, and I have lost count of the number of caterpillars we have raised to butterflies and tadpoles to frogs.

My constituency of Workington has many organisations and animal rescuers only too willing to rush to the aid of an animal in distress. I speak not only of Animal Concern, where I spent some of my childhood Saturday mornings—it has long since moved from Northside to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison)—but of organisations such as Knoxwood Rescue, which works tirelessly with injured wildlife and pets and has a marvellous centre that is always worth a visit. There is the ubiquitous RSPCA, which has a branch in West Cumbria, and smaller organisations, often headed up by solitary or small numbers of dedicated individuals such as Mel of Ani-Mel Haven in Mawbray, which is raising funds for a brand new state-of-the-art rehabilitation centre, and Jade of West Cumbria Wildlife and Rehab in Northside, who works as a vet by day and rescues wildlife, but also volunteers for Cats Protection in what might normally be deemed her spare time. I also speak of Pet Encounter in Workington, whose work with animals to educate young people has led them also into pet rescue. I speak of Whinmill Farm Canine Centre, which deals with stray dogs, and of countless other volunteers who go unnamed.

I also had the pleasure earlier this year of visiting a fantastic racehorse rescue centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), himself an equine vet, accompanied by the Minister for Civil Society in the other place.

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about racehorses. I am one of the few in the House who has spoken about greyhound welfare. There is an onus on the owners of racehorses or greyhounds, who often make a lot of money out of them. They owe them a duty of care after they cease to earn money for them. There is a big difference between the number of greyhounds racing and the number who are rehomed when they finish. There is a big question there.

[Mark Jenkinson]

I agree that there is an onus on any owner, breeder or racing stable that rears these animals to make sure that they are looked after later in life once their duty is done.

I also take the opportunity to thank our vets, such as Millcroft, who without question will take an injured animal in at the door, recognising that it is unlikely that they will be paid for the work that they undertake. It is due to these people and many other thousands of paid staff and volunteers across the country that animals that suffer horrendous attacks are cared for and in many cases rehabilitated back to health and go on to find the forever home that they deserve. It is to those animals, and those volunteers, vets, veterinary staff, and animal rescue staff, alongside our military and emergency services, that we owe the duty of passing the Bill today and in its further stages.

UK Fisheries

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Murray]

I completely agree. I know from personal experience that safety aboard fishing vessels is essential.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the app. A number of fishermen have told me that it is difficult to use: certain species are difficult to record on it and, in some cases, it does not seem to work at all. I think it was given a one-star rating on Google for its effectiveness. Does she think that needs to be looked at?

[Mrs Murray]

If the right hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come to that.

To reiterate, my friend wrote that the Marine Management Organisation has introduced a new licence condition that requires skippers of under-10-metre boats to estimate, or guess within a 10% tolerance, the weight of all fish caught, species by species, before the fish have been landed. He went on to say that, with small quantities of fish, it is almost impossible to estimate that reliably within 10%. If a fisherman gets it wrong, he is liable to criminal prosecution, with a maximum fine of £100,000.

Given the mixed catch in the south-west, my friend continued, that could put an extra hour or two on the end of a long working day for an under-10-metre trawler. That is totally unreasonable and is not safe. There is no de minimis exemption for small catches; every fish has to be counted and its weight estimated. Over-10-metre vessels are exempt from having to log catches of less than 50 kg per species, which obviously reduces the problem of trying to estimate the weight of small quantities.

I have used the app myself, so I have seen some of the problems that fishermen encounter. My friend added that there has been a string of technical and practical problems with the app and the contact centre, which is open only during office hours. According to the app, some harbours and landing places do not exist, and it does not recognise that fishermen catch more than 10 different species. People have had problems getting through to the contact centre. As far as the app is concerned, the threat of criminal prosecution for estimating outside the 10% tolerance should be removed, and there should be a complete rethink about the new system.

Ivory Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It would be a terrible fallacy if we as legislators fell into the trap of thinking that something will stop all because we make it illegal. The Bill sends a very clear signal and closes down an important market in the ivory trade. However, if the hon. Gentleman is pointing to the work that our troops can do through the Ministry of Defence, or the work that Department for International Development and other organs of the state can do to better educate, to help economies in the developing world to grow, to realise and maximise the value of safari-type tourism, and to help to train people and give them the skills to go out with confidence to combat those who seek to kill elephants and other species merely for their ivory, he is absolutely right and I agree with him entirely. The Bill of itself will not achieve our aim, but I am absolutely convinced that it will play an incredibly important part when viewed as part of the wider and more colourful mosaic of tools that we have at our disposal.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to address the demand particularly in countries that on the surface adhere to the rules but allow trading below that to carry on and in some cases encourage it?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point and he is absolutely right. From that position, notwithstanding the cited but not referenced legal advice that the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Workington, mentioned, I would argue that precisely because of the need to send a clear message to other countries who are either subject to or perceived to benefit from the ivory trade, the most important thing that we can do is have the legislation in a really advanced state to take to this important conference in the autumn as an example of best practice and what can be done in the legislative process.

New clause 2 is on the report of the international ivory market. This slightly segues into the point made by the hon. Member for—I am going to say Alyn and Deeside—

[Mark Tami]

That is right.

[Simon Hoare]

Well, there we are—my knowledge of north Wales Labour MPs is getting even better. This segues into the hon. Gentleman’s point. I would much prefer to see pressurised resources in DEFRA, the MOD and DFID, concentrated on deploying as much as we possibly can to arrest and frustrate the ivory trade and poaching, rather than the bureaucratic complexities that, in essence, underpin new clause 2 about having the report on the international ivory market. Apart from having a report to keep open a door or prop open a broken window, I am not entirely sure what the report of itself would do and what sits at the heart of the new clause.

Of course, I support the amendments proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Cockling: Dee Estuary

Mark Tami Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Cockling in the Dee estuary is an industry that makes an important contribution to the local economy. Natural Resources Wales issues 53 full licences each year for the cockle fishery on the Dee. Last year 250 tonnes of cockles were landed there, producing a value of half a million pounds. The value of United Kingdom exports as a whole to other European Union countries was £4.2 million in 2015, with most of the exports going to the Netherlands and France. It is therefore important for us to protect the industry and the livelihoods that depend on it.

For the past year, my office has been in contact with local cocklers who have been hugely concerned about what has been taking place between Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency in England. I held a meeting with both organisations in my constituency office, at which it was agreed that the Environment Agency would be the first port of call for the cocklers on the English side of the river, and that it would raise the cocklers’ concerns with Natural Resources Wales. This a question of democratic accountability, and the process governing responsibility for managing the cockle beds of the River Dee raises important issues.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the 53 licences. Many people worked those beds for years, as did their fathers and grandfathers before them, and were not given licences, unlike many others who had not worked the beds before.

[Margaret Greenwood]

That is an interesting point. I certainly know that a number of families in my constituency have been involved in cockling for a great many years.

My constituents feel that the Environment Agency is not representing them adequately, and that, as Natural Resources Wales is an agency of the Welsh Administration, its responsibility is obviously to people in Wales rather than those in England. They have spent months making requests for access to the accounts showing the fishery costs, which have been released in a piecemeal fashion. They have made repeated requests to see the full accounts, but have been provided with only a summary, which has led them to conclude that the fishery is not being managed properly.

My constituents believe that they are being overcharged for their licences because Natural Resources Wales is not acting in a cost-conscious or effective way. They are concerned about the lack of scrutiny of NRW by the Environment Agency and the lack of attendance by EA representatives at meetings, and that is clearly an issue. After submitting numerous freedom of information requests, they were given sight of a document: references from the minutes and papers of the partnership board meetings to Dee Services and transfer of functions. The Partnership Board executive summary of 6 October 2015 states:

“NRW are under pressure from fishermen (who fish the Dee River Cockle Beds), for a meeting. NRW would like EA representation at this meeting but local EA staff are unwilling.”

The Environment Agency apparently pays £18,000 a year to Natural Resources Wales to manage the cockle fishery, but, according to my constituents, that figure never appeared in the accounts before 2015. I should like the Minister to tell me exactly how much the Environment Agency has paid Natural Resources Wales in each year since 2012, and how much scrutiny the Environment Agency is giving to how the money is being spent. The lack of oversight of the way in which money is spent is of real concern.

Last year I asked the Minister what enforcement measures the Department had undertaken in relation to illegal cockling on the River Dee, how many prosecutions for illegal cockling had been brought in each year since 2010, and how many prosecutions had been successful. The Minister replied:

“All cockle fisheries within the Dee Estuary are controlled via the Dee Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 2008. Enforcement of the Order is a matter for Natural Resources Wales (NRW) as grantee of the Order.

Defra does not have information pertaining to the specific enforcement measures taken by NRW on illegal fishing occurring within this fishery.”

My follow-up question is this: why does Defra not have that information? It is paying NRW to manage the fishery, so it should have some interest in how the money is being spent.

More importantly, not only are my constituents paying for bailiff activities via their licence fee, they have also been told that it will pay towards unsuccessful prosecutions. I have asked the Minister how much the Department has spent on the management and enforcement of cockling rights in each year since 2010 and what information the Department holds on equivalent spending by the Welsh Government. The Minister’s response was to state:

“DEFRA does not hold this information.”

Why does it not hold this information? Last year the cockle beds were closed for quite some time, so I ask the Minister what discussions have taken place with the Welsh Government on, first, the management of fish, mussels, cockles and other seafood stocks in the river estuary; secondly the reasons for the closure of the cockle beds in the estuary; and, thirdly, the projected date for the reopening of the cockle beds?

EU Referendum: Energy and Environment

Mark Tami Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the uncertainty created by the result of the EU referendum for the protections currently in place for the UK’s energy security, climate change commitments and the natural environment; notes that the discussion leading up to the EU referendum made little mention of environmental protection or climate change and considers that regulations and ambitions in those areas should in no way be diminished as a result of the outcome of that referendum; has serious concerns about the signals being sent to investors in those sectors by continued uncertainty; and therefore urges the Government to identify and fill any legislative gaps in environmental protection that may arise from the removal of EU law.

The motion stands in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members in the shadow Cabinet.

Before the referendum vote, the Government were already facing major problems securing the energy needs, emissions targets and environmental protections that the UK requires for the 21st century. These problems were mainly self-inflicted: an energy policy that left companies and investors confused, with feed-in tariffs for solar changed retrospectively; an effective moratorium on onshore wind power, despite its being the cheapest form of renewable energy; the subsidy for offshore wind cut; and the Government failing to indicate what would happen to the levy control framework beyond the cliff edge of 2020.

Investors were told that the Government were simultaneously incentivising new unconventional gas and phasing out unabated coal by 2025, yet the £1 billion still remaining for the development of carbon capture and storage was cut just four weeks before the final bids were to be made, with the consequent announcement by Drax of the abandonment of the White Rose CCS project and the announcement by Shell that it no longer saw a future in the near term for the Peterhead project. The Secretary of State’s energy reset speech last November ended up leaving us the equivalent of 54 million tonnes of CO₂ further from achieving the fourth carbon budget.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

For many of the companies involved, the investment lead-in times are quite long, resulting in a very uncertain environment in which to work. That is leading to some of them pulling out of the UK altogether.

[Barry Gardiner]

I must, reluctantly, agree with my hon. Friend. This is not good news; it is really bad news for all of us. The investment climate in the UK is in a really dire state. In fact, the UK has now fallen from eighth to 11th to 13th in the Ernst & Young index of the best countries for investment in low-carbon technology, when we have previously never been outside the top 10. These are really worrying matters.

Control of Horses Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend is almost certainly right. It is clear from his intervention that he knows far more about this matter than I do—he probably knows far more about most matters than I do.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has said the legislation is already in place in Wales, and, as a Welsh MP, may I say that I think it is important to make the distinction, as the vast majority of animals left on these fields are ponies?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

As it happens, until a couple of years ago we had, in the meadow next to our house, a pony—that sadly died at the age of 35, which I think is going it some, frankly. It was as a result of the knowledge of our own pony, who was called Porky, that I moved this amendment. If this amendment is unnecessary and we do not need to describe what a horse is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) suggests, I will move on to my second and third amendments.

I think these two amendments are more important. I think they genuinely address what may be a problem with the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt set me right on that when he comes to speak. I think the problem may be this: the detention of a horse under the provisions of this Bill could be continued beyond 24 hours if the person who detains the horse does not know to whom the horse belongs, provided he tells the police about it, but it could not be continued beyond 24 hours if the person who detains the horse does know to whom the horse belongs, but does not know how to get hold of him. These amendments are intended—despite my own, no doubt, cack-handed drafting—to deal with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome will no doubt tell us whether they achieve the clarity and helpfulness I intend to achieve, but that is the purpose behind them.