Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I thank the hon. Member for his engagement, and I will arrange a meeting with the relevant member of the team. The information is on gov.uk. Two projects near his constituency—the Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the Mersey Rivers Trust—are involved in the programme. I welcome his engagement. It is a good scheme, and I will ensure that he gets that meeting.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I have been working with the Environment Agency to address a small flood problem on the River Gade in my constituency. The Environment Agency has been very helpful, and has met with me. In another part of my constituency, the River Ver has been flooded with sewage yet again. That is unacceptable, and the Environment Agency needs to take it seriously and take action against the water companies, rather than just saying, “We’ll work with you.” Action is what my constituents want.

[Steve Barclay]

I agree. That is why we are increasing fourfold the number of inspections, so that water companies are not marking their own homework. It is why we have the plan for water, introduced by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and significant additional investment. It is why we are taking tougher enforcement action, with the biggest ever criminal prosecution of water firms by the Environment Agency. It is also why we are taking action on things such as bonuses for companies that commit serious wrongdoing.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill (Instruction)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows from our discussions last week, I am enormously sympathetic to his view but, as he will be aware, those movements from the Republic of Ireland to the continent of Europe are a matter for the European Union. That is what we heard from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). My understanding is that the EU is looking at some of those rules as we speak. That is, of course, a matter for the Republic of Ireland and the EU, and we cannot in this House legislate for other nations.

If we were to transpose “Republic of Ireland” and “Belgium”, for example, other nations would challenge completely one nation being favoured above others. We could not say, “We won’t export animals for fattening or slaughter to anywhere in the world, apart from Belgium.” That would be challenged instantly by the international trade bodies, and we would lose in court—that is the legal advice I have been given—so the Government are not in a position to put forward legislation that we know is not legally sound.

I am enormously sympathetic to the view of the right hon. Member for East Antrim and, of course, I agree with him. I do not want to see sheep and cattle moved from Belfast all the way to Madrid. That is not what we want to see happen, but we do not have the power to stop that at this moment. That is why it is critical that we protect the Northern Irish economy. Extending livestock exports from Northern Ireland in that way would be devastating if we were to stop them moving to the Republic. I understand his desire for a modified ban to apply in Northern Ireland. However, it is just not possible under our international obligations, and making such a provision for the whole of the United Kingdom in this Bill is not appropriate at this time. I therefore appeal to him, respectfully and hopefully, to find a way to withdraw his motion, in the knowledge that we have enormous sympathy for his position.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

Having listened intently to the Minister and to my friends on the Opposition Benches, and having served in Northern Ireland as a Minister and in other roles, my question is this: what is to stop—as we are trying to do—the live transportation of animals for slaughter going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and then going on? We are not preventing something that we are trying to prevent. I know the legal advice, but sometimes Ministers have to challenge the legal advice. I am not saying that the legal advice is right or wrong, but sometimes it has to be challenged. It clearly does not make sense if we can move animals around inside Great Britain and transport them to Northern Ireland, and then say to Northern Ireland, “You can’t adhere to the rules in the rest in the United Kingdom.” Do not get me wrong, I am very supportive of this Bill, and I do not want to jeopardise it in any shape or form, but there seems to be a conflict of interest between what we are trying to do as a Government and what we are succeeding in doing, which is alienating the farmers of Northern Ireland.

[Mark Spencer]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is important, first, to remember that we are talking only about animals being exported for either fattening or for slaughter. Under the phytosanitary rules of the island of Ireland, the movement of cattle, sheep or pigs from England to Northern Ireland will then incur a 30-day standstill within Northern Ireland before they can be moved to the Republic. That makes it not commercially viable to use that route to get to slaughter or to fattening. I hope that colleagues will understand with sympathy our frustration that we are unable to extend the rules to Northern Ireland.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel]

Thank you, Chair. I will come to those now.

The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) include a number of provisions to extend the scope of the Bill. I want to say a little bit about alpacas, which I believe are dealt with in amendment 2. In my constituency, I have seen a growth in alpaca farming. There are alpacas in Cookridge in my constituency, on the way to Leeds Bradford airport; Meanwood Valley urban farm, which is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), has alpacas; and, on Queensway in Yeadon, I recently spotted a number of alpacas in a field. This is clearly an area of expansion in the British farming industry, but there is also now quite a lot of alpaca breeding, so there is no need to export live alpacas to this country, because there is sufficient depth of alpaca farming to carry on that work. The same goes for other animals, including llamas and deer. We are overrun with deer; we certainly do not need the export of them.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

Being overrun with deer is usually a forestry issue. They are wild animals and are not covered by this Bill, and they are certainly not covered by these amendments.

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the right hon. Member. Obviously, there are wild deer and deer farmed for venison; both types exist in this country.

I do not want to hold up the debate for too long, so I will conclude. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, the Labour party is the party of animal welfare—that is a strong priority for Labour. We have long called for a ban on live export for slaughter. Every year, millions of farm animals are at risk of facing long-distance journeys, including the new animals that we have tabled amendments to cover. Amendment 5 aims to future-proof the Bill. Particularly as the climate changes, farming will change, and we need to be able to evolve and update the legislation as practices change. I support amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend, and I hope to see the Bill go much further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I hope the Minister will listen to, because otherwise—despite all the amendments that have been tabled and that, if pushed to a vote, we will support—the problem will still exist, it will not have been addressed and the protection of animals that the Bill is designed to provide will not be fulfilled.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I rise to speak about the amendments, in particular those tabled by the Opposition Front Benchers. They did so in good faith, but I do think there are issues with them. If we look at this issue as a nation and are honest about why there has been so little or no exporting of live animals, it is public opinion that made that happen. That is what stopped it at Dover and some of the smaller ports.

I had the honour of being a researcher for the late and departed Sir Teddy Taylor, the former MP for Rochford and Southend East. Among many things, he campaigned hard to ban the live export of animals. Before I came into this House, I did a little bit of journalism among many other things, and as journalists, we followed lorries, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) did, down to Italy, believe it or not, without them stopping for fodder or water.

I get where the amendments are coming from, but to suggest that animals such as llamas or deer might at some future time be moved for fattening and slaughter is stretching the imagination. This place is for debate. The Labour Front Benchers disagree with me—I absolutely get that—but I am sent here to express a view. We have major problems with deer in our forests—not just muntjac, but other species—to such an extent that some farmers are going to give up their leases on some of the National Trust land they farm. They say it is not viable. We are not going to export those deer—we will not send them across for fattening. Llamas are not going to be sent for fattening and slaughter. The Bill is targeted at an industry.

I have every sympathy with my friends from Northern Ireland, and I know exactly where they are coming from, but it will not be financially viable for wholesalers—that is normally who it is—to take cattle from the Province into the Republic and send them on that huge sea journey. That journey is not cost-effective and just will not happen.

We are sent here to protect and not just to talk about financial viability, and this Bill is important. Yes, I would like to have seen it earlier, as I think we all would. It was a manifesto commitment that I stood on, and I think manifesto commitments are important. However, we cannot divide this sovereign Parliament and give those duties to, for instance, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I do not think that is right; it is for this country to set what is right and wrong in terms of those international obligations.

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman said that the closure of the land bridge will make it less commercial for animals to be exported that way. I had a response from an agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland talking about the export of animals from Northern Ireland via Dublin and then on to Rosslare and Le Havre. He said:

“Analysis by my officials has shown that calves exported from Northern Ireland via a Republic of Ireland port (Dublin or Rosslare) are rested on the truck in the Republic of Ireland for at least one hour before sailing to France. It has not been considered necessary to date to feed the calves during this rest period to achieve compliance with the EU regulation”.

The practice was already happening before this legislation. It closes one route—the land bridge—but is likely to lead to even greater suffering. The EU regulations and Department officials do not even consider it cruel to rest the animals for one hour and then send them on a 24-hour boat journey without any food.

[Sir Mike Penning]

This House thinks the practice is cruel, and that is why we are changing things with this legislation today. Frankly, what our European friends do, now that we are out of there, is down to them. We can talk to them, be friends with them and do lots of things with them, but we do not have to do what they tell us to do anymore. That is crucial.

There is one amendment that I would have been the first to support, had the Opposition or the Government wanted to table it, and that is on foie gras. I cannot understand why they have not. I spoke on Second Reading about amendments that should have been tabled. Why on earth is something whose production is banned in this country, because it is cruel, allowed to be imported and sold in this country? That is a mistake in the Bill. I am sure that amendments might be tabled in the other House. If they were tabled in this House, they would be agreed. Those amendments should be made to the Bill, but perhaps I will speak a bit more on that on Third Reading.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak tonight in favour of the Labour amendments and to briefly pay tribute to constituents who have raised these important matters with me and other colleagues. I stress the significant public interest in this issue. Like other colleagues, I have had a large amount of correspondence. We all want to see this change. We do not want to see live animal exports in any shape or form, and I appreciate the effort my colleagues have gone to in identifying future risks, which should be taken seriously.

I welcome the legislation, but I regret the delays in it coming to the House. I also ask the Government again to support wider measures to improve animal welfare. I commend the work of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) who just spoke about the possibility of tackling foie gras. Those are serious points, and the hon. Member for Crawley has done excellent work on trophy hunting. I was proud to be able to support that work.

I will turn to the Labour amendments, which are in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). As she said, the Bill leaves open the possibility of other animals being exploited. She is right to point that out, because some of the species mentioned in the Labour amendments are farmed in the UK. There is deer farming and the hunting of deer in woodland. I have seen llamas being farmed in the Thames valley. I understand there is a possibility that these species could be traded. I am concerned by that, and we are right to raise these points from the Opposition Benches.

The point that my hon. Friend made about the way that the live animal export trade developed rapidly and expanded between 10 and 20 times in scale over a 10-year period is a salutary reminder of what some unscrupulous business people are willing to do in this industry. I urge the Government to think again about these probing amendments, which are wise and sensible and highlight some serious future risks as agriculture changes and develops. We would be wise to address that by looking at the species in the amendments and adding them to the Bill to ensure that those animals are protected in the same way as other animals. I urge Ministers to consider the thoughtful amendments tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

It was not an extensive list. There are many examples of the Government taking action, and we will continue to do so.

[Sir Mike Penning]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Spencer]

I will, because my right hon. Friend has been involved with the Bill throughout its passage.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I thank the Minister for giving way, because after sitting here for three hours or so, I would have been very disappointed not to be able to bring up the subject of foie gras yet again—you gave me the look, Madam Deputy Speaker, which was understandable. The Minister produced a long list of what we had done, but what we can do in the future is ban the import of foie gras. Its production is banned in this country because it is cruel. Why are we still importing it, and why are we not banning it?

[Mark Spencer]

The Bill deals with the export of live animals, not the import of products. I am sure that there will be many opportunities for colleagues to continue to raise animal welfare issues, and they will of course have a sympathetic ear from the Government.

Let finally put on record my sincere thanks to animal welfare groups, particularly Compassion in World Farming but also the National Union of Farmers and other stakeholders that have helped with consultation responses, for their support as the Bill has made progress. Let me also thank my excellent civil service colleagues, who have been very supportive throughout the drafting of the Bill, for their work to help bring it to this point. The Bill will reinforce our position as a world leader on animal welfare, and that is something of which we can all be very proud. I look forward to following its progress through the other place, and I commend it to the House.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Mike Penning Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I think we should acknowledge at the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker, the work that you did before you were in the Chair, on this issue and other animal protection schemes over many, many years. It is quite right that we have mentioned David Amess, but his neighbour for many years was Sir Teddy Taylor. I worked for Sir Teddy in the ’90s, when we were desperately trying to get the ban on transporting livestock and we could not—off the hoof and on the hook.

I was also a journalist for a part of that time, and the Express group, as it is now, paid for me and some of the Express photographers, because our lorries were being stopped going to Italy by French farmers. The French were worried about what was happening to their livestock and their incomes. Very often, when they opened those lorries, particularly as they got closer to the Italy-France border, a lot of the animals were dead. I completely agree that farmers want to protect their livestock and look after their husbandry brilliantly, but we could not say that about a lot of the hauliers—I say that as a former haulage Minister. I was really appalled at the money-grubbing way in which some hauliers, particularly those that came across empty from Italy to take livestock back, worried about how much diesel they were using and whether their tachograph was running properly.

The Bill is brilliant. Teddy passed away a few years ago, but he will be watching down on us now absolutely thrilled about the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that there is more that we would like—absolutely. I cannot understand, for instance—this has not yet been mentioned—why we ban the production of foie gras in this country but allow its import. I am sorry, because there are probably people in this Chamber who completely disagree, but it is barbaric. How on earth can someone force-feed an animal? That was rightly banned in this country when we were in the European Union, yet we allow it to be imported.

There are things that we can do, including on puppy-smuggling. My youngest daughter has just spent an awful lot of money on a new puppy. I really hope that it does not destroy her new home in the way that many of the puppies that I have had have done. There are things that we can do. To be generous, I would turn around and say, “This categorically could not have been done while we remained in the European Union.” There have been complaints that it is taking too long, but the time that has passed since we settled Brexit is relatively short. In agriculture and farming, we have had to create a whole new financial field.

Thank goodness for campaigners who are now, sadly, long gone from us. David went too early. You are still here with us, Mr Deputy Speaker. But for those of us who were fighting for this in the ’90s, I am absolutely chuffed to be here this afternoon.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I commit to continuing this conversation with the right hon. Gentleman beyond the Chamber. I should be clear that livestock transported for slaughter from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must go directly to a slaughterhouse. It would be an offence for them to move anywhere else. On arrival at the slaughterhouse, the animals and the accompanying health certificates must be presented to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs officer at that point. Livestock exported for any other purpose—not for slaughter—would need to remain at the place of destination in Northern Ireland for a minimum of 30 days and be re-tagged. That is necessary to comply with the animal identification requirements after arriving in Northern Ireland.

The requirements would mean that livestock must remain in Northern Ireland for a minimum of 30 days, and would make the slaughter trade uneconomic in those circumstances. I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him offline. We have given some thought to this and have had conversations with our friends both in the Ulster Farmers’ Union and Northern Ireland.

[Sir Mike Penning]

rose—

[Mark Spencer]

I will take one more intervention, and then I will conclude.

[Sir Mike Penning]

The Minister is very kind. One thing he probably did not hear me mention was foie gras. He has not mentioned the fact that I made a speech, because it was not that good. Will he commit the Secretary of State to meet me—my office is only two doors down the corridor from him—to discuss why we are allowing foie gras to be imported into this country, when we banned its production here? I made that point in my speech but, clearly, I did not get it across hard enough.

[Mark Spencer]

The danger of mentioning colleagues by constituencies is that, occasionally, I miss one out. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not singling him out for his brilliance, which is a matter of record in this House. I get into trouble for making commitments at the Dispatch Box for my own diary, so I am not about to start making them for the Secretary of State’s diary. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend were to write to the Secretary of State, he would be able to answer that question.

Once again, I pay tribute to colleagues who have participated in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Export) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5)Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)

Question agreed to.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Mike Penning Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith]

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

I am extraordinarily grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. and right hon. Members who have been present today to ensure that we support the conservation of some of the world’s most endangered species—not only iconic species from Africa, such as lions, giraffes and rhinoceroses, but those from other parts of the world, such as polar bears in North America. To be clear, the territorial extent of this Bill is Great Britain. It is about disallowing the importation of the hunted body parts of endangered species.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I support the Bill, and it is great news that it will be passed today with so much support. His point is critical, as there has been a lot of false information. This Bill is about our territorial rules. It is not about telling other countries what to do, and it is not colonial. It is saying what we will allow into our country; it is entirely up to other countries what they want to do. This is about us and this House.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and he anticipates some of the remarks I was about to make. This Bill is about the values we in Britain have: we do not want to be part of a trade in the body parts of endangered species. We are not telling other countries how to run their trade, conservation or hunting policies, although we may have a range of personal opinions on that. It is important to remember that. This is about those CITES appendices I and II species, almost 6,000 species of flora and fauna, that are endangered. We hope that this legislation, when enacted, can play a part in conserving them.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Mike Penning Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

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

The Bill aims to ban the importation of endangered species body parts into Great Britain—to be more precise, those listed on the convention on international trade in endangered species, or CITES, in annexes A and B, whether from species in the northern hemisphere, such as polar bears, or species in the southern hemisphere, such as elephants. The territorial extent of this Bill is Great Britain, so let us be clear: this legislation, obviously, does not tell other countries what to do.

Seven years ago, Cecil the lion was infamously shot dead by an American trophy hunter in Zimbabwe. Sadly, British trophy hunters are among the world’s most active killers of endangered species. In recent years, British trophy hunters have imported thousands of body parts as macabre souvenirs back into the UK. According to CITES, the most popular trophies brought back from Africa into the UK are those of elephants, hippos, leopards, zebras and lions. The African forest elephant has recently been declared critically endangered by the IUCN—the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the African savannah elephant is also declared endangered; their combined population is estimated to be approximately 400,000. At the beginning of the 19th century, there were as many as 20 million elephants in Africa. Trophy hunters now shoot so many elephants that, when we add the numbers that are poached, more elephants are killed each year than are born. Moreover, trophy hunters are shooting the biggest elephants with the biggest tusks. That is leading to artificial selection: only smaller-tusked elephants are surviving and passing on their genes. There are now many more small-tusked and tuskless adult elephants, which will find it harder to find water under dry riverbeds at times of drought, which are occurring more frequently.

The hippopotamus, which is second on the British trophy hunters’ list, is classed by the IUCN as vulnerable to extinction, as are zebras and leopards. Leopards are believed to have suffered a dramatic decline since the 1960s, with numbers falling from 700,000 to only 50,000 animals today, according to estimates. The situation for lions is even more alarming. The population in 1970 was estimated to be 200,000, but researchers now tell us there could be as few as 10,000 to 15,000—perhaps 20,000 in the wild at best—and there are official warnings that lions may become extinct in the wild by 2050.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

This is such an important subject, and my hon .Friend is right to highlight at the start of his speech that this is about us in this country banning imports, rather than about telling other countries what they should do. Is he aware that because there is such a shortage of lions in the wild now that captive lions are being bred and released into enclosures for the trophy hunters to shoot them?

[Henry Smith]

My right hon. Friend raises an important and alarming point; the so-called “canned” shooting of lions and other majestic animals bred solely to be shot by trophy hunters in an enclosure is a particularly sickening aspect of this, which this country should have no part in whatsoever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I will not delay the House for long, as lots of colleagues want to get in and this Bill needs to be on the statute book, so we need to get it into Committee. As we have heard, this was a manifesto commitment of ours at the last election, as it was for the two main Opposition parties. I do not believe that any political party has opposed it.

For me, this is not just about speaking out on behalf of my constituents, many of whom have written to me; I had the honour and privilege to serve in Her Majesty’s armed forces in parts of the world where this used to take place—I am referring to Kenya. Kenya and that part of the world suffers enough from poaching, and we have heard about the number of species that are endangered, a lot of them because of poaching. This is greatly adding to that risk. I can remember being a young soldier and being lucky enough to go off at the weekend to the Ark, which is in the Aberdare park in Kenya, a most beautiful place to go. As a young soldier, there were lots of places I wanted to go; I never thought that I would want to go to a safari park, but I was truly amazed by what I saw. People wanted to go and have a piece of nature they could take home through photography, not with its head missing or after it had been shot.

The word “hunter” is used, but many of the animals are caged and then released; they are purely bred for someone to shoot them. That is so brave, isn’t it? I am a pretty good shot; I served many years in the armed forces and I shot at Bisley. Is it brave to have someone breed and release something, and then shoot it from just a few feet away? We have heard why some of those animals suffer for so long after they have been shot. Are the “hunters” all bad shots? Not necessarily—some animals are being shot in places where they will not die straight away, simply because people do not want to damage the head, which will be used as a trophy later on. The animal suffers and suffers.

With wildlife under so much pressure, and with the scourge of poaching, why can this House not do what we are entitled to do? I do not mean to tell another country what to do. We can absolutely praise other countries when they are doing the right thing. I should perhaps declare an interest here as the father of a marine biologist daughter; she will be watching me today ensuring I am talking about crocodiles and other things—saltwater crocodiles, in particular.

This is a moral issue for us. It is a moral issue for the countries that are allowing it, and the argument that this is bringing money into those countries is absolutely false. The WWF has been on the record about that; the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said earlier that the WWF did not support this Bill. That is fundamentally wrong. Anyone who has read the pamphlet that has been sent around today will see that there are definitive quotes in there. It is a lie to say it is creating a safe haven for the animals and protecting those species. They are being driven to the point of extinction in so many different ways.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who has done brilliantly well by bringing the Bill forward, alluded to elephants. Elephants have an amazing ability to remember things and hand them down from generation to generation, particularly when it comes to water. I was with a military unit in Kenya, and we were trying to find a suitable water source. We were on exercise, like the British military do, and a herd of elephants decided that they were going to come to the wadi, where we thought there was no water at all. They came right through the middle of the camp—it was quite interesting, to say the least. Because of the memory of the matriarch in that herd, they knew that there was water a few feet down. There had not been water in that wadi for years.

If we destroy, or allow to be destroyed, that innate ability to survive, by not passing this Bill we are just as bad as that man or woman who is shooting those animals. We are as bad as them. They are cowards, and we will be cowards if we do not pass this Bill today.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for bringing this important piece of legislation forward. I welcome the tabling of the Bill as it allows this place to debate the often difficult reality surrounding conservation.

I personally find hunting distasteful. I am appalled whenever I see, usually on social media, a hunter smiling gleefully next to their defenceless prey. I am at a loss, to be honest, as to why anyone would find enjoyment or even pleasure from shooting magnificent animals.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I apologise to the House, because I probably spoke for too long. These people are not hunters; we are being generous by calling them hunters, yet in this House we continue to call them that. Hunting an animal that cannot get away is not hunting.

[Nickie Aiken]

My right hon. Friend makes a salient point. Shooting magnificent animals such as rhinos, elephants and lions, and calling it “sport”, is abhorrent.

Naturally, I welcome the Bill and see it as an opportunity to bring about healthy debate on how we can best conserve endangered species while supporting the communities that are directly impacted. There is no question that we must do all we can to protect endangered species and improved biodiversity. I am proud of the work that this Government are doing to protect the environment. The nature recovery Green Paper that DEFRA delivered earlier this year, for example, sets out the Government’s ambitions to restore nature and halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.

There is little debate about the fact that one of the primary reasons why we have seen vast reductions in the numbers of animals in the wild—be they lions, elephants, zebras or even polar bears—is human action, including the destruction of natural habitats to make way for farmland, the pollution of vital water sources, actions leading to climate change and, of course, hunting. To reverse that trend permanently, we need to work to make wildlife and conservation worthwhile for all stakeholders.

Currently, there is no incentive for communities impacted by wildlife to accept the natural world that surrounds them. I stress that it is wrong to suggest that trophy hunting is a problem solely in Africa. We must be careful not to be seen as hypocritical, or even neo-colonial, when discussing our views on how foreign countries handle their wildlife. All around the world, there are examples of the environment and wildlife being sacrificed—be it the deforestation of the Amazon, the exploitation of waterways in Europe, or even the mass removal of hedgerows in the United Kingdom in the decades after world war two, which I am glad to see is being slowly reversed by this Government—because Governments have not provided incentives for local people to work with nature.

We must therefore encouragement the Government, who are fortunate enough to possess incredible swathes of nature, to work with and demonstrate to local communities that living near majestic wild animals need not adversely impact on their ability provide for their families. If that is done correctly, communities that embrace their animal neighbours can flourish without compromising nature.

I understand that this is an incredibly emotional subject. As I said earlier, I abhor the thought of hunting for trophies. It is equally important that we take a pragmatic and evidence-led approach to the issue, driven by the data, experience and knowledge of those on the ground. The leading cause of the population decline in a range of animals across the world is not the regulated hunting that we are discussing, but illegal hunting, which is commonly referred to as “poaching”.

I was interested to learn from Save the Rhino International that between 2012 and 2017, an average of 83 white rhinos and 3 black rhinos were hunted each year. In the same period, an average of nearly 1,100 rhinos were poached each year. That means that, during that period, only 7% of rhinos were killed by legal hunters—I acknowledge the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on the term “legal hunters”—while the other 93% were cruelly killed by poachers for their own gain, without care for the conservation and protection of the area.

Online Animal Sales: Regulation

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Unusually, I do not think I can disagree with a single thing that has been said in the Chamber today. As I look around the Chamber at the colleagues who are going to contribute, I do not think I will disagree with anything they say either, but do not test me too much.

It was a pleasure to be with Ricky and several colleagues outside No. 10 in the pouring rain. The longer we stayed, the more it rained; it was horrendous. To get 100,000 signatures from one person’s experience means that that experience touched the nation. It did so, as we have already heard, because we are a country—a United Kingdom —of animal lovers. I have seen more people get agitated about an animal being hurt than about people hurting themselves or other people. In many ways, that is right, because the animals cannot defend themselves.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) said, puppy farms are the most abhorrent industry out there. When I was a very young lad, I used to work in Petticoat Lane, Brick Lane, in north London, where puppies were sold at the side of the road in cages. They had obviously come from puppy farms, way back then, 50-odd years ago. We banned that; we stopped that. But the marketplaces that were there off Petticoat Lane and other markets around the country, in all colleagues’ constituencies, are now online. It is fundamentally unacceptable for platforms or marketplaces or whatever they want to call themselves today to say, “Hold up! It’s too difficult to monitor this,” just like it is too difficult for them to pay some tax occasionally. They spend untold amounts of money making sure they get around that sort of regulation, and it is about time that we put regulations in place not after the fact but as these things are happening, today.

I commend the Government and the Minister for the work on Lucy’s law; it was life-changing for a lot of people. What is also life-changing for a lot of people is when, in good faith, they see a puppy online with its gorgeous little eyes, and its mummy sitting there looking after it and snuggling up so that it can have its milk, but it is not the puppy that they get and it was not its mother giving it milk. I have constituents who say to me that when they go with their children to collect the puppy that they bought online, and there is the little puppy—in a car park, because, of course, something is going on in the house, or else they have been shown mum, but mum is nowhere near the puppies—and within months, and sometimes within days, the puppy is not only ill but is not actually what they thought they had bought in the first place. I have a constituent who bought a whippet. It is the biggest whippet ever seen now and it has clearly been cross-bred. People are petrified of going back, even if they know who the seller might be, because these people are serious criminals. Let’s not beat around the bush—they are criminals.

[Peter Dowd]

If the law were passed, it would be an exemplar for other countries across the world; it would send the message out. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a win-win situation, both for the consumer—the person buying the dog—and more importantly for the dogs and the animals themselves?

[Sir Mike Penning]

I completely agree. In fact, it would be a win for everybody if we get this right, including for the Inland Revenue, because none of these people pay any tax. It would be a complete win for the animal—not just for the puppy, but for where it came from, that puppy farm. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said she had lovely Jack Russells. I saw some footage of a bitch that came on heat and they put her in a shed with three or four male stud dogs, to make sure that she had puppies within a few weeks. That animal nearly never survived, let alone gave birth. Those things are happening; these people are criminals. Although we quite rightly say that we need to give more power to local authorities, we need to give them the expertise and ammunition to scare the criminals out of the marketplace. At the same time, the people providing that marketplace need to close it down.

In the world we live in today, animals will be bought online, and the pandemic increased the number of people going online. I went through trauma—absolute trauma—at home, because we lost our dog. It is the first time in my life that we have not had a dog at home. She was 22 and a dachshund—before they were fashionable, as they are at the moment—and we lost her. At home, both my daughters and my wife are saying, “Let’s get a puppy. We’re at home. We can look after her now.” I stood my ground, for one simple reason: we are not at home now.

If people go to any of the rescue centres, they will see that there are thousands of animals there now. The people who got the animals were in the right frame of mind at the time. Admittedly, lockdown put a lot of us into very difficult times. At the time, it was the right thing to do, but now it is not. If someone goes to a rescue centre, they will not be able to just pick an animal up and walk away. The staff will check the person out and ensure that the animal is healthy, and that is what we should be doing today. I say this to the Minister. It may be difficult, but lots of things are difficult in government. That is why we are in government—to sort these things out and to sort the online market in animals out. It can be done if there is a will, and there is a will in this room today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

It makes me feel extremely positive, and as the hon. Member says it is refreshing in this House.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) spoke about cats and rabbits too, which was important. As chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, I tend to have a focus on dogs, which I think, until he met his wife, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had, too. It is important that we realise that there are huge sales of other types of pet too, and this type of regulation can have a wide-ranging impact. Many Members have spoken, including the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who I joined last week at the door of No. 10, with Rick.

[Sir Mike Penning]

And me.

[Dr Cameron]

Absolutely. I thought I mentioned everybody, but I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, who is waving at me from across the way. He has managed to combine many animal welfare campaigns, and it has been amazing to work with him. He was one of the leading lights in the campaign last week.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) was on the steps alongside us. There was such a cross-party effort. He made sure that we were aware that the issue did not just affect little Reggie, it carries on to this day. MPs too can fall foul when buying puppies and other animals online, despite best efforts and the research we try to do. As the hon. Member said, when he saw that little puppy—particularly with his family with him—his heart melted and the sale was done. The unscrupulous dealers of puppies, kittens and other pets see that as money in the bank.

We have done a lot with Lucy’s law. I want to pay tribute to Marc Abraham, because Lucy’s law has taken us on a journey towards much better regulation. However, as has been mentioned today, we have further steps to take, and laws must be strengthened. The Justice For Reggie campaign group has listened to thousands of people every month who suffer scams, heartache and financial turmoil. Most end up paying financially as well as emotionally. They are traumatised and scarred, while the seller readvertises on platforms, because, quite simply, platforms lack the required regulation.

Rick said:

“When I bought Reggie through a well-known selling website and realised I had unknowingly contributed to illegal puppy farming, I have never hidden the fact that I could have done more research and should have walked away. This would have prevented the seller getting more money to continue the illegal acts of animal cruelty, although Reggie's fate would have been the same and he would have still died. What I gave Reggie was love and dignity and ensured he had pain relief throughout his very short life. Had I not bought him, Reggie would have been discarded like rubbish and died in pain.”

Families are put in an impossible situation day after day. Rick’s campaign has heard from over 300 families, who have contacted it distraught and not knowing which way to turn. They blame themselves, as they too bought puppies using online sites.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I hope I am not shortening the Minister’s speaking time, Mr Mundell. There is another side to this. There are people out there who want to buy dogs that are mutilated. Their ears have been cut—not by vets. They mutilate these animals and sell them on. There is a market for that; that market needs to be shut and the full force of the law imposed. It is not just about families who are buying an animal to love and cherish. There are people who want to buy mutilated dogs, which are available on these sites.

[Dr Cameron]

Absolutely. The right hon. Member makes an extremely good point. There is also what I would describe as an ongoing fashion in breeding dogs in ways that are not healthy for the dog breed. That must be looked at alongside the matter that he raised.

We all applauded the introduction of Lucy’s law. I was privileged and delighted to campaign on it and launch it in Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group. The law has gone a long way. However, as we can see, people are evading it. Over lockdown, Rick’s campaign spoke to 86 councils across the UK. All of them have repeated the same message: they are too underfunded and understaffed to police the law. Much more support must go to councils. That will be absolutely crucial. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated the level of ongoing collaboration with the council groups and explained how we can strengthen that to make sure that, in practice, it does what it says it does on the tin.

It is very upsetting for families to go through this. Rick said it affected his mental health, and he was so disturbed by it that he decided to set up the Animal Welfare Alliance, a collaboration between 10 of the largest websites in the UK, prompted by Justice For Reggie through numerous meetings. Their aim is to share data and improve protection, but they are not naive enough to say that that will solve the problems. They need the Government to act. This clearly needs enforcing with regulations. As many hon. Members have said, it is a wild west on the internet, quite frankly. Without the Government acting to ensure regulation, this will not happen, because platforms simply will not do it themselves.

Rick highlighted PAAG, and he appreciates its work to control online sales, to try to make being online safer. However, it cannot do that alone, and it only speaks with a small number of websites. As we discussed, we are in a digital age, and we cannot turn back the clock. A ban on online sales is not pragmatic. It is not doable. It is not going to work. Regulation is supported by many of the animal welfare charities that contacted me before the debate and it seems to be the most pragmatic way of addressing these grave matters.

Pets are sentient. There seems to be more regulation when buying a car online nowadays than when buying a pet. People have to go through many more processes to verify who they are and their insurance and other various things, but buying a pet does not seem to have the same level of rigour, which it really should have. It is a tall order for the Minister, but I know she has a good heart and tries her very best in everything she works on. In tribute to Reggie, we must make sure his life is not in vain. We must tackle this online wild west with regulation. It is a mix of consumer scams, animal cruelty and serious organised criminals who profit in the same way as they do from other illegal activities that they engage in. It is a serious matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

My hon. Friend brings up a point about responsibility. There is responsibility on those who purchase and on the breeders, but there must also be responsibility on online companies. The hon. Member for Neath mentioned databases; making sure that databases are functional is also important in this space, and it is something that I think Mr Ackers has also addressed in his work.

[Sir Mike Penning]

One of the biggest issues for the Minister and the public to understand is that if these animals were pigs or cattle, we would know exactly who the mum was and where they had been travelling. We would know all their breeding—everything about them—for the safety of our constituents. This cannot be beyond the wit of man. Just because the word “pet” is used should not mean that we cannot trace these animals. Surely we can do something.

[Jo Churchill]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Covid has meant that the movement of livestock is recorded much more online, which has shown us ways of traceability.

In addition to the duties to show the age of the animal for sale and a recognised photograph, the commercial third party sale of puppies and kittens has been banned in England since 6 April 2020. That prevents commercial outlets from selling animals in England unless they themselves have bred them. As I said before, licensed breeders are prohibited from showing a puppy to a prospective purchaser unless the biological mum is also present. There is an exemption in limited circumstances when welfare concerns must take precedence. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) pointed out, some unscrupulous breeders rarely think of the consequences for the mother when they are doing this under the line.

Alongside the statutory regulation of commercial pet breeders and pet sellers, we support the self-regulation of online platforms that sell pets. We do this through the close working relationship we have with PAAG, which was created to combat concerns regarding the irresponsible advertising of pets for sale, or for rehoming for exchange.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Our Agriculture Bill has an entire section on fairness in the supply chain, enabling us to introduce regulations that build on what we have started with the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that there is fairness and transparency in that supply chain.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that for many years animal rights activists and welfare activists for animal rights have been calling on Government to stop exporting animals on the hoof, and to let them be slaughtered in our slaughterhouses and go on the hook. Now we have left the EU, can the Secretary of State confirm that that sort of practice will cease?

[Theresa Villiers]

We do want to see an end to live exports, and we will soon be consulting on measures to improve the welfare of live animals in transport. We hope that ultimately the effect of this will be an end to live exports overseas.

Environment and Climate Change

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

It has been a pleasure to sit in the Chamber for this debate, and I am really pleased about the consensus across the House today. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) must have had a heart attack when I signed her early-day motion on 13 March, which called for a UK-wide climate emergency. I did so because I passionately believe in the need for that. My daughter was home from Australia. She is a marine biologist, and she told me in no uncertain terms what daddy should do. She is 30 years of age, and I often listen to her. I have been involved in this campaign since I joined the World Wide Fund for Nature and adopted a dolphin for my daughter when she was nine years of age. She is now working in the environment, which is not the highest-paid job.

It is the young people who have driven this campaign, and not just today but for many years. There was movement in this House before the demonstrations took place around the country. This is part of the movement. Before the young lady came over here—an unbelievably clever, intelligent and fluidly speaking young lady—the movement was going on in this country, and perhaps we needed that extra nudge.

This might sound strange, but I am disappointed that we are not going to vote this evening. I understand why the motion will be agreed and why those on the Government Benches will support it, but we should have put a marker out there. Perhaps on another day, when not so many Members on both sides of the House are away preparing for the elections tomorrow, we can come back and do this again and again.

There are two parts of most of what I have heard today that need to be touched on again. One is people’s trust in us that what we are telling them to do is good for them. We told the British public to go and buy diesel cars. That is what the experts and the scientists told us, and we did that and that was driven forward across Europe and across the western world. We are now telling them to scrap them, and that they are nasty, horrible, dirty things. People do not just switch. For people on a low income who have invested in a car, that is their freedom: it is what they need on a daily basis. For me, this issue is rightly important, and we have to make sure that we get right what we tell them to do.

The other issue is plastics. Why are we selling plastic in this country that is not recyclable? The Government could do something about this tomorrow. I am sure there would be consensus to do so, and we could make sure that we recycle all plastic sold in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He may be aware of moves within the House to look at the availability of alcohol in this place; I am not sure whether the House will want to entertain the idea of double or triple-strength gins. However, he has put his point on the record and I will take it back to the catering services, including whether they want to stock the double or triple-strength gin that he proposes.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

As the House authorities are aware, wholesalers have a monopoly, particularly when it comes to putting beer into Strangers Bar. Red Squirrel Brewery, which is in my constituency, managed to get it in there after five years, but only after having to go through the wholesaler designated by the House. The margins made it almost unprofitable for it to put the beer in there. That is wrong: there should not be a monopoly in this House.