Oral Answers to Questions

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

A year ago, Lewis Pugh was completing his long swim along the length of the English channel, from Land’s End to Dover. That incredible feat highlighted the need for full protection of our seas. What plans does the Minister have to expand the number of areas of UK waters under full marine protection?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Lewis Pugh was one of our “Year of Green Action” ambassadors and I am delighted that he continues to raise awareness of this issue. My hon. Friend will be aware of the 41 new marine conservation zones that we have designated. It would really help if the Scottish Government could also start designating more marine conservation zones, so that together as a United Kingdom we would have more than 30% of our areas protected. I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) well with his highly protected marine areas review.

Scallop Fishing: Bay of Seine

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We already have restrictions on where certain types of gear can be used, as well as technical regulations and specifications regarding the required features for bottom-towed trawler gear used for scallops. There are some regulations in place, therefore, and we keep them under review. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this method of fishing can be damaging, but it is also the main method that we use for species such as scallops.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the French recognise the UK’s legal right to fish in the bay of Seine, and that it is the duty of the French authorities to protect British boats that are legally fishing there?

[George Eustice]

I can absolutely confirm that. The French Government have confirmed to me that they recognise that English vessels have a legal right to fish in those areas, and that they recognise their responsibilities to enforce fishing activity in their economic zone.

Uncontrolled Shark Fishing in the Atlantic

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered uncontrolled shark fishing in the Atlantic high seas.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. When I secured this debate, it raised a few eyebrows. Colleagues asked why I had chosen this issue. I might already have a bit of a reputation in this place for campaigning on things that are cute and cuddly, such as domestic pets, so why on earth sharks? Since first seeing the movie “Jaws” at the age of four, I have genuinely been inspired and fascinated by sharks. By the way, that movie celebrates its 43rd anniversary this year.

I am not sure whether this counts as declaring an interest, but I should state that after a birthday present from my office last year, I adopted a shiver of great white sharks through the Shark Trust. The Shark Trust is one of many organisations based in the UK and beyond that do excellent work on shark conservation all over the world. The adoption certificate scheme, which is helping to fund vital research and population monitoring around the Farallon Islands off the coast of California, is just one example of that.

Sharks are not just found in far-flung waters. In fact, 21 species of shark live in British waters, and at least 11 species of deep-water shark can be found here, too. Lest that discourage anyone from spending this glorious summer at the British seaside, I stress that very few species of shark are potentially dangerous to humans, and none of them has ever been reported in British waters. In fact, there has not been a fatal shark attack in British waters in more than 80 years. The truth is that sharks are not the aggressive, man-eating monsters of movies such as “Jaws”, “Open Water” or “Sharknado”. Sharks are essential to the health of our oceanic ecosystems, and they are a valuable part of our marine life. We must not allow the Hollywood stereotype that seeks to stir up misplaced fear to get in the way of necessary conservation efforts securing the long-term future of these remarkable and wonderful animals.

Sharks play a crucial role in the ecosystems of every ocean on Earth. They are key, for example, to maintaining coral reefs. Without sharks keeping the predatory fish population in check, there would be fewer smaller fish eating the algae that would otherwise compete with and kill the coral reef. Studies have shown that declining shark populations are already having a disastrous effect on coral reefs, which themselves are deeply important to the global ecosystem. Further effects of shark extinction would include algae suffocating the ocean, population collapse among species such as scallops, whose predators are normally the sharks’ prey, and disruption to the planet’s carbon cycle.

Sadly, more than 50% of shark species in British waters are now under threat. Take the angel shark, which was once common but is now critically endangered. It is only thanks to the tireless work of groups such as the Shark Trust that the angel shark is now one of the best protected sharks in the north-east Atlantic.

Let there be no doubt that this is an international issue, as well as a domestic one. All over the world, in every ocean, various species of sharks face a serious existential threat. The biggest contributor to that threat is overfishing. Every year, millions of sharks are caught and landed, even as shark numbers continue to dwindle across a range of species. Overfishing is fuelled by demand for a whole host of shark products, including, perhaps most infamously, their fins, which are used in parts of Asia for shark fin soup. The practice of shark finning—cutting the fins off a live shark, which is often then left to suffocate to death—is truly barbaric, and I am glad that action to change attitudes in China has led to sales of shark fin dropping by up to 70% in that country in recent years.

That progress is just one glimmer of light amid a wider and growing problem. Demand for shark meat already far outstrips demand for fins and is continuing to grow. Other shark products in demand include: shark liver oil, which is widely used in the cosmetics industry; shark cartilage, which is used as a so-called alternative medicine; and shark teeth, which are used as jewellery. The overfishing of sharks is not just about demand for shark products. Shortfin mako sharks can be found in British waters and are believed to be the fastest species of shark in the world. Bycatch of these sharks is leading to a serious decline in their population. It is believed to be necessary to reduce the north Atlantic mako catch to zero if we are to have even half a chance of allowing the population in those waters to recover over the next two decades. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas has thus far failed to grant prohibited status to shortfin makos, even though that species has been found to be exceptionally vulnerable to ICCAT fisheries.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

I understand that the International Union for Conservation of Nature classes sharks simply as “vulnerable”. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the demand he is clearly pointing out, further action is required to afford greater protection to all the shark species that inhabit UK and Scottish waters and beyond?

[Ross Thomson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. Sharks are not just vulnerable; as I have tried to articulate, they face an existential threat. From the movies we watch, the programmes we see and popular culture, we have a misplaced fear of sharks, but it has been clear over the decades that sharks have more to fear from us than we do from them. It is the same story all over the world.

The protections that are in place are inadequate, poorly enforced and nowhere near what is needed to guarantee sustainability. ICCAT’s ban on shark finning, for example, which is based on a fin-to-carcass ratio limit, is weak and difficult to enforce. Its replacement with a wider ban on removing shark fins at sea, which was supported by the vast majority of ICCAT parties in attendance in 2016, would be more than welcome. I therefore hope that the UK Government will redouble their efforts to promote sustainable fisheries at an international level and make the conservation of shark species a key priority. I am thankful that the UK Government were a strong advocate of prohibiting shortfin mako landings ahead of the annual ICCAT meeting in 2017, for example. I hope that they keep the pressure up in that area.

As the UK becomes an independent coastal nation with a large exclusive economic zone, we have a great opportunity to become a global voice for a precautionary approach to international fisheries regulations. We have seen the devastating effects of overfishing on ecosystems and human communities. It should be clear that the risks of more robust regulations are greatly outweighed by the risks of allowing overfishing, especially of sharks, to continue unabated.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought forward this issue for discussion, particularly as someone who has swum with sharks around the world, including off the Minister’s coast in Cornwall, where I have swum with larger sharks. Is my hon. Friend aware that 86% of all the sharks landed in the EU are landed in the Atlantic? Brexit offers us a great opportunity not only to ensure that the species continue to survive, but to create an environment in which they will prosper.

[Ross Thomson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I am hugely jealous of his having been able to swim with sharks off the coast of Cornwall—it is still on my bucket list to go cage diving with a great white. I know that many campaigners, including the Shark Trust, have been actively trying to engage with the European Union, often to no avail. He is right that when we take back those powers we will be able to do things on our own terms, and do more for conservation, not less.

I hope that the UK Government will press for common-sense reforms that eliminate the loopholes and, most importantly, make the regulations enforceable. On paper, a regulation can be as strict as we want it to be, but the important thing is putting it into practice. It is a matter of regulating smarter as much as regulating harder. I hope that after we leave the common fisheries policy and take back control of our waters, the UK Government will practise what they preach and act to preserve shark populations around the British coastline. We know that the EU’s record in this area has been less than stellar on occasion. After all, Spain and Portugal account for around three fifths of all shortfin mako catches, and Spain, Portugal and France are all among the top 20 shark fishing nations. We should take Brexit as a chance to examine what we can do better.

Overfishing might be the largest threat to shark populations, but it is not the only threat. Sharks need a healthy habitat to thrive in, so ocean pollution and habitat destruction are also significant contributors to the decline in shark populations. Microplastics, for example, are especially dangerous to sharks that are filter feeders, such as whale sharks, megamouth sharks and basking sharks. I am therefore really glad that the UK Government have introduced a ban on the manufacture of products containing microbeads, and I hope that will set an example to the rest of the world to follow as soon as possible.

The need for the UK Government not only to legislate domestically but to use their diplomatic voice for action on microplastics and ocean pollution in general cannot be overstated. Our ocean environments are interconnected all over the world, and plastic waste does not respect borders. The same goes for action to curb climate change and preserve the temperature of our ocean waters from damaging, radical change. Both the UK and Scottish Governments have been world leaders on reducing emissions, but more global action is needed if we are to see real progress in conserving shark populations, even here in our own waters.

I hope that I have helped to generate some more sympathy for sharks today. I hope that I have demonstrated their vital role in the marine environment, both in British waters and in all the world’s oceans, and have explained why we are all invested in securing their future. “Blue Planet II” has contributed greatly to putting marine conservation at the top of the agenda in this country. I hope that the UK Government will now act to ensure that it is at the top of the agenda all around the world, and that that leads to positive and lasting change for the planet’s many endangered shark species.

Pet Theft

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It really is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Sharma.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), as well as to the Petitions Committee, for taking this issue forward. I also pay a heartfelt tribute to Dr Daniel Allen, who started this petition and who is in the Gallery today, and to all those campaigners who have worked so tirelessly to move this issue right up the political agenda, such as the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance, Pet Theft Awareness, DogLost, Beverley Cuddy, Marc Abraham, Debbie Matthews, Professor John Cooper, QC, and many, many more—in fact, too many to name. It is due to all their outstanding efforts that more than 100,000 people across the United Kingdom, including more than 70 in my constituency, have signed the petition. Having this important debate here today is a real triumph of people power.

When I am asked what the most difficult part of my job as an MP is, I always answer: “Monday mornings”. That is not because I hate having to roll out of bed to catch a 7.15 am flight, but because it breaks my heart every Monday morning to leave my Jack Russell-Yorkshire terrier cross, Poppy. The fact that she knows I am leaving and does her utmost to make me feel guilty about it just makes heading to London so much harder. I could not imagine ever returning home to find that Poppy was not there. I do not even want to contemplate the notion of her being stolen. For me, like millions of pet owners across the UK, Poppy is my family. To be honest, I am like a proud dad. She has her moments, like any teenager. She can be relentless with her ball and her ducky, but I love her to bits, and I would hate anything it if were to happen to her. Our pets are much more than possessions. It is not difficult to appreciate how truly awful, heartbreaking and simply devastating a crime pet theft can be.

[Fiona Onasanya]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate, moving point. Does he agree that this is not just about pets? This is about a life and about a family’s life. The law needs to bear that in mind. This is not about monetary value, but about a life being taken. If a child was taken, we would not say, “They are only a couple of years old, so we think they are not worth that much.” This is a life, and it matters to the family.

[Ross Thomson]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. We have a real emotional connection to our pets, just as we have that emotional connection to members of the family. When we lose family members, we grieve; when we lose our pets, we grieve in the same way, and it should be treated in the same way.

As it stands, our law does not take true account of the real value of our pets. As the law stands, our pets are not inherently considered any different from inanimate objects. Sentencing is based predominantly on the financial loss to the victim. In England and Wales, for example, the theft of a dog valued at less than £500 must be classed as category 3 or 4. Those are lower categories, which mean lighter sentences.

Unfortunately, the Sentencing Council’s 2016 reforms have not made English and Welsh courts tougher on pet thieves. Very few cases of pet theft are getting to court, and even when they do, too many pet thieves are walking free or being given light-touch sentences. Given that pets are stolen not to be given a warm and loving home, but to be abused, tortured and treated as disposable, the current state of affairs simply makes my blood boil.

In Scotland, the Scottish Sentencing Council has not put forward any guidelines on theft, so judges rely on case law to decide on sentencing for pet theft. That flexibility cuts both ways. While some sentences may accurately reflect the real emotional harm done to the victim, that is far from guaranteed. The problem with the law as it stands is, as any victim would say, that pet theft is fundamentally not about financial loss. The value of a pet to its owners is far greater than any financial valuation could quantify. Losing a much-loved pet—a member of the family—can tear the heart out of that family and be as devastating a loss as losing any other family member.

Unlike a laptop, a blender, a flat-screen TV or any other object, no matter how expensive, a pet is a living animal and a much-loved part of the family. To underscore just how devastating the loss of a pet can be, a growing number of companies now offer bereavement leave to employees who have lost a pet. Inanimate possessions just do not compare, and it is about time that was properly recognised in the law.

Pet theft can and does cause real harm to victims’ lives. Just ask Dawn Maw, whose dog Angel was stolen in December 2013. She spent more than £13,000 trying to get Angel back. She took unpaid leave from work and suffered depression and the breakdown of her marriage. Pet theft changed Dawn’s life. She has said that her phone might have cost the same as Angel, but the phone could have been replaced within 24 hours, and Angel was her best friend.

Another example is Rita and Philip Potter, whose labrador Daisy vanished from their back garden in Norfolk eight months ago. The family are devastated and fear that Daisy was taken to be sold on the black market. Rita said that Daisy was

“a beautiful dog, she was a wonderful companion. We have got seven grandchildren, and they all miss her so much. At Christmas time, our little granddaughter, who is just five years old, said all she wanted for Christmas was Daisy back home.”

Such cases are powerful and demonstrate so clearly why the current law makes no sense. The light sentences given to so many pet thieves, based simply on the financial value of the pet, are an added insult to victims. They do not reflect the harm caused and do not act as an effective deterrent. It is just not justice. We need to change the law to make pet theft a serious criminal offence in its own right, punishable at a level more appropriate to the deep emotional harm caused to the victims.

That is what I intend to achieve with the ten-minute rule Bill I will be proud to bring before this House tomorrow. My hope is that the Bill will bring much-needed change to the law in not only England and Wales but Scotland. As a Scottish MP, I am determined to ensure that Scotland is not left behind, by working with the Scottish Parliament, and particularly my colleague Maurice Golden MSP. I hope the Bill can deliver justice for pet owners in Scotland, too.

For too long, too many pet owners have gone through the absolute hell and misery that pet theft can cause, and too many pet thieves have got away with a mere slap on the wrist. That is unacceptable, and it is time for change. The petition is a great example of people coming together to change a real flaw in our criminal justice system, and I hope that, this week, this debate and my ten-minute rule Bill can be the start of the change we need to see.

Sale of Puppies

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing this important debate, and the members of the audience who have turned out today—members such as Marc Abraham, Beverley Cuddy and Lisa Garner—on having run and raised awareness of the campaign, and on having taken the issue up the public agenda; all power to your elbow. Although I cannot wear my rosette, I hope my tie is suitable for the debate.

Lucy, a gorgeous, beautiful Cavalier King Charles spaniel, was a victim of the third-party selling of puppies. Raised on a puppy farm, she had a horrific and miserable life. Thankfully, Lucy was rescued by Lisa Garner in 2013 and became part of the loving home that she should always have been a part of. Sadly, Lucy died prematurely in 2016 as a result of her start on that very puppy farm. However, she has become a symbol of the movement towards greater animal welfare standards.

It will be no surprise to Members to hear that, having campaigned for a ban on electric shock dog collars, I fully support the introduction of Lucy’s law and a ban on the third-party sale of puppies. There are heartbreaking stories of puppies and kittens being separated from their mothers, kept in awful conditions and often transported for long distances before being sold. This practice is abhorrent, and I want to do all that I can to eradicate it, both in Scotland and across the rest of the UK.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has estimated that there is a demand for 700,000 puppies per year, which is significant. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, the third-party selling of puppies flows from that huge demand. Someone acts as a middleman between a puppy breeder and a buyer. Commercial third-party dealers who buy their stock from puppy farms—both here at home as well as abroad—are often the route to market for puppies from puppy farmers, who simply look for a quick profit with no regard whatsoever for the welfare of the animal.

Third-party traders operate in an environment that depends on low welfare standards and high-volume dog breeding, treating puppies like a conveyor belt factory product. Scientific research and evidence is conclusive: puppies sold by third parties experience a hugely detrimental impact on their physical and mental wellbeing. That can result in chronic medical problems, as well as severe behavioural problems, such as anxiety and aggression.

It could not be clearer that this practice is wrong, and it must stop. I wholeheartedly and warmly welcome the UK Government’s openness towards a ban on the sale of puppies by commercial third-party dealers. I welcome the consultation launched on 8 February calling for evidence on a ban in England. Introducing a ban would be consistent with the Government’s current advice—that purchasers should see puppies with their mother. A ban would remove the legitimate market for puppies bred in eastern Europe, from where vanloads of sickly puppies from puppy farms arrive in the UK. A ban would incentivise welfare improvements and would increase transparency. A ban could potentially improve the overall health of the UK dog population and reduce the incidence of dog aggression arising from poor breeding and inadequate socialisation. A ban would end the abhorrent practice of puppies being sold in high street pet shops, garden centres and pet superstores.

Animal welfare is devolved to Scotland, and recent investigations have found that puppies are being mistreated by unscrupulous dealers north of the border too. For example, in Aberdeenshire, around 900 animals were taken from a puppy farm near Fyvie after a Scottish SPCA raid, as part of Operation Dolphin. The current UK Government action does not apply in Scotland. However, the Scottish Government are thus far supporting a Scottish SPCA initiative to regulate third-party commercial dog dealers, but not outlaw them entirely. I welcome that. It is important that the Scottish Government act to keep Scotland’s puppy welfare protections up to speed with the rest of the UK. Scotland must not fall behind.

To date, I welcome all the numerous actions the Government have taken to improve animal welfare. I know that the Minister cares about this and that it is high on his agenda. A failure to bring forward a ban would be a serious setback to improving the standard of animal welfare in the UK. We must take action to stamp out this barbaric practice. Lucy’s law can become the most transformational and significant change to animal welfare that we can make, so let us do it. We owe it to Lucy, and we owe it to all puppies trapped on these horrific farms.

Leaving the EU: Fisheries Management

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Before.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I share the disappointment of north-east fishermen that the transition deal falls short of what they had hoped for. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that on 1 January 2021, we will leave the common fisheries policy, take back control of our waters and set our own fisheries management policies and our quotas? Will he look at including that in the fisheries Bill, and does he share the concern that I and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation have that the Scottish National party Scottish Government would keep us in the common fisheries policy in perpetuity and that that would sell Scotland’s fishermen out in perpetuity?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely every right in every particular. It was instructive that when the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation was interviewed on the radio earlier today, he made it clear how disappointed he was by the Scottish Government’s determination to keep us in the common fisheries policy.

Electric Dog Collars

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

The recent announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman intended to move the motion, and say that this House has considered the use, sale and distribution of electric dog collars.

[Ross Thomson]

That is exactly what I wanted to say. I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use, sale and distribution of electric dog collars.

Thank you, Mr Howarth. Can you tell that this is the first Westminster Hall debate that I have secured? It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship.

As I was saying, the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, proposing Government action to ban electric shock collars for cats and dogs, is very welcome. Members will be aware that I have been lobbying colleagues across the Chamber to support the campaign to outlaw the use, sale and distribution of these barbaric devices. However, there is a big difference between banning the use of shock collars and stopping their sale and distribution altogether.

[Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a subject that I know he feels passionate about. However, can he confirm in his opening remarks that what he is proposing to ban is the shock collar that is used by humans when training dogs, rather than the collars that dogs wear that warn them when they are close to a boundary fence? Those collars serve a good purpose and even save dogs’ lives if there are busy roads or other dangers beyond the fence.

[Ross Thomson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Having had numerous discussions with the Dogs Trust, as well as meeting the Secretary of State, I know that there is a difference. He is absolutely right that shock collars are controlled by humans and, depending on the device, they can control how long a shock is administered for, and those collars can even be used as devices of torture. The advice that I have had from the Dogs Trust is that although we do not like anything that administers a shock, when it comes to these boundary fences the dog itself is in control. Technically, therefore, the dog can administer the shock.

The concern with those collars for boundary fences is that if dogs were to cross the boundary fence, would they be nervous about coming back again, because they know that there is a shock coming? However, my understanding is that a ban on those collars is not being considered, because as far as the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and others are concerned, the dog is in control and not a human. Although they are not ideal, they are still better than an electric shock collar.

One of the key planks of my campaign has been around the sale—

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for giving way in this important debate. What is his opinion on sonic collars, because they have a different function but should also probably be banned?

[Ross Thomson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the things that I have learned throughout this whole campaign is the range of different devices that are available. Across the world, there are hundreds of different devices using different techniques, whether that is vibrations or shocks, to administer some form of treatment for a behaviour that is unwanted. Therefore, the consultation that has been announced is very broad, which is why I encourage Members here, as well as members of the public and all sorts of organisations and charities, to make their views known on exactly this issue and these kinds of devices.

I welcome the swift action that has been taken in Wales to ban the use of electric shock collars and I also welcome the intention of the Scottish Government to change guidance for prosecutors. However, we all know that banning the sale and distribution of these items across the UK requires action in this Parliament.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward and on supporting the Secretary of State in his endeavour. However, he has just touched on a point about the extent of this sort of legislation. In Northern Ireland, we currently do not have a democratic institution that could pass a legislative consent motion, for example. I am interested in hearing his views as to whether this process should extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I invite the Minister to confirm whether that will be the case.

[Ross Thomson]

I wish to make it clear that if we are to tackle the issue of electric shock collars and properly ban their use, it has to happen right across our United Kingdom, and only this Parliament can stop the sale and distribution of these collars. We can prohibit their use, but if we really want to eradicate them, banning their sale and distribution is key. And I hope that the Minister will pick up on the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. A number of other Members and I applied for a similar debate, but he had better dice than us in the selection. However, it is important to recognise that he has widespread support across this House and across parties for the points that he is making. I wonder whether he would agree to ask the Minister, in the gentlest terms possible, to explain why the whole matter of the sale of these devices has been left out of the consultation that was announced this week, and to encourage the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to include the sale in that consultation.

[Ross Thomson]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right that we have had cross-party support on this issue. I am glad that the Government are taking action, because right across the Chamber and regardless of party colour, there is real support for action on this issue. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is very timely—

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

rose—

[Ross Thomson]

I will take another intervention, but first I will respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I was about to discuss what has been suggested regarding the consultation since it was launched at the weekend—namely, that the Government are not seeking to ban the sale of these devices. My understanding is that that is wrong, because the consultation document itself says that the consultation is seeking views and calling for evidence on the sale of electric shock dog collars, as well as views and evidence on their use. I will quote the consultation document directly, which says that the Government

“want to hear views about what these proposals will mean for the sale and retailers of e-collars and whether any further restrictions will be required”.

I have made it clear from the outset that I would only ever welcome a Government proposal for a ban if it applied to the sale as well as the use of these devices. So, yes, I ask the Minister to confirm that it is the intention of the Government to seek a ban that covers the sale and use of these devices, and I call on those colleagues who are just as passionate as I am about banning their sale to submit their views to the consultation. In fact, I hope that all animal lovers will take the opportunity to engage in the upcoming consultation and make their feelings clear.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am also grateful to him for securing this very important debate. My parents have been training dogs—working dogs—for the best part of 30 years, and they have never felt the need to use these barbaric devices. My parents are good trainers and understand dogs very well. Does my hon. Friend agree with the recommendation from the Kennel Club that a ban should be rolled out across the country?

[Ross Thomson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he highlights is some of the anecdotal evidence that has come through this campaign from people who are dog behaviourists and trainers, and who have seen the effects of the use of shock collars and how detrimental they can be. I absolutely agree with him, and with the Kennel Club recommendations, that whatever we do must happen right across the country.

[Dr Cameron]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this extremely important debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dog advisory welfare, I have been inundated by people contacting me from right across the United Kingdom to give their support for this campaign. I wanted to let him know about that. Also, given his passion for this subject, I wanted to ask him to consider joining the all-party group and working collaboratively on this issue and other issues, such as Lucy’s law.

[Ross Thomson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is absolutely right that there has been huge support from the public on this issue, and no doubt many of our inboxes are filled with emails about it from constituents and from others right across the country who care just as much as we do about animal welfare and driving up animal welfare standards. I congratulate her on all the work that she has done with the all-party group. I would be absolutely delighted to join it and support it in any work that it is seeking to do, because she is right that dog welfare does not just end with banning shock collars; there is an awful lot more to do, and introducing Lucy’s law is absolutely one of those things.

In the run-up to this debate, members of the public were invited to post and share their views about banning shock collars on the House of Commons Facebook page. The response to that invitation has been quite amazing and the comments are still coming in, so I thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts. The majority of respondents believe that shock collars are not necessary to train dogs, and I will share with Members a couple of the comments. Deb said:

“There is no justification for training animals using pain, rather than reward and building trust. It is not only cruel. It risks creating behavioural issues in the short or long term that could be a risk to humans. Ban the shock collars. It’s overdue.”

Karen said:

“They need to be banned. It is a cruel and inhumane form of torture and abuse. If it isn’t suitable to use on your human child then it shouldn’t be suitable to use on a pet.”

Bill said:

“If you love your dog why would you want to give them an electric shock? Why not spend time with them training them?”

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important debate to us today. As he has just touched on, persuasion is always better than aversion. What we have is a sentient dog that is potentially living in fear, not knowing where the next shock is coming from. We must stop that cruelty as soon as we can. We must bring the ban forward and expand it, rather than just rolling on endlessly, given the time it takes to get through these things through Parliament.

[Ross Thomson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the evidence from experts in dog training shows that when an electric shock is administered, the dog does not understand why it has received that shock. When using these collars, owners have to be incredibly precise with the timing, otherwise it can result in even more detrimental behaviour, rather than correcting the behaviour someone is seeking to change. I will come on to that, because there is worrying anecdotal evidence about cases in which people have got that wrong and what that means for the welfare of the dog.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will agree that for generations, guide dogs, sheepdogs, hearing dogs, police dogs, mountain rescue dogs and, indeed, domestic pets have been trained very successfully without the barbaric use of electric collars. Does he agree that the vast majority of the British public would aim for one outcome: a ban on the use of such collars and, equally importantly, a ban on the sale of the devices in the United Kingdom?

[Ross Thomson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are many different positive, reward-based training techniques out there to train our dogs. Guide dogs are one of the greatest examples. People do not have to electrocute guide dogs to get them to carry out the marvellous, wonderful things they do. I experienced it for myself when I went out in my constituency blindfolded and with a guide dog. They are incredibly intelligent and they save people’s lives. People do not need to electrocute them to do so. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are going to do this properly, we need to ban the sale and use of these devices.

Since launching the campaign, many people have been astonished that these so-called training devices are still so prevalent when there have been significant advances in positive, reward-based training. I recently met the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust with the Secretary of State, and we made that case forcefully. The Secretary of State was struck that such devices of torture are still available. Although I welcome the announcement of a consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is clear that the campaign cannot and should not end there. We need to continue to make the argument that someone does not have to own a pet to understand that an electric shock collar is cruel and unnecessary. They are openly marketed and sold as training aids, and they work by instilling in the animal a fear of punishment.

When fitted, shock collars deliver an electric shock either through a remote control or an automatic trigger such as a dog’s bark. The punishment can last for up to 11 seconds. In some devices, the punishment can last as long as the owner holds down the button on the remote. The theory is that having received a shock the dog is more likely to do what it is asked, rather than that coming from a natural willingness to obey. Research commissioned by DEFRA showed that one in four dogs subjected to shock collars showed signs of stress compared with less than 5% who were trained by more positive methods. It was found that one third of dogs yelped when they felt a shock, and a further quarter yelped again when the punishment was repeated. The research also found that even when used by professionals, there were still long-term impacts on dog welfare.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. I congratulate him not only on securing this debate, but on the campaign he has been running so successfully over the past weeks and months. To declare an interest, I was lucky enough to prosecute animal cruelty cases at the Bar and to work for some time in the animal sphere with regards to the law. In that context, I came across and worked with a lot of animal behaviour experts. Perhaps he will discuss this in due course, but does he agree that canine behaviour is incredibly complex? That has become apparent to me. He has painted a vivid picture of the distress caused to animals by these barbaric devices, but in addition, does he agree that they simply do not work? They are counterproductive, given the complexity of dog behaviour and dog society.

[Ross Thomson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. His intervention comes at a timely point. He talked about his experience prosecuting animal cruelty cases. He mentioned how it can be complicated to time when the shocks should be given. The dog might not understand, and that can create unwanted behaviour. When I met the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, they raised that very concern. Owners of the devices often do not get the timing right, and that leads to unwanted behaviour.

There is a dangerous dogs case that is cited. Ostarra Langridge was prosecuted in 2001 when one of her dogs attacked and killed another dog while on a walk. A control order was imposed on Miss Langridge’s dog because of its aggressive behaviour, which was attributable to the effects of the shock collar. Miss Langridge sought the help of a behaviourist when her dogs started to run away from her on their walks along the beach. The dogs were given shock collars, which Miss Langridge was told to keep on for three months and activate whenever they misbehaved, but the first time the dogs got a shock was by mistake, after a small dog they were walking past made Miss Langridge jump. From then on her pets associated the shocks with small dogs and became afraid of them. When Miss Langridge described the day in July that her dogs turned on a shih tzu, she had tears in her eyes. She stated:

“They connected the pain of the electric shock with little dogs because of the first time I used the collar. The day that machine came in this house I regret.”

There should be no place for this type of outdated practice, particularly given the recent advances in positive, reward-based training. In my view, it is not enough to simply tighten up regulations. We need to outlaw these devices altogether as soon as possible.