Fur: Import and Sale

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing a debate on fur today. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead a debate on a topic as important as the UK’s continuing trade in animal fur, and in relation to my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill.

To explain the problem with fur, I will start with a true story about a man, a dog and a fox. The man was a prominent leader in the international fur industry and had spent 10 years of his professional career defending the fur trade against accusations of cruelty and working to try to get designers to use fur in their collections. He had increasingly found that to be an uphill struggle. One of his roles in the fur industry was to promote welfare standards on fur farms, and that saw him travel to fur farms around the world.

One day the man found himself on a fur farm in Poland. On that farm, about 1,000 foxes spent every day of their lives in wire cages only a little bigger than they were, about 1 metre square. It was the rough equivalent of a person living their whole life in a phone box. The rows of cages stretched as far as the man could see. Some animals were spinning in desperate circles—a sign of mental collapse. Others were just slumped in hopeless heaps on the wire-mesh floors. All were waiting for the day when they would be electrocuted to be turned into a coat trim or perhaps a bobble hat.

As the man toured the farm with the Polish industry bosses, he locked eyes unexpectedly with a fox. She had beautiful silvery-grey fur, a white stripe down the middle of her nose and shiny hazel eyes. Quite without meaning to, he connected with her, and her eyes told him something. Returning home to the UK the next day, the man was greeted by his adoring Labrador, Barney. After the enthusiastic tail wagging had subsided, the man looked at Barney, and Barney looked back, eyes full of love, optimism and energy. In that moment, the man saw what he had been missing for years—the connection between these two sentient beings. He realised that if anyone tried to do to his Barney what the fur industry was doing to millions of foxes, he would do everything in his power to stop it and help him. In that moment, he decided that he could no longer defend the indefensible and he resigned from working for the fur trade. But he did not just slip off into obscurity. Mike Moser, because that is who it was, approached anti-fur campaigner Claire Bass at Humane World for Animals, explained his change of heart and mind, and offered his insights and services in its campaign for a fur-free Britain.

I have much respect for Mike, who joins us here today. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that his powerful testimony against the fur trade is worth bringing to the attention of the House. Mike says:

“Over time I realised that whatever soundbites we devised to reassure consumers, retailers and politicians, neither welfare regulations nor any industry certification scheme, would ever change the reality of these animals being stuck in tiny wire cages for their entire lives.”

I am grateful for the strong support from so many hon. Members for my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. It is simple in principle and modest in scope, but overwhelming in its justification. It would end the import of animal fur into Great Britain and prohibit the sale of new fur products in England, while allowing appropriate exemptions and of course respecting devolved competence. In doing so, it would finally bring our law into line with our values, because the truth is this. The United Kingdom banned fur farming more than 20 years ago because we recognised it as inherently inhumane, yet by allowing tens of millions of pounds-worth of fur to be imported here, we continue to be complicit in exactly the same cruelty overseas. My Bill seeks to end that double standard.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I know that the hon. Member will agree that fur is not just a by-product, but a product that relies on animals being caged, confined and killed solely for their pelts, and that a ban on the import and sale of fur would be a proportionate measure, consistent with our ethics, and would end our complicity in the wholly unnecessary suffering of animals.

[Ruth Jones]

I could not have put it better myself. Let us be clear about what the fur trade involves. Each year, tens of millions of animals, including foxes, mink and raccoons, are still trapped solely for fashion. On farms, they are confined for their entire lives in barren wire cages, unable to run, dig, swim or express the most basic natural behaviours.

Investigations on fur farms by organisations including Humane World for Animals repeatedly show animals suffering extreme physical and psychological distress, self-mutilation, cannibalism and untreated injuries, before being killed at around eight months of age, commonly by gassing or anal electrocution. Importantly, that suffering is well documented on farms that operate under the industry’s “welfare assurance” scheme.

Animals trapped for their fur can be caught in maiming metal-jawed traps and left trapped for days with no food or water, exposed to the elements, before a trapper finally returns to kill them. Extremely disturbing footage from undercover investigations into trapping in the US by Born Free USA, Respect for Animals and Humane World for Animals shows trappers laughing as they bludgeon trapped animals to death and drown a terrified raccoon in a river.

There is no such thing as humanely produced or responsibly sourced fur. The European Food Safety Authority recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, which clearly showed that the needs of animals such as mink, foxes, raccoons, dogs and chinchillas cannot be met on fur farms. The report also concludes that suffering cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in current fur farming systems, which include so-called “high welfare” farms in Europe. Underscoring that, Mike Moser has publicly stated:

“Having spent so many years working to defend the fur industry, it is now my strongly held view that while animals continue to be caged, no improvement to nor strengthening of fur farming regulations will ever prevent the welfare problems and cruelty that are systemic to the fur industry.”

There is no meaningful dispute that the fur trade has suffering written through its DNA. Under a Labour Government, the UK recognised that when it became the first country in the world to ban fur farming on animal welfare grounds. Since then, 23 countries have followed our lead. The question before us today is not whether fur farming is cruel—Parliament has already answered that. The question is if it is too cruel to produce here, why are we allowing it to be sold here?

Despite our domestic ban, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs records show that the UK imports between £30 million and £40 million-worth of fur every year—equivalent to as many as 1 million animals killed annually to be traded here. Although fur is extremely unpopular in Britain’s shops and wardrobes, and only 3% of people say that they would wear fur, by the fur trade’s own admission, the UK is a trading hub for the global industry. Banning fur imports would remove that vital piece of the industry’s trading landscape, and so hasten its demise.

The case for a ban on fur imports and sales does not rest on animal welfare alone. Leading virologists around the world, including from Imperial College London, have warned that fur farms represent a serious threat to public health, describing them as an

“important transmission hub for viral zoonoses”

equivalent to other high-risk practices like the bush meat trade and live animal markets. They are a ticking time bomb for the next pandemic to occur.

Hundreds of outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 and highly pathogenic avian influenza have been recorded on fur farms in recent years. Viruses have mutated, spread rapidly between animals, and been passed back to humans. During the covid-19 pandemic, millions of animals were culled and fur farms shut down in several countries on public health grounds. Yet the industry continues. At a time when Parliament speaks about resilience, prevention and learning the lessons of covid, continuing to be complicit in the public health risk of the global fur trade is indefensible.

In its death throes, the fur industry has attempted to rebrand itself as environmentally friendly, but those claims do not withstand scrutiny. Fur production is resource-intensive, highly polluting and carbon heavy. For example, 1 kg of mink fur generates around seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than 1 kg of beef, and requires over half a tonne of meat feed. Fur processing also relies on toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to prevent decomposition and to dye the fur. Meanwhile, faux fur technology has advanced rapidly, with British designers using recycled and plant-based materials, many of them biodegradable. Ending the UK fur trade will support innovation, not greenwashing.

The public are far ahead of the law on this issue. More than three quarters of voters believe that when a farming practice is banned in the UK for cruelty, imports produced in the same way should also be banned. More than 1.5 million people have signed petitions calling for a ban and over 200 MPs and peers support the campaign for a fur-free Britain led by Humane World for Animals, FOUR PAWS, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Labour Animal Welfare Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animal Aid and others. The vast majority of British retailers and designers have also moved on from fur. Major brands and British department stores do not sell fur. In 2023, the British Fashion Council banned real fur from London Fashion Week. It is time that our laws caught up with society on the issue of fur.

Some hon. Members may wonder about the economic impact of a ban. I can provide assurance that the fur trade is already in steep decline globally. Fur production has fallen by over 85% in the last decade. In the UK, the sector is tiny, employing only a few dozen people, many of whom already trade in alternative materials or services. There is also a clear consumer protection benefit to a ban. A few years ago, there was high-profile coverage by the BBC, Sky News and others exposing the scandal of fake faux fur—real fur being sold as fake fur. That problem has improved thanks to the efforts of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Advertising Standards Authority, Trading Standards and Humane World for Animals, but it is still today possible to buy a bobble hat on a popular online retailer that is described as fake fur but is, in fact, made of fox. That leaves would-be ethical consumers unable to buy with confidence in accordance with their values.

A ban on all animal fur would simplify and strengthen enforcement and restore confidence. The evidence for this ban has been gathered, tested and confirmed for years. Parliamentary inquiries have been held and a Government call for evidence attracted tens of thousands of responses, with over 96% agreeing it is wrong to kill animals for fur. Public opinion, scientific evidence and the economic case are clear.

I was proud when, in opposition, Labour’s shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister stated support for a fur-free Britain. We now have an opportunity to make that a reality. I press the Minister today for any details that she may be able to provide on the timing of the publication of the results of the Government’s 2021 call for evidence on the fur trade, as well as the report on the UK fur trade by the DEFRA Animal Welfare Committee. I also place on record my hope that processed animal fur will be left squarely outside the scope of the UK’s ongoing sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU. As an important agreement to smooth trade in agrifood, it should not concern itself with trying to reach a common position on the trade in furry bobble hats any more than it should worry about trade in leather shoes.

I am grateful to the Minister for the formation of a working group to address the UK fur trade, and I hope that it can conduct its business in the coming months with haste, followed by the political will to act in accordance with public opinion and end the UK’s cruel, outdated and unnecessary fur trade.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was going to get on to that, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about trapping wild animals, which is why that is dealt with quite extensively in the animal welfare strategy that we published just before Christmas—I hope he acknowledges that that is the case. I was not trying to set one amount of cruelty against another; we try to minimise cruelty to animals in all contexts, which is what the Government’s animal welfare strategy seeks to make progress on.

I was just about to say that although some importation of fur is legal, as we have heard today, there are some restrictions. The fur from cats and dogs can never be legally imported into the UK. Seal products can be imported and placed for sale on the UK market only in limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions linked to the rights of indigenous communities. By the way, I recognise the cynicism with which that was dealt with in contributions and acknowledge that that cynicism may well have some connection to reality.

The Government recognise the strength of feeling on the issue from supporters as well as opponents of the fur trade—I must say I do not hear that much from supporters of the fur trade, but I am sure I will now I have said that. We recognise the state of public opinion in this area. We want to bring together a working group on fur, as set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, to seek involvement from both the industry and those who support restrictions to see what we can do ahead of deciding to deal with this in the future.

In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish a summary of responses to the call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain, which was conducted in 2021 under the previous Government and sought views from a range of stakeholders. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), pointed out how many responses were received to that. It is interesting being chivvied along by somebody whose party was in government for 14 years and made very little progress in this area. I do not mind being chivvied, but I look slightly askance at where the chivvying is coming from.

My sister, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston, took part in a process which got the Labour Government to ban fur farming within about three or four years of her beginning. We are less than two years into this Labour Government and we are doing a great deal across the animal welfare strategy for all animals, in whatever context they are found. I ask for a little patience to see how we can best take all this forwards.

In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish the opinion that DEFRA commissioned from the independent, expert Animal Welfare Committee on what constitutes the responsible sourcing of fur. As set out in the committee’s work plan, that review will consider available trade data on how much fur is imported to and exported from the UK. It will consider what welfare standards and other safeguards apply to that fur and how well they provide for the welfare needs of animals involved. The evidence that we will seek is what we can then act on once we have it. I hear hon. Members’ views of what the evidence is in this debate. We also must ask those involved in the fur trade to see what they would say so that we can make appropriate policy once we have the evidence in front of us.

I recognise the strong interest in the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion, as well as the summary of responses to the call for evidence from a wide range of interested parties. We will publish both the opinion and summary of responses as soon as we are able. Animal welfare is a global issue, and I take the points that have been made about its impact regarding trading rules. As set out in our animal welfare strategy, the Government are committed not just to raising standards in the UK, but to championing the importance of high animal welfare standards around the world. We will keep working collaboratively with our international partners as part of this work to promote robust standards nationally and internationally.

[Ruth Jones]

It is helpful to hear the Minister outline the progress so far. Given yesterday’s SPS statement, could she clarify that fur and fur products will not form part of the negotiations and are outside of scope?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am not going to clarify or not clarify that now because we are still in the middle of negotiations. I do not want to change the way that negotiations are working by commenting on them before we have final agreements, but I am quite happy to talk to my hon. Friend when all of that becomes much clearer.

We will engage with the EU, which is a major source of fur imported into the UK, as it considers the findings of the European Food Safety Authority’s recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, and the results of the European Commission’s 2025 call for evidence on the “Fur Free Europe” European citizens’ initiative. Those issues make this a bit of a moving feast, and we want to make sure that we get it right. We are also reviewing the findings of that report and will seek views from our working group on the evidence provided by the European call for evidence and the review, as well as the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion.

The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We look forward to publishing and considering the findings of the Animal Welfare Committee, and to bringing together interested parties to explore concerns in this important area and the different ways in which those concerns can be addressed to ensure the welfare of animals.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you again for your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It has been a pleasure to serve under you. This has been a very coherent and cohesive debate; I am not aware that there have been any dissenters. I thank all hon. Members for participating in today’s debate and bringing their different perspectives to this subject. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Newcastle-under- Lyme (Adam Jogee).

I thank the people in the Public Gallery for their ongoing work and persistence in ensuring that the animal welfare message goes out loud and clear across the UK, and for educating us in this House so well. I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that the Government have made so far, and I appreciate that a lot of it is happening behind the scenes. I do not envy her the persuasive familial discussions, because I am sure they are going on at all times—I would encourage her sibling to carry on with them. Public opinion is clear, the scientific evidence is clear and the economic case is clear, so let us stop the delay, get on with the action that we need to ban fur and fur products from being imported into this country, and end our complicity in this barbaric trade.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.

Animal Rescue Centres

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate. I was privileged recently to meet the lead petitioners—Paul Watkinson and Niki Roe of Jack’s Giant Journey, who are in the Public Gallery today—to discuss the issues that dog rescue centres face. I also thank the 175 constituents from Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition.

Although animal welfare is a devolved issue, Scotland is currently the only constituent nation of the UK in which animal rescues and shelters are licensed. There is much to be learned from that experience as Welsh and UK Government Ministers develop proposals for licensing regimes in Wales and England respectively.

I greatly welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s commitments to introduce regulations for animal rescues, sanctuaries and rehoming centres, following clear support in consultation in 2024. The measures will go a long way toward protecting animals and ensuring effective minimum standards for those sadly much-needed institutions. I look forward to taking those commitments to doorsteps across Casnewydd Islwyn ahead of May’s Senedd elections. I encourage the Minister, when taking proposals forward in England, to look at the responses to the Welsh Government’s 2024 consultation and to talk with Welsh Government colleagues about the work that they have already done in developing a licensing scheme. Let us learn from one another as we work together to level up animal protections across the UK.

Currently in England and in Wales, anyone, regardless of competence, premises, finances or track record, can set up a rescue and take in animals and charge fees, and they will face scrutiny only once things have gone badly wrong. We have all seen the most extreme cases pop up on our TV screens and news apps. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) mentioned the 37 dead dogs and 20 live animals seized in Basildon and Billericay in May last year, and almost 100 animals were seized from an animal sanctuary in Lincolnshire in 2024.

Although these extreme cases of animal abuse are shocking, there is a more sinister side to the regulatory desert in which rescue centres in England and Wales operate. Too often, when adopting an animal, members of the public do not know what they are getting and from where, because of the lack of a mandatory licensing and inspection regime. Seventy-eight per cent of the public believe that minimum standards are already in place. That leaves animal abuse hidden and allows families to be taken advantage of or even put at risk. Voluntary-only standards, such as those operated by the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, are well intentioned but unenforceable. Rogue providers ignore them, while responsible rescues already comply. Only a nationwide licensing framework will provide consistency and accountability.

Unfortunately, too many animals being rehoused from animal shelters are, unbeknownst to the adopters, from puppy and kitten farms. Others rehoused via rogue rescues were stolen. With no law to compel rescues to check where a dog came from, paperwork can be limited. The issue is best highlighted by the case of Maggie, a King Charles spaniel adopted from a dog rescue centre. Unfortunately, little did her adopter know that Maggie was the product of a puppy farm. That was known by the rescue centre, but not discussed. Maggie was later found to have more than 20 rotten teeth, facial paralysis and a heart murmur. She also had a shoulder injury possibly after being kicked. Worryingly, one in every four rescues is unknowingly rehoming puppy-farmed dogs like Maggie. A new licensing scheme must prevent that by ensuring proper record keeping, microchip scanning and veterinary assessment.

Animals also often arrive in pseudo-rescue centres after being imported from abroad in a practice denounced by the RSPCA as “Deliveroo for dogs”. With the Naturewatch Foundation reporting that four in every five dogs in the UK have no verified origin and the numbers of animals entering Britain doubling in the last decade, this is of grave concern.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a real champion of these issues, so I thank her for her work. My constituency is home to the Radcliffe animal centre. It is the only RSPCA animal centre in Nottinghamshire, but what most people do not realise is that the centre is still funded individually—independently—not by the national society, and it costs £800,000 a year to run. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to invest in the capacity of the sector and to look at funding of these centres, to ensure that we reach the standards that she is describing?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about consistency, levelling up and ensuring that across the UK we are all operating to those standards, so I thank him for that intervention.

People need to know the animal they are adopting. A lack of screening also presents major biosecurity concerns. A University of Liverpool study found that 15% of imported dogs that were tested had Leishmania infantum—a parasitic disease uncommon in the UK —despite 93% of the tested dogs’ owners believing that a vet had given their dog a clean bill of health. Any new licensing regime must ensure that rescue centres accept only animals imported with full documentation verifying origin and veterinary health. Medical checks must also be undertaken prior to rehoming.

Rogue operators often rehome animals with no regard for their behaviour, putting vulnerable people at risk and potentially worsening the surge in dog-related violence we have seen in recent years. Hospital admissions for dog bites have risen by 47% over the past 10 years, costing the NHS more than £71 million a year. In my county, Gwent, 539 dog attacks were reported to the police last year, an increase of more than a quarter on 2024.

We cannot allow the supply of dogs to become dominated by dodgy breeders and rogue rescue centres. That is why any new licensing regime must be outcome-focused, with minimum requirements for enrichment and behavioural support, as well as a behavioural assessment prior to rehoming. Rehoming animals with unaddressed behavioural issues only puts people at risk.

In introducing such a scheme, UK and Welsh Ministers must learn the lessons from Scotland. Small, independent foster-based rescue centres are a critical part of the animal welfare landscape, with independents outnumbering the major charity sites by almost 10 to one. In Scotland, many of these were forced to close after 2021, when the Scottish Government tied licensing to charity status and a minimum turnover of £5,000. Those closures came despite many foster-based rescue centres having excellent welfare standards. I urge the Minister not to replicate this mistake, and to ensure that any new licensing regime incorporates smaller rescue centres. In recognising this diversity of high-welfare provision, I also ask the Minister to consider a tiered approach to any new licensing fees, thereby reducing the disproportionate burden that could be created for smaller, high-welfare rescues.

In closing, I emphasise that the case for change is urgent. We need licensing schemes in England and Wales that people can trust. The rules must be robust and enforced.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a director of a veterinary business.

I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee to consider this important Bill, which will do so much for animal welfare and supporting our farming communities. The Bill was initially introduced in the last Parliament. I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to see it progress, and I welcome the new Government’s continuing the support for the legislation.

I have spoken to farmers in Chester South and Eddisbury who have seen their livestock brutally attacked. I have heard at first hand the very real impacts, both emotionally and financially, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will set out why the Bill is vital to help better protect livestock, support farmers and enable more effective enforcement and efficient use of police time.

The financial impacts of livestock attacks are substantial. The National Farmers Union estimates that UK farm animals worth approximately £1.8 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2024. But it is not just the financial cost to which I wish to draw attention; there is also an animal welfare cost to livestock worrying.

I represent a largely rural constituency, where the predominant mode of farming is beef and dairy. I met a farmer from Kelsall, a rural village in my constituency, who showed me pictures of his cattle following a livestock attack. A dog had broken into a barn where calves were resting and had attacked them in their pens. I am sure the Committee does not need me to go into detail about the extent to which the calves were injured. Needless to say, it was a horrific attack. That is just one example, but there can be other horrific consequences. If attacked, pregnant livestock often miscarry, and there are instances of mothers being separated from their young, leading to hypothermia and starvation.

Let us also not forget the human toll of a livestock attack. I have only seen pictures of the aftermath—thankfully, I have never seen an attack unfold before my eyes—but for farmers witnessing it, it can be extremely emotionally distressing. Of course, we want and need to see dog owners behaving responsibly in the countryside, but we must recognise that there is a gap in existing legislation to support a more effective and efficient collection of evidence following an attack, and to implement the necessary deterrents to better encourage responsible ownership and handling of dogs around livestock. It is for those reasons that I have introduced the Bill, and why we must pass it. I will now set out the Bill’s clauses and explain why they are necessary.

Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule, which sets out amendments to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, relating to scope and the consequences of an offence. Times have changed since the 1953 Act came into force. The number of livestock farmed in England and Wales has doubled, bringing agriculture closer to those of us who use the countryside recreationally. The Bill is intended to tackle the issue of livestock worrying in a way that constructively strengthens existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying and attacks.

In doing so, the Bill focuses on three key areas. First, it will modernise the definitions and scope of the 1953 Act and extend the locations and species in scope—to include roads and paths, and to cover species such as camelids. Secondly, important changes will be made to strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs and the collection of evidence where samples and impressions can be taken from dogs and injured livestock. Finally, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent.

Clause 2 will amend existing powers available to the police to seize and detain dogs suspected of having attacked or worried livestock. Existing legislation allows the police to seize an unaccompanied dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock, to identify the owner of the dog and to detain it until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses.

The Bill will go further, providing greater clarity and confidence to farmers. The proposed reforms extend the powers so that the police can seize and detain a dog that they have reasonable grounds to believe has attacked or worried livestock and may attack or worry livestock again, for the purpose of preventing repeat incidents. Extending the police powers is crucial, and it is appropriate that the deterrent properly reflects the significant consequences of an attack. Clause 2 addresses the limited scope of current powers at the disposal of the police and strengthens deterrence, helping to address the issue of reoffending.

Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act explain that a police constable may seize and detain a dog that they believe to have

“attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and nobody present…admits to being the dog’s owner or in charge of it.”

Building on the current power in section 2(2) of the 1953 Act, proposed new subsection (2) sets out for how long a dog seized under subsection (1) may be detained, namely

“until the owner has claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by reason of its seizure and detention.”

To give greater clarity, subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to explain that seized dogs may be disposed of if the owner does not claim the dog and pay the associated expenses of seizure and detention within seven days. They clarify that if the police gift or sell the unclaimed dog to someone, that person becomes the dog’s owner.

Subsections (5) and (6) explain what kind of register is to be kept of seized dogs. The register must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and, if the dog is disposed of, how. The register must be available for inspection by the public and free of charge.

Subsection (7) explains that the disposing of a dog under proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act includes:

“causing it to be disposed of, and destroying it or causing it to be destroyed, but does not include disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.”

Subsections (8) and (9) explain that a dog may be seized and detained until the end of court proceedings if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog may otherwise pose a risk of attacking or worrying livestock again. Quite often, the dog owner has shown no signs of taking preventive measures against attacks or worrying following previous incidents, such as by putting their dog on a lead near livestock when the dog has previously shown signs of being dangerously out of control or has attacked or worried livestock. Both those factors could be considered relevant to a constable’s assessment of whether they believe that a dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock could do so again.

Finally, section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906—so far as still in force by virtue of section 68(2) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—will be repealed, as it is no longer needed in consequence of the provision made by clause 2.

Clause 3 will introduce new powers to improve the police’s ability to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock by enabling the collection of samples and impressions. This concern was raised directly with me by farmers in my constituency. Farms are businesses, so when a livestock attack takes place, it is understandable that farmers should seek justice. If there was an arson attack on a shop, for instance, I am sure we would all agree that the perpetrator should be held to account for their actions. Attacks on livestock too often go unprosecuted because collecting evidence takes too long and the powers afforded to the police to do so are limited.

Subsections (1) to (4) of proposed new section 2ZA of the 1953 Act will enable a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog believed to have attacked or worried livestock, or from livestock, where this might provide evidence of an offence having been committed under section 1 of that Act. Crucially, subsection (5) explains:

“If taking a sample or impression…would amount to veterinary surgery, it must be done by a veterinary surgeon.”

Subsection (6) explains how long samples or impressions may be retained:

“A sample or impression taken…may be retained until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 1 has been committed…or if proceedings are brought…until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.”

Veterinary bodies, forensic specialists and the police have been consulted on this new provision, affording them the opportunity to feed into its development.

Lastly, subsection (7) defines the meaning of the words “sample”, “veterinary surgeon” and “veterinary surgery” for the purpose of clause 3. These are all important steps to increase the effective collection of evidence following an attack.

Clause 4 will enable a justice of the peace, also known as a magistrate, to authorise the police to enter and search premises where they believe there is a dog that has attacked or worried livestock. Currently, the police can enter and search premises with a warrant from a justice of the peace to identify a dog that is believed to have worried livestock. It is proposed to extend this to allow the police also to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize and detain the dog, as outlined in clause 2; to take a sample or impression, as outlined in clause 3; or to search for and seize evidence of an offence.

Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2A of the 1953 Act will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to identify, seize and detain, or to take samples or impressions from, a dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. Subsections (3) and (4) will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to seize any evidence of an offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act. Examples of such evidence could include a bloody collar or towel. Subsection (5) sets out that the warrant may authorise the police to use reasonable force, if necessary.

These new powers are needed to allow the police to gather evidence to investigate these crimes effectively. I have already touched on the frustration that farmers feel when an attack goes unprosecuted, and this Bill will help to increase the chances of a just outcome.

Clause 5 includes a standard provision on the extent, commencement and short title of the Act, once it receives Royal Assent. The Act will extend to England and Wales. I felt it was important to speak to people on both sides of the border to better understand the situation in Wales; I put on record my thanks to Rob Taylor, the Welsh wildlife and rural police and crime co-ordinator, for his work in this field over many years, and for taking the time to meet me to talk through livestock worrying in Wales and offer his support for the Bill.

The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed. Clause 5 also includes transitional provision to clarify the availability of the new powers in clauses 2 to 4 in relation to any, or any alleged, incident of livestock worrying or attack that takes place before the Bill comes into force. The Act’s short title will be the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025.

The schedule to the Bill will make several amendments to the 1953 Act to extend its scope. It also provides clarity on offences, the applicable penalty and court powers. Specifically, paragraph 1 brings incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock on roads or paths within the scope of the offence in section 1 of the Act. This will provide greater protection for livestock in instances where they are moved along a road or path to another field or a milking parlour, for example.

For clarity, paragraph 1 also updates the terminology used in relation to attacks. “Attacking” livestock is dealt with separately from “worrying” livestock. The term “worrying” may dismiss the severity of some offences. Adding the word “attacking” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. The provision will not create a new offence, but will clarify the language throughout the 1953 Act. Both attacking and worrying are already covered in that Act; however, that is not clear throughout.

Paragraph 1 also sets out the penalty for the offence in section 1 of the 1953 Act. It is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. It is worth noting that the level of fines will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive, and farmers can still seek compensation through civil claims. Paragraph 1 will amend the 1953 Act to exempt a dog owner from liability for an offence under section 1 where they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person at the time without the owner’s consent, such as if the dog had been stolen.

Paragraph 1 will also empower a court to order a convicted offender to pay expenses associated with the seizure and detention of a dog, irrespective of whether the court imposes a fine for the offence. Any sum that a person is ordered to pay will be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were compensation payable under a compensation order. Paragraph 2 expands the definition of “livestock” in the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas, as they are commonly farmed.

I will take a moment to address the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank her for agreeing to sit on this Committee and for her support. We are often in rural affairs debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall together, and her contributions are always well informed. As a farmer herself, I am sure she will agree that the Bill is necessary and welcome.

The hon. Lady’s amendment would require that a dog be kept on a lead of 1.8 metres or less in a field or enclosure containing sheep, or in sight of the person in charge, who should be confident that the dog will recall on command. Although I understand why she tabled the amendment, it is worth noting that the 1953 Act already makes it clear that a dog is “at large” if it is

“not on a lead or otherwise under close control”.

That approach places certain requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, and it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was under close control. Such evidence does not need to be limited to proving specific elements.

Setting out the meaning of “close control” also risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. Furthermore, the countryside code highlights that it is best practice

“to keep your dog on a lead around livestock”,

including sheep. Because there are existing provisions and guidance, and because there is flexibility for judgment in the courts, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her amendment.

I hope I have laid out clearly why the Bill is necessary to support our farmers, reduce livestock attacks and better equip the police with the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and deter livestock attacks. I hope the Committee will support the progress of this important Bill.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. It is a Wednesday, so this must be another private Member’s Bill on animal welfare; I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing us this important Bill. It is not often that we get such clear and wholehearted support from farmers and animal welfare groups, so I congratulate her. It is good to see animals such as alpacas and llamas mentioned specifically. It gives me flashbacks to meetings of the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, at which we discussed at great length how llamas and alpacas are an increasing part of farm life in the UK these days. I am pleased to see that they are included.

We know that the law around livestock worrying is outdate, and needs updating to reflect current challenges. As the hon. Member outlined, the animal welfare impacts of livestock worrying can be devastating for the animals concerned; those that are not killed are left in agony, with serious injuries, and often have to be euthanised. I am pleased to support the clarification provided by the Bill she has introduced.

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

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

The Bill builds on the previous Government’s legacy, particularly the work in respect of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill and for inviting me to be on the Committee. I very much look forward to supporting the Bill’s progress as we continue to strengthen our animal welfare standards.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak to clause 1 and the related amendments. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on bringing forward this important Bill, which is backed by huge expert and public support. It is great to see the Public Gallery so full. I must declare my allegiance to the cat community—although I am anxious about the ferret community not having quite the popularity. You will be pleased to know, Sir Jeremy, that I will not be naming my cats. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They have asked for anonymity—[Laughter.]

Frankly, action on a lot of the issues the Bill addresses is a long time coming, and much work on this subject has been done by previous hon. Members before the hon. Member for Winchester. This debate demonstrates the genuine cross-party support that exists on these issues. I am hugely supportive of the Bill’s provisions, particularly clause 1, which will protect young animals with a six-month minimum age limit, end the importation of mutilated animals, and prevent the transport of heavily pregnant animals.

As Members have already outlined, the Bill will go a long way in enabling us to tackle the criminals who take advantage of policy loopholes. It is vital that we uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader in animal welfare by taking a firm stand against cruelty and exploitation. But the Bill—particularly clause 1—is about more than animal welfare, as it also extends to the protection of public health. As has been outlined, some smuggled animals could carry harmful diseases that can be transmitted to humans. I urge colleagues to support clause 1 and the rest of the Bill as it goes forward.

While I am on my feet, I hope you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy. It is an animal welfare Bill, so I would like to press the Minister for an update on when the animal welfare strategy will be published. We are desperately waiting for it, and many of the private Members’ Bills that are coming forward would be aligned with that strategy.

I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for his Bill and for asking me to be on the Committee, and I look forward to seeing the Bill progress into legislation.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

I am delighted that we are here to discuss this Bill. I was the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884. Now, vets in the Commons are a little bit like London buses: you wait 130 years and then another five years, and then another one comes along. I am delighted to support my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester. Vets in the House of Commons are now a bit of a danger: we are breeding like rabbits. At this rate, we would probably be able to fill a car by the end of the century. But under this new legislation there would be a maximum of five vets per car.

I strongly support the Bill and cannot say how pleased and relieved I am to be here today opposite my friend the Minister. We served together on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee and have now swapped places. I am delighted that this Bill is now getting over the line with cross-party support. Can I also offer a shout out? This legislation was started under the Conservative Government: the clauses were in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and then the former Conservative Member of Parliament for North Devon, Selaine Saxby, had a private Member’s Bill identical to this one. I pay tribute to her. We are here today to push that work forward.

I, too, acknowledge the important work of the charitable sector and organisations in the animal space including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust—its former chief vet, Paula Boyden, spearheaded the campaign—Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which the hon. Member for Winchester and I visited yesterday in the light of this Bill, the RSPCA, FOUR PAWS and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Marc Abraham, a fellow veterinary surgeon, has also done a lot of work on this issue.

In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, did a number of inquiries on this issue, one of which was on the movement of animals across borders, and we looked at a lot of the situations that are highlighted in these clauses. Our inquiry on pet welfare and abuse highlighted some of the issues that clauses 1, 2 and 3 set out and made important points about biosecurity. I welcome the measures in the clauses to increase the minimum age to six months, which will be important for the health and welfare of these animals.

I note—the Minister is well aware of these issues because we have been discussing them for many years—that some measures are not included in the Bill, and I hope that he will keep them under review and consider introducing future secondary legislation. They include the institution of pre-importation health checks for animals, the reinstatement of rabies titre checks, and an increase of the wait time after a rabies vaccination to 12 weeks. That would help to enforce the change to a minimum age of entry of six months.

I very much welcome the commitments in the clauses on the stage of gestation for cats and dogs coming into this country. The EFRA Committee heard harrowing evidence about heavily pregnant animals that are smuggled in, give birth and are then smuggled out, often with fresh suture wounds from caesarean sections. They are just shipped in and out, so hopefully the Bill will close that loophole. The requirement for import not to take place in the last third of gestation is very important. It is currently banned in the last 10% of gestation, but it is very difficult to judge the stage of gestation, so that is an important change.

We have talked about mutilations. The Bill will tighten the requirements and, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, bring down the smokescreen. People are importing dogs that have been horrifically mutilated.

Government Support for the RSPCA

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the RSPCA.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. It is fantastic to be able to open today’s debate on Government support for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and to recognise its history, praise its work and celebrate and thank its volunteers and supporters in its 200th year.

Two hundred years ago on 16 June 1824 a group of people met in a London coffee shop determined to change animals’ lives for the better. They created the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which sparked a movement that spread around the world. With kindness at the heart of the mission, they boldly set out to

“alter the moral feelings of the country”.

Since that first meeting the RSPCA has taken the lead in advocating for animal welfare, including working with politicians and decision makers to secure laws that have transformed the lives of millions of animals in the UK and beyond. Alongside that, the RSPCA, and its wide network of branches and partners, has played a significant role in changing attitudes and behaviours to animals through its education, prevention and scientific work.

The society was the first animal welfare charity in the world. Before that time, there was little discussion about whether animals could suffer and therefore animal cruelty was widely prevalent or not even considered an issue. Animals played a very different role in people’s lives. Few people kept pets. Animals were used for work, transport or even entertainment. Bear and bull baiting were common. Even Parliament Square contained one of the most notorious dog-fighting pits in the country, which was eventually closed in 1830.

Since then caring for animals has gradually become woven into the fabric of British society and our laws. People now recognise that many animals are sentient beings who deserve our respect and kindness. I am very pleased to say that Parliament recognised that two years ago in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, but there is still a long way to go. Animals face some of the biggest challenges of the past two centuries as climate change, habitat loss, the cost of living and the pandemic take their toll. That means the RSPCA is needed now more than ever.

In 1840, Queen Victoria gave her permission for the then SPCA to add the royal prefix to become the RSPCA. At that time there were five full-time inspectors who were paid a guinea a week. Today the RSPCA has the equivalent of 361 full-time frontline officers, including 233 inspectors and 128 animal rescue officers. Those officers cover all of England and Wales, meaning the RSPCA has just one inspector or animal rescue officer for every 167,000 people.

The RSPCA was an early adopter of digital education and now has four education and community engagement hubs across the UK. Furthermore, it offers animal welfare education to schoolchildren, young people and families, with opportunities to engage with pets and wildlife. As part of the Pet Education Partnership, a collaborative initiative between eight of the UK’s leading animal welfare organisations, the RSPCA aims to make animal welfare education accessible for every child aged between five and 11 in the UK.

In 1835, bear and bull baiting were abolished and dog fighting made illegal, but we know it still continues as an illegal activity today and is investigated by the RSPCA’s undercover officers. Despite that, the killing of animals for sport in society has continued. Fox and stag hunting and hare coursing were popular pastimes in rural areas, but through a combination of campaigning, investigations and legal action, the RSPCA works tirelessly with other organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare to end those practices.

In 1911, inspired by the RSPCA, the Protection of Animals Act was passed. That important law tackled almost every type of cruelty to animals. The RSPCA was a pioneer in recognising the need to work closely with politicians and decision makers to secure policy and legal change and in 1924 employed its first public affairs officer and first woman: Gertrude Speedwell Massingham. She was a real trailblazer for animal welfare and was the founder of the Council Against Bullfighting. This year, the RSPCA honoured her through the Speedwell Massingham advocacy award, which is part of the PawPrints awards scheme. It has been running since 2008 and awards local authorities and public sector organisations for going above and beyond for animal welfare.

Sir Robert Gower, MP for Hackney Central and chair of the RSPCA trustees, set up the parliamentary group on animal welfare in 1929, the first in the world and the first such group on any issue in this Parliament. The RSPCA still provides a secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, or APPGAW, as it is known.

More recently, arguably one of the most important legislative changes for animals, the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, was introduced under a Labour Government. The Act introduced the concept of prevention of cruelty to animals, rather than only acting after cruelty has occurred. The overwhelming majority of convictions secured by the RSPCA in 2023 were under that very Act, but more work remains to be done.

Currently, more than 100 million animals around the world are still used in research and testing annually. In 2023, 2.6 million procedures were carried out in Great Britain on animals such as mice and rats. The RSPCA has always campaigned strongly for those animals to be replaced with humane alternatives, and data shows that 77% of people agree that the UK Government should commit to phasing out the use of animals in scientific research and testing.

The RSPCA supports the Government’s manifesto commitment to accelerate the phase-out of animals used in science and to set up a strategic advisory board, which will bring together stakeholders across academia, industry and charities to work towards that goal. That could have a meaningful impact on how we view and use animals used in scientific experiments, and I commend the Government on setting that goal. I hope that the board can be set up quickly. Perhaps the Minister can set out a timetable in his response.

Moving on to pets, today nearly 60% of households in the UK have at least one pet, with a total of 38 million pets being kept—

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. On pets, does she agree that we are a nation of pet-lovers? She is making a significant contribution to that commentary, but the pet-loving nature of our nation is often seen in examples of cruelty to pets, with outrage and indignation across the nation, indicating and vindicating the support that she and I hope the rest of us will express for the RSPCA and the need to support it and all its work.

[Ruth Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As MPs, we know that the amount of emails in our inbox every week and month testifies as to how much the public care about animal welfare. I thank him for his intervention; he made a valuable point.

In recent years, as owning a pet has become more popular, unfortunately we have also seen an increase in extreme designer dog breeding. For example, dogs such as French bulldogs have risen in popularity recently, but such types of dogs have welfare issues. They are known as brachycephalic or flat-faced dogs, and they can suffer from breathing problems, are often unable to regulate their own temperature and have difficulty with exercise.

Such trends will continue, however, until we have stronger regulations on the breeding of pets. Social media platforms also have a role to play, as extreme breeding trends are often exacerbated by what is promoted on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok. Under the Animal Welfare Act licensing conditions, it is illegal to breed an animal if its breed conformation causes welfare problems—but the wording is vague and has never been used to stop breeding animals that have welfare problems once they are born. The RSPCA hopes to see the Government clarify that point soon, perhaps as part of an animal welfare strategy.

We have had some successes, however. Only earlier this year, Parliament decided to phase out the private keeping of primates, showing how attitudes to pets are changing. In 2019, similarly, Parliament agreed that keeping wild animals in circuses was no longer appropriate in England as their welfare could not be guaranteed. I hope that we will now turn to reviewing the legislation governing the control, exploitation, welfare and conservation of wild animals in England and Wales, which has turned into a complex patchwork of overlapping and sometimes conflicting provisions.

In 2015, the Law Commission carried out a review into wildlife legislation, concluding that the legislative framework covering wildlife was outdated and in need of reform. The RSPCA supports the recommendations of that report and is calling for consolidation of wildlife law in England and Wales.

As attitudes change and people increasingly understand that animal welfare matters, they also recognise that they can do something about it. Shoppers are becoming more interested in the origin of their food and the wellbeing of the animals involved, and that affects what they choose to buy. That is why the RSPCA has been calling for the introduction of easy-to-understand, factual labelling on the method of production for all animal products. The consultation on that closed in May 2024. I appreciate it was under a different Government, but would the Minister set out when the Government will publish the results and a timetable for the introduction of such a scheme?

We have seen fantastic progress this year in farm animal welfare, after a 100-year campaign by the RSPCA. The exporting of live animals for fattening and slaughter was finally banned earlier this year, but there is still more that can be done to improve the lives of farm animals. The RSPCA is calling for an end to cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for sows in the UK. In the UK, enriched cages are still permitted; they house about 10 million egg-laying hens. They provide just 9% more usable space per bird than battery cages—basically, space equivalent to the size of an A4 sheet of paper for each bird.

About 6 million pigs raised for slaughter every year are born in farrowing crates—metal crates within a pen in which pregnant sows are placed one week before giving birth. Sows can have multiple litters in a year and can spend up to 15 weeks in those crates. The previous Government committed to a consultation on ending the use of cages for farmed animals, and I hope this Government will restart it.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to the RSPCA for its amazing work in the past, currently and in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I want to thank every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate today: my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins ) and for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss); the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay)—it is good to welcome him to his place—and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the Minister. Everybody has made intelligent, reasonable and well-informed contributions. Many valid and important points have been made.

Animal welfare would not be where it is today without the immense contribution of the RSPCA over the last two centuries. Today we know that the RSPCA’s animal rescue line receives around a million calls a year—one every six seconds. Staff work across England and Wales to investigate allegations of animal cruelty and neglect.

I was recently lucky enough to be able to visit the RSPCA centre in Newport East in my neighbouring constituency and I accompanied an RSPCA inspector on her rounds for the day. I urge all Members to go out with an RSPCA inspector; it really opens our eyes to what they have to deal with. I saw at first hand the vital work that they do. The RSPCA staff, supporters and volunteers continue to work tirelessly for a better world for every kind of animal.

In line with the shadow Minister, I want to finish by paying tribute to the RSPCA chief executive, Chris Sherwood, who is leaving the RSPCA, which I know will miss him—he has led it since 2018. I thank him and all the other staff for their hard work. Today we celebrate the RSPCA, a well-loved organisation whose work ensures that animal welfare is at the forefront of our agenda, so thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the RSPCA.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak on this important Bill. The importation to the UK of trophies produced during the barbaric sport of trophy hunting should have ended a long time ago. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for introducing the Bill, following the earlier Bill from the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). We need to get this sorted today, because we have had Warley and Crawley, and I am not sure there is another constituency that rhymes.

I thank animal welfare charities nationwide, including FOUR PAWS, Humane Society International, World Animal Protection and Ban Trophy Hunting. They have worked tirelessly for years to ensure that this legislation is passed, and have produced the most helpful briefing note for this debate. I also pay tribute to the former President of Botswana, Ian Khama, who has been a tireless and passionate campaigner on these issues.

However, for all the praise that our campaigners are due, we should not have needed to be here debating this Bill today. The legislation should have been passed by this Government long ago. We all know that members of the public, including in my constituency, overwhelmingly support the Bill. The wider public support for it is reflected in the fact that banning hunting trophies was both a 2019 Conservative manifesto promise, as the hon. Member for Crawley said, and a Labour manifesto promise. Why is this measure, promised by the Government, not already in law? Why did they fail to bring forward their own Bill banning trophy hunting, as they pledged to voters that they would? Given that an earlier private Member’s Bill seeking to implement a ban progressed through the House last year, why are we here again debating an equivalent Bill? It is because the Bill we debated last year was deliberately and wholly undemocratically derailed by a small number of mostly hereditary Conservative peers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) pointed out, those peers ignored the will of the public, the welfare of animals and their own party’s manifesto commitment, and used the amendment process as a blocking device. Labour Members think that that is unacceptable, and our party wants this long promised and long overdue legislation progressed as soon as possible.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

When that Bill reached the House of Lords, no peer stepped forward to sponsor it. Why did no Labour peer do so?

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Obviously, there were issues going on in the other place that I was not party to at the time, so I am sorry, but I cannot comment on his point.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Lady keeps referring disparagingly to hereditary peers, but is it not correct to say that a significant proportion of hereditary peers were elected to that House, unlike most of the other peers, who are appointees?

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He says that I keep referring to hereditary peers, but I have referred to them once, in response to one of my colleagues.

[John Spellar]

It is fascinating that some Conservative Members want to defend not only this completely outdated and barbaric practice of trophy hunting, but the procedure by which a few hereditary peers are elected among themselves, no member of the public having any say in the matter. May I help my hon. Friend by saying that in the previous Session, the Bill was introduced by a Conservative Member? Indeed, a Conservative Member of the House of Lords was going to take up that Bill, but someone else shot in and grabbed it beforehand, with a bit of sleight of hand. If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) wants to defend that sort of jiggery pokery, he is welcome to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley for setting out what happened in the Lords, but I will move on.

The Bill will prevent people from bringing into Great Britain hunting trophies from the species listed in annex A, which are the most endangered species, or annex B, which are species threatened by commercial trade, of the principal wildlife trade regulation. Those lists largely correspond to equivalents in CITES, which is an important international agreement protecting endangered plants and animals, and the UK is a party to it. The Bill also creates an advisory board on hunting trophies, as some Conservative Members highlighted, which will advise the Secretary of State on any issues relating to the legislation, or any matter relating to the import to Great Britain of hunting trophies derived from species that are, or are likely to become, endangered.

I cannot emphasise enough how crucial this legislation is. Trophy hunting is not only barbaric, but wholly unnecessary. In this country, as in most others, we have long recognised that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary suffering. That principle is reflected domestically in our Animal Welfare Act 2006, and aligns with our understanding, supported by animal welfare science and enshrined in legislation, that animals are sentient beings. As such, they deserve to be treated with dignity and humanity.

There is nothing dignified or humane about the sport of trophy hunting. It involves killing innocent animals for the sole purpose of turning their bodies into trophies. The animals often experience immense pain, fear and distress in the moments before they die. Some may be shot by inexperienced hunters using less efficient weapons, such as crossbows or spears, which do not deliver a rapid death. We saw this with Cecil the lion in 2015, who suffered for several hours following his wounding by crossbow in a beautiful part of southern Africa before he was finally put out of his misery. His death quite rightly caused outrage around the world, including here in Britain.

Other practices that trophy hunting can involve raise further welfare concerns. I was horrified to learn of the practice of canned hunting—the captive wildlife farming of animals for hunting. It often involves inflicting extremely poor welfare conditions on the captive wild animals, mostly lions, who may have to suffer from unsatisfactory enclosures, a lack of enrichment, and insufficient provision of shelter and vet treatment, all so that part of their body may eventually become somebody’s trophy. Let us not forget the negative impact that trophy hunting can have on other animals, such as the harm to offspring, who may be unable to survive on their own after their parent is left for dead. That was highlighted earlier, as was the weakening of the gene pool. These are important factors to consider.

Trophy hunting can have a negative impact on wildlife. Trophy hunters tend to target the world’s most iconic animals, including endangered wild animal species such as lions, polar bears, giraffes and rhinos. Hunters selfishly kill these vulnerable animals so that they can display their body parts as some sort of perverse prize. World Animal Protection notes that British hunters have brought home approximately 25,000 hunting trophies since the 1980s, and approximately 5,000 of these came from species at risk of extinction. The public are right to find this absolutely abhorrent, and to want to increase the protection afforded to these species, which are already under pressure from habitat loss, climate change, poaching and the illegal wildlife trade, by passing this important legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) eloquently outlined those issues earlier.

Let us not forget how unnecessary these horrors are. Compared with the overall revenue that local economies gain from tourism, income from trophy hunting is insignificant. A 2017 report by Economists at Large that analysed eight African countries found that while overall tourism was between 2.8% and 5.1% of GDP in the eight countries, the total economic contribution of trophy hunters was, at most, about 0.03% of GDP, in stark contrast to the claims made by some Conservative Members.

There are more ethical and sustainable alternatives to trophy hunting for conservation. A recent study showed that 84% of previous or potential tourists to South Africa, including those visiting from within Africa, would be willing to pay a daily “lion protection fee” for wildlife conservation. Photographic safaris, which, as the Born Free Foundation puts it, involves shooting an animal

“with a camera, not a gun”,

is another welfare-friendly alternative to hunting trophies. These alternative activities have the potential to generate income equalling or even exceeding the income generated from trophy hunting without causing pain and suffering to wild animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham highlighted that when he mentioned the amazing experience he had on his photographic safari.

Supporting global efforts to promote humane tourism is consistent with recent legislation passed in this House, namely the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023. However, I note that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is yet to even consult on the activating regulations that are necessary for the 2023 Act to have any impact, or to give any indication of when such consultation will begin. I encourage him to do so as a matter of urgency, because wild animals deserve protection, and that requires regulatory action.

On this and so many animal welfare issues, the Government are letting animals and the public down by failing to act. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), pointed out last Friday when another private Member’s Bill containing a broken Conservative party promise was before the House, the Government have completely abandoned an extraordinary number of the animal welfare pledges they had made. The Government like to tell the public that they have progressed world-leading animal welfare commitments, but Compassion in World Farming ranked the UK only ninth among European countries by percentage of cage-free farm animals, trailing Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Slovenia, Denmark and Belgium.

Although the Government have announced their support for private Members’ Bills on animal welfare issues put forward by their Back-Bench MPs since they abandoned the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, that is not leadership. I gently say to the Minister that if the Government really cared about animals and wished to honour the enormous public interest in passing strong laws for animals, they would put forward their own promised measures. Until they do so, Labour will keep reminding the Government of their broken promises and putting forward private Members’ Bills like this one, which we hope will become law as soon as possible. We have seen in the House today a near unanimous show of support. This is not racist, colonial legislation; it is UK law governing what comes into the UK. That is our right, and the Bill seeks to exercise that, so let’s get on with it and get it done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Minister told me in January this year that the chemicals strategy will be produced next year, before correcting it to this year. Whether it is this year, next year or sometime never, does she agree that the strategy will be worth the paper it is written on only if the UK regulations catch up with other countries and stop hazardous substances being dumped here, damaging our environment and public health?

[Rebecca Pow]

As the hon. Member will know, there is a global framework on chemicals. I attended a conference on the UN global framework on chemicals back in September in Bonn. We signed up to the framework, which is binding, sets targets and international commitments, and relates to finance capacity-building, so that we can soundly manage and handle our chemicals and waste, and that is exactly what we are doing with our bespoke UK strategy.

Draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Waste Enforcement (Fixed Penalty Receipts) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2023

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Maria. It is a wonderful start to the day to be talking waste with the Minister. I reassure the Minister and the Whips that, given the technical and relatively uncontroversial nature of this legislation, we do not intend to press it to a vote.

But before everyone breathes a sigh of relief, I have a few remarks to make. I want to be very clear that His Majesty’s Opposition are on the side of, and support, all measures that are aimed at promoting the better use of our natural resources and increasing reuse and recycling. Establishing the correct base data will be fundamental to the success of the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging.

I note the important progress on recycling made by my colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government. Welsh recycling rates have now reached 65.7%, with the aim to get to at least 70% in 2024-25. That has already been met by five Welsh local authorities. In Wales, we have also now recorded the lowest ever amount of waste sent to landfill, at just 1.6%. I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done in my local communities to save usable items from landfill, by organisations such as Re:Make Newport and Wastesavers.

It is a shame that England is lagging so far behind. The lack of progress is also causing huge unnecessary costs and holding back business investment. Having made that point about landfill, and I think about all the places across England—from Hull to Newcastle-under-Lyme to Greater Manchester—where landfill sites continue to blight the lives of women, men and children of all ages and from all backgrounds.

I will take each SI in turn and then make some short concluding remarks. First, the draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 are needed partly because of the Government’s failure, to date, to deliver an agreed way forward for the UK’s deposit return scheme, which was promised in 2018. With the Prime Minister picking a fight with the Scottish Government, we have heard from business that the DRS industry forum has now been placed in a position of postponement, with neither the January nor February meetings taking place this year. There has even been press speculation that the scheme will now be delayed until 2028.

Maybe this is just another case of the Conservatives giving up on governing because it is all too difficult? Well, the Minister will not be surprised to know my views: if they do not want to govern, they should get out of the way and let us in. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will bring in a UK-wide DRS, and when the DRS industry forum will next meet?

Meanwhile, the draft regulations will place a significant reporting burden on business, especially with the inclusion of DRS materials as part of the EPR. Will the Minister clarify whether that means that the costs of collecting and recycling drinks containers will fall to non-drinks packaging producers through EPR fees? I listened carefully to what he said, but I am still not clear whether that will happen.

Although regulations on data reporting have been introduced, the wider regulatory package for the Department’s EPR scheme for packaging remains a work in progress and shrouded in mystery. There is no clear timeline or indicative fees, which industry was told to expect at the beginning of January. Does the Minister accept that without indicative modulated fees, businesses are unable to budget and prepare for the introduction of EPR?

The lack of clarity and continual delay is a huge barrier to the investment and planning that we need from industry to design and roll out the packaging of the future, which must be far more reusable and recyclable. The question is about whether the draft regulations will lead to more or less recycled material. Will they encourage or discourage the refill and reuse of containers? What about retailer packaging take-back schemes? Overall, will they reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

We have heard from the all-party parliamentary group on sustainable resource that the draft regulations could actually disincentivise refillable packaging. The APPG has put forward several recommendations to enhance the EPR’s effectiveness in facilitating and accelerating reuse, including the setting of fees at a level that will promote design for reuse and provide incentives for reuse infrastructure. Will the Minister confirm that those measures will be part of the wider EPR regulatory framework?

The Department’s plans are far from transparent, whether for industry, English local government or the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Instead of building confidence in fair charging for industry and a fair allocation of proceeds across waste authorities, there seems to be suspicion that the UK Government are trying to manipulate the finances to mask inadequate funding. When will the complete packaging EPR regulatory framework be available for industry and local authorities?

I have some further specific questions on which industry needs answers sooner rather than later. In our meetings with industry representatives, they are focused on these questions, because they cannot plan for the future unless they know the answers. How much packaging has been declared as placed on the UK market by those producers that have reported data to the new EPR system? How does that compare to the tonnage the Department expected to be declared?

What penalties will be incurred by producers that fail to submit their EPR data by 31 May? Will the penalties reflect the size of turnover or the size of the recycling obligation of an offending producer? New regulation 7A of the data reporting regulations refers to Environment Agency guidance on the definition of household packaging; when will that guidance be available to producers? It is very difficult to devise a scheme without having the guidelines.

Five years since the Government’s 2018 waste strategy stated that the current packaging waste rules lacked transparency and did not

“sufficiently incentivise design for greater reuse or recyclability”,

what is the timetable for phasing out the packaging recovery notes system? What preparations are being made to reduce undue burdens on businesses? Finally, will the Minister explain how EPR will work for franchise businesses, as the British Retail Consortium has written to ask the Minister to allow franchisors to register, report and be charged on behalf of franchisees?

On the draft Waste Enforcement (Fixed Penalty Receipts) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2023, I understand that their aim is to more tightly ringfence the use of income by local authorities, as the Minister said. Will he outline how much has been received in fixed penalties and what local authorities have spent it on? How does the amount that local authorities received in fixed penalties compare with the amount they spend on street cleaning and dealing with fly-tipping? A limited consultation was undertaken with local authorities, but no responses from the west midlands were included; does the Minister know why?

Adequate and long-term funding is crucial for councils to effectively prosecute fly-tippers, develop litter strategies and implement best practice, but councils are facing financial challenges in prosecuting fly-tippers, with the fines issued by courts often lower than civil penalties. Will the Minister work with the Local Government Association to remove the cap on fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti? Has he had any discussions with the LGA to date? Will he work with the LGA to explore how more stringent court fines for the worst offenders could help councils to investigate and prosecute fly-tippers and deter repeat offenders?

A few weeks ago in a Westminster Hall debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) drew attention to the dangers of fly-tipping, including the feeling of dirtiness and neglect that it causes, damaging small businesses, cafes, grocers and hairdressers. She was right to say:

“Clean streets tell us that we are part of a community and that people take pride in the spaces they share, the memories they make there and the community they are part of.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 21WH.]

Neighbourhoods across England are getting buried under an avalanche of litter and dumped rubbish, leaving communities feeling broken and powerless. In 2022-23, local authorities in England had to deal with more than 1 million incidents—that is nearly 3,000 a day. Will the Minister confirm whether the draft regulations will allow councils to use fixed penalty funds to avoid having to close recycling centres, to provide free mega-skip days and to put up CCTV at fly-tipping hotspots?

Finally, when will we see the Government’s promised action on single-use vapes, 1.3 million of which are thrown away every week? I accept that I have asked lots of questions, but the Minister will appreciate that governing by statutory instrument will land us all in this situation. If he and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset, have not had time to scribble down all my questions, or the Minister cannot answer them now, I will happily put them in writing, but I wanted to give him a go at answering them today. The Opposition will not oppose the regulations but we want answers to those obvious and important questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

As I have said, we want to put businesses in the best position possible to have an understanding of the fees that are likely to be imposed on them. That is why we aim to give out indicative fees to businesses later this year, so that they can encompass them within their business models. It will be up to them to consider how that will impact any consumer when rolled out. As a Government, we aim to get the indicative fees out to industry as soon as possible so that they can best forward plan.

The hon. Member for Newport West referred to modulated fees. We are in the process of reviewing and collating the evidence we collected in the autumn of 2023 on the 13 broad types of packaging that will be shortlisted for higher fees, and we will engage further with stakeholders on that topic in the second half of 2024.

[Ruth Jones]

I understand that the Minister is talking about preparation, but industry needs certainty and clarity now; it cannot talk about things now and then put them into place with just a couple of months’ notice. When will the DRS industry forum next meet? When will the complete packaging EPR framework be available for industry and local authorities?

[Robbie Moore]

I will come to the DRS shortly. We engage with industry constantly on EPR and, as I said, we are aiming to get the indicative fee structure out as soon as possible. On modulated fees, we have ongoing engagement with the sector and aim to provide further clarity in the first half of this year.

The hon. Lady asked about reusable and refillable packaging. Following feedback from stakeholders, we have decided that the initial focus of the packaging EPR will be to encourage the greater use of recyclable packaging and to complete the work of putting in place a cost-effective and efficient recycling system to ensure that recyclable packaging is recycled. Further obligations are to be introduced on the use of reusable packaging, in which all producers will be encouraged to get involved and engaged.

Before I move on to the DRS, I know that the hon. Lady asked about support for councils. From 2025, the extended producer responsibility for packaging will move the full cost of dealing with household packaging waste that is generated by households from local authorities to the businesses that handle and use packaging, applying the “polluter pays” principle. Once the packaging EPR is fully operational, the shift of cost from local authorities to producers is estimated to be in the order of £1.2 billion per year across local authorities in the UK.

The implementation of the DRS will be rolled out, and we are listening to and continue to work with industry to assess the feasibility of the implementation date as more detail on the implementation phases of the scheme is developed. I stress that it is incredibly important that we get the complete interoperability of the deposit return scheme across all nations. That work and those conversations are currently happening with the devolved Administrations.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister is generous to give way again. He has talked up interoperability, which is crucial —we do not want glass bottles going one way across the border and plastic bottles going across the Scottish border—but when will it happen? The rumour is that it will be 2028; will the Minister confirm or deny that?

[Robbie Moore]

I will not get involved in commenting on rumours, but I can say that the announcement will be made shortly.

In May 2023, the UK Government published a position statement setting out that the deposit return scheme across the UK should be interoperable to reduce the complexity for businesses and consumers. That is key because not only does the scheme need to be completely interoperable but we need to bring consumers along with us. If a DRS scheme is to be completely operational and have the influence and impact that we as a Government want it to have, we have to bring consumers along with us, which is where we are focusing our efforts before we make any further announcements. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closely and at pace with the devolved Administrations on the next steps to deliver interoperable schemes across the UK. As I say, we aim to provide more clarity on that shortly.

Let me turn to the second SI, on waste enforcement. As referred to in the anti-social behaviour action plan, the Prime Minister has made it clear that councils should take a tougher approach to enforcement and make greater use of fixed penalties. The maximum fixed penalty that councils can issue has been increased from £400 to £1,000 for fly-tipping, from £150 to £500 for littering, and from £400 to £600 for householders using an unlicensed waste carrier. I reassure the hon. Member for Newport West that the Government have published new league tables to provide transparency on how councils are using their fly-tipping enforcement powers.

As I outlined, the statutory instrument will help to drive up more income from fixed penalty receipts, which will go into the building of enforcement capability and capacity in English councils, meaning that more offenders are brought to justice. As we all know, fly-tipping is a serious crime and offenders can face significant fines and imprisonment if they are convicted in court. DEFRA is working at pace on the issue. In 2021, the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group produced a guide on how councils and others can build robust cases for prosecutions. The average court fine has increased by 12%.

On the hon. Lady’s question about litter and fly-tipping fining for profit, fixed penalty notices should never be used to raise revenue, or to punish accidental littering or those who are trying to do the right thing, when education would be a better approach. The new, tighter ringfence will send a clear message to councils and members of the public that the penalties are not a moneymaking tool for councils, but rather a tool to help them to protect public spaces. We will provide statutory guidance on the use of litter penalties and will consider including advisory statements on fly-tipping.

To conclude, I hope that I have covered most of, if not all, the points raised—

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. I do realise that I asked a lot of questions; would it be easier for me to write to him on certain things such as when the DRS industry forum will next meet?

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill (Instruction)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate on the instruction. I should be clear at the outset that I do not intend to detain the House any longer than is needed, but I think it is important to say a few words on the instruction.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is rightly proud of Northern Ireland’s history and heritage within our United Kingdom, and he will find no disagreement from Labour on that. I reassure him that I heard his concerns clearly and have a great deal of sympathy with the substance of his points. As we consider the instruction before the House, I want to be clear that this is an important Bill, and a Bill that would be strengthened by the amendments in my name on the Order Paper. The issues it pertains to are long overdue for attention and action.

There is not often much agreement between Labour and the Government, but we agree on this. Labour will not be able to support the instruction in the name of the right hon. Member for East Antrim, because if we accepted the instruction and the follow-through of its intent, we would put the United Kingdom Government at risk of breaching World Trade Organisation rules and guidelines, and that is not a situation we can be in. However much we may want to play politics, we need to put the people and trade of this country first, along with the Good Friday agreement.

I accept that the Democratic Unionists will be frustrated if the instruction is not approved by the House and that, without it, they will not be able to secure the changes they want, but given the nature of the situation, the instruction simply will not work at this time and on this issue. Therefore, if pushed to a Division, Labour will oppose it.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 16, after “goats,” insert “(da) alpaca,”.

This amendment would add alpacas to the definition of livestock covered by the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 16, after “goats,” insert “(da) deer,”.

This amendment would add deer to the definition of livestock covered by the Bill.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 16, after “goats,” insert “(da) llamas,”.

This amendment would add llamas to the definition of livestock covered by the Bill.

Amendment 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert “(f) reindeer.”

This amendment adds reindeer to the definition of “Relevant livestock”.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(7A) An appropriate national authority may by regulations extend the list of ‘relevant livestock’ in subsection (4).

(7B) ‘Appropriate national authority’ in relation to the power under subsection (7A), means—

(a) in relation to livestock kept in England, the Secretary of State;

(b) in respect of livestock kept in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;

(c) in respect of livestock kept in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.

(7C) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(7D) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (7A) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).

(7E) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment would allow the appropriate national authority to extend, by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, the list of livestock species which may not be exported for slaughter.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 2 to 7 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak from the Opposition Benches on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. We have tabled amendments inspired by Labour’s track record of delivering on animal welfare, from ending the testing of cosmetic products on animals and stopping the cruelty of fur farming to cracking down on horrific hunting practices. They allow us to compare our record with that of this Conservative Government and their shameful failures. They have bottled their manifesto promises to end the import of hunting trophies and crack down on puppy farming, to name just two of their animal welfare failures. As I indicated on Second Reading, Labour welcomes this legislation, but we regret that it has taken so long to bring this unnecessarily cruel trade to an end. We will seek through our amendments to make the Bill as fit for the future as possible.

It will be no surprise to the public that Labour is the party of animal welfare. Before turning to the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), I would like to acknowledge and thank the many campaigners and stakeholders watching these proceedings for their hard work, campaigning and commitment. Our amendments do not seek to delay the Bill or to put the Government off doing anything at all. Labour wants to make this Bill as strong and purposeful as possible and see it signed into law at the earliest opportunity.

The Tories have taken a weak approach to animal welfare in recent years, from pulling Bills that were meant to be debated in this place to caving in to the extremists on their Back Benches.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The Labour party has long called for a ban on live exports for fattening and slaughter from and through Great Britain. Why does my hon. Friend think the Government have taken so long to bring in this Bill and why does she think they scrapped the Kept Animals Bill?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am not sure I know the answer to those questions, and I would be grateful if the Minister answered them in his winding-up speech. The delay has been too long, as my hon. Friend says, and for too long animals have continued to suffer unnecessarily. That is why amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 are necessary and I am delighted to speak in support of them today.

The Minister will know that the export of live animals from the UK grew substantially during the 1960s and 1970s. Live sheep exports ranged between 85,000 to 411,000 from the 1960s to the 1980s. At the same time beef and veal, including live exports, increased from approximately 65,000 in the early 1970s to nearer 200,000 in the 1980s, and live pig exports rose dramatically from 30,000 to 60,000 in the 1970s, peaking at 619,000 in 1982.

Those dramatic rises and the patterns we have seen more recently make amendments 2, 3 and 4 more important. They are probing and preventive in equal measure. The amendments force us to think about the macro picture facing us and highlight a major inadequacy in this Bill: Ministers have chosen to list the species covered by this legislation on the face of the Bill. We agree and support covering the listed species, but what happens when they are banned? Where will those seeking to profit from the live export of animals look next? With apologies for the pun, Mr Evans, which species and which animals will be moved up the pecking order?

Amendments 2, 3 and 4, like amendment 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), which we support, would help to force Ministers to take up and recognise a comprehensive, bigger-picture approach—not a race to the bottom to get the bare minimum over the line and no more of a Government simply wanting an easy life. We will demonstrate to our constituents, from Newport West to Northampton North and from Epping Forest to Erewash, that this Parliament takes animal welfare seriously and we have a plan to get things right.

I turn now to amendment 5 in my name and those of my colleagues. This important amendment would allow the appropriate national authority to extend, by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, the list of livestock species that may not be exported for slaughter. As clause 1 of the Bill sets out, the prohibition on live exports would currently apply to calves, sheep, pigs, wild boar, goats and equines. While those are historically the main farmed animal groups subject to live exports for slaughter, it is not an exclusive list, and other animals could potentially be exported live from GB.

It is also the case that a lack of historical precedent for a particular animal is not a guarantee that live exports will not take place in future, especially as UK livestock farming continues to evolve. That is why we must be vigilant and take whatever preventive measures we can, which we have a unique opportunity to do today with amendment 5.

Labour believes it reasonable for the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments in Holyrood and Cardiff Bay to have the power to extend the export ban to other species if they feel that the science justifies such a move. It may be that the power is never needed, but it seems sensible to allow for the possibility that other species may need to be added to the exclusion list in future, without the need for further primary legislation. Amendment 5 would provide that power, enabling the Secretary of State in England, and Ministers in Scotland and Wales, to add groups of livestock to the Bill through a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. That would effectively future-proof the Bill and properly make it fit for purpose.

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

I am proud to support the Bill and the Labour party’s amendments to add deer, alpacas and llamas to the livestock covered by the ban. However, I am conscious that the Government faltered on ending imports of hunting trophies and shied away from cracking down on puppy farming, so how can we ensure that the Bill will be properly enforced if our amendments are successful?

[Ruth Jones]

My new hon. Friend is quite right: we must ensure that we future-proof the Bill today. I am not convinced at the moment that the Government are completely sympathetic to all our amendments, which I find surprising.

If the Minister is looking for comparable examples, a similar power exists in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Section 5(2) essentially states that, should the science materialise in sufficient strength to persuade the Secretary of State of the need to identify other animals as sentient beings, other species can be added to the legislation via secondary legislation. The suggested addition to this Bill would follow that precedent, and I urge the Minister to do the right thing by accepting the amendment. If he does not want to do it for me, I hope that he will do it because the Minister who took the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act through the House, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), did exactly the same thing, for which I pay tribute to her.

This simple, holistic measure could help to expedite the progression of the Bill through Parliament. Would not that be a good thing for one and all? I want the Minister to know that in tabling amendment 5, I am trying to be helpful. I hope that he will accept my help and amendment 5. If the same principle is good for some animal welfare legislation, it has to be good for all animal welfare legislation.

Let me turn to the other amendments before the Committee. I have already indicated that amendment 1—rather like my amendments 2, 3 and 4—will do important work and would have the support of the Labour party if pushed to a vote. Today we are seeking to amend the Bill to ban the live exports of alpacas, llamas and deer, and to ensure that species can be added to the legislation at a later date. It is about future-proofing the legislation and making it fit for purpose. Amendment 5 is important.

I noted today a very interesting piece in The Telegraph, of which I know the Minister is an avid reader, talking about constituency-led multi-level regression and post-stratification polling carried out in September 2023. It found that more than two thirds of the British public feel that a political party that announced plans to pass more laws designed to improve animal welfare and protect animals from cruelty would have the right priorities. I hope that the Minister will accept our amendments, or, if not, be as detailed as possible in explaining his excuses. The people of this country are crying out for change and for a Government with the right priorities. If the Tories cannot deliver that, they should get out of the way, because we can.

[Theresa Villiers]

I am delighted that the strong cross-party support for the Bill is evident in the Chamber this evening. We all want to end live exports. After the disappointments of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, it is heartening to see the rapid progress that this new Bill is making through the House. The earlier Bill was blighted by a range of Opposition amendments on other issues that were not relevant to the core problem of preventing animals from suffering in long-distance transportation. I welcome the fact that the amendments tabled for today are less controversial and more specific to the matter that the Bill seeks to address.

I would certainly like to see the ban on live exports apply to Northern Ireland, but I am also very much aware of the need to comply with international trade rules. Animals are routinely moved across the border into the south for slaughter. Those are essentially local movements, so they do not give rise to the same animal welfare concerns as long-distance transportation and exports. Preventing those north-to-south movements entirely would be problematic, but finding a way to legislate to allow those exports to the Republic of Ireland to continue while stopping all others from the UK is not straightforward, particularly as the most favoured nation principle means that whatever trade benefits we give to one country outside of a formal trade agreement should generally be offered to all trading partners. I accept that there are exceptions to that, some of which include public concerns and ethical considerations, but it is a problem that is not easy to solve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I am not someone who understands subtlety all the time, but on this occasion you seem to have broken through, Dame Eleanor. I will take your inspiration and leave my comments for Third Reading.

I hope I have done enough to reassure colleagues across the House that the amendments are not necessary, but we take them seriously. To be clear, if there were a change in the dietary habits of our colleagues in the European Union, and they decided to consume other species of animal such as llamas, alpacas, squirrels or whatever, we would be able to come back to this House to introduce new legislation to stop that trade. But at this time, the Bill covers all those necessary exports. I hope that colleagues will decline the amendments and support the Bill as tabled.

[Ruth Jones]

I do not wish to detain the House any longer than strictly necessary. I welcome the speed with which we have gone through the Committee stage this evening, but it beggars belief that it has taken so long to bring this unnecessarily cruel trade to an end. That is why Labour supports the Bill. We have long called for the ban on live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through Great Britain. It has already been said in expert speeches that, every year, millions of farmed animals are at risk of facing long-distance journeys to export them for fattening and slaughter, causing unnecessary suffering. We are willing to withdraw amendments 2 to 4, but we wish to pursue amendment 5. I will leave it there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 5, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(7A) An appropriate national authority may by regulations extend the list of “relevant livestock” in subsection (4).

(7B) “Appropriate national authority” in relation to the power under subsection (7A), means—

(a) in relation to livestock kept in England, the Secretary of State;

(b) in respect of livestock kept in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;

(c) in respect of livestock kept in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.

(7C) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(7D) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (7A) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).

(7E) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”—(Ruth Jones.)

This amendment would allow the appropriate national authority to extend, by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, the list of livestock species which may not be exported for slaughter.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I do not want to detain the House for any longer than is strictly necessary.

This is an important Bill, and I welcome its relatively speedy journey through the House. It beggars belief that it has taken so long to bring an unnecessarily cruel trade to an end, and that is why Labour supports the Bill, even if it is long overdue. Indeed, we have long called for a ban on live exports for slaughter or fattening from or through Great Britain. It has been said already that every year millions of farmed animals risk facing long-distance journeys as they are exported for fattening and slaughter, causing them unnecessary suffering. These journeys can cause animals to become mentally exhausted, physically injured, hungry, dehydrated and stressed, and that is why Labour has sought to strengthen the Bill to make it fully fit for purpose.

The Labour party has a proud track record of delivering progress on animal welfare in government. The Minister has been proud to shout about what his Government have done over the course of 14 long years, but he did not really answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) about their future plans on puppy smuggling, ear cropping and hunting trophy imports, so I look forward to hearing imminent news on those important areas as well. When Labour was in government, we made progress on animal welfare, including ending the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998 and stopping the cruelty of fur farming in 2000. We introduced the Hunting Act in 2004 and we brought in the landmark Animal Welfare Act in 2006. We continue that fine tradition with our support for this Bill tonight.

I would like to acknowledge the team who have worked with me and supported me as the Bill has travelled through the House. I thank my colleagues in the shadow DEFRA team—my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed)—as well as all the people who support us day in, day out, especially Adam Jogee in my office.

I thank all the organisations who have helped, as the Minister has done, including Compassion in World Farming and the NFU. I also acknowledge the work of the officials in the Department and the Minister’s private office, and I am grateful to the Minister—it is not often I say this—for the time he has taken to talk to us. I also thank the wonderful team in the Public Bill Office, who are just brilliant. As the Bill moves on to the other place, my final thanks go to the campaigners, stakeholders and true believers who want realistic, pragmatic and strong animal welfare rules and regulations here in Great Britain.

I wish the Bill well and look forward to proper, timely and real action on animal welfare in the months and years ahead.