Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Suffolk)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

May I, Mr Speaker, add my congratulations to those already given in respect of your elevation, both metaphorically and physically, to the speakership?

Suffolk has a greater than average number of special educational needs and disability assessment cases going to tribunal; poor communication between providers and with parents; a lack of specialist placements; an inadequate resource in the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, which is supposed to provide mental health services; insufficient respite services; a growing gap between the provision described in education, health and care plans and what is actually provided; an acute shortage of autistic spectrum disorder provision; and an overall lack of staff and funding to address these issues, either in mainstream education or in specialist provision.

Since the revisit from Ofsted in January this year, and its report in February, little seems to have been done to hold Suffolk to any action plan that might deal with the failings identified. There has been no increase in monitoring since the failed revisit and no appreciable changes in senior management. Mental health services—or the lack of them—continue to cause distress to young people and their parents, and young people are harming themselves or falling into greater mental health need while they wait for support that does not come.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, may I, too, publicly congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election as the Speaker of the House? It was a great pleasure to watch that.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this issue is critical, not only for him and his constituents but for me and mine, and the Minister has responsibility for it. The time allocated for direct contact time with educational psychologists is just 15 hours a year for pupils at one primary in Northern Ireland. For children dealing with anxiety and other social issues, that is simply not enough. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provision of support and early intervention in respect of social anxiety issues can positively impact lifelong mental health, and reduce the need for further intervention in high schools at a greater cost? In other words: do it now, do it early.

[Sandy Martin]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; he has put his finger right on the main point.

Two days ago, in response to the news that I had secured this debate, I received an email from a distressed parent. She says:

“My son has been out of school for 3 years in December. He was signed off by our consultant paediatrician as medically unfit for mainstream school. He has an Education & Health Care Plan. He has all the paperwork to state he has autism with a pathological demand avoidance profile but he cannot sit through the formal assessment as it runs for too long and he finds it too difficult to cope in the situation.

I have contacted the local authority so many times with regard to providing my son with an education; I have put in formal complaints and yet he still has no education.

I applied to the tribunal last December as the Local Authority insisted in his Education Health Care Plan that mainstream schooling was suitable for him, but they simultaneously refused to name a school he could go to.

The tribunal have made numerous orders ordering the Local Authority to name a school for my son but these have all been ignored.

We went to the tribunal last Tuesday, 29th October, at which the Judge told the Local Authority that they need to name a school on his education and health care plan and that the tribunal had to be adjourned until 13th December because of this, adding more of a delay to my son getting an education. He is now 12 years old.

My son is still without an education and we are in limbo.

My son deserves the correct education but he has been thoroughly let down by the education system. The strain of fighting the system tires you out but you still have to keep going. It should not be like this—every child has the right to an education. We keep being told that it is not the label that counts, but the child’s needs. Well we know our son needs an education but we cannot access any support for him to get that education because he doesn’t seem to have the right label.”

I had already secured this debate when that message was sent to me. The reason why I applied for the debate was that parent after parent has written to me, emailed me, met with me at my surgeries, and invited me to visit their child’s school or visit the school that their child would be going to if they had enough support in place, or the school that would be ideal for the child, but which has no more capacity.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, but before I make my point, may I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, for the first time on your appointment? I think you will be a brilliant arbiter in this Chamber.

To the hon. Gentleman, who is also my neighbour, may I just say that I, too, have cases in my constituency that are very challenging? Does he accept that underneath all of this is resource, that it is the long-term funding formula that has caused us to receive such a small allocation, and that by fixing that we actually have at least a chance to see significant increases in SEND funding in Suffolk?

[Sandy Martin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree that underlying all of this is a lack of resource, but I think the problem is not the formula, but the overall lack of resource.

I have met parents whose child had been placed in another county hundreds of miles away. I have met parents whose child is taken to school every day, but then regularly leaves the premises without any sort of supervision to prevent them from leaving. I have met parents who desperately want their child to receive some specialist support, but who believe that he or she is just left in the corner of a classroom for most periods because the school does not have the resources to provide the extra care required.

For years, resources for child mental health, school health visitors, children’s centres, mainstream schools, county educational services, school transport and family social workers have been more and more tightly rationed, and the situation for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities has suffered as a result of all of these cuts.

For children on the autistic spectrum, the situation is dire. It can often take years to get a diagnosis. Child and adolescent mental health services often tell parents that they need to get an initial assessment from the school first, but in most cases the school has nobody on the staff who is qualified to make such an assessment and will pass the buck back to CAMHS. In some cases, such as the one I mentioned at the start, the child will never be in the school to be assessed, because one of the defining characteristics of many mental disabilities is the refusal to submit to stressful situations.

Even once a child is properly assessed and their needs are understood, there is nothing like the necessary range of provision for those needs in Suffolk, and in particular, in my constituency of Ipswich. I am not a supporter of free schools as a model for educational delivery, but I still supported a free school for children on the autistic spectrum simply because there is a crying need for that provision and there does not seem to be any other way of obtaining it. Such a school has still not been built.

It is not just a problem for children with mental disabilities. There are 637 deaf children in Suffolk. Far too many of them are not receiving an adequate education. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission carried out a local area SEND inspection in 2016 and found significant failings. The revisit in January of this year found that, in this area of provision, there was still not sufficient progress. It is not surprising that little progress has been made for deaf children. The numbers of trained teachers of the deaf in Suffolk have fallen by 8% in the past six years. The county is now trying to change the way that social care support is provided for deaf children, but it is not involving the families in the design of the new provision. “Nothing about us without us” is not just a woke slogan—if we do not include service providers in the redesign of a service, we will not be able to understand the problems and frustrations that have led to the need to redesign the service in the first place. The problem is not just confined to children who are profoundly deaf. There is very little provision for speech and language therapy in schools in Ipswich, and the few schools that were able to provide it in the past have had to think very carefully about whether they can continue to do so because of the inadequacy of the funding regime.

In many cases, parents are being forced to seek private provision because they cannot obtain anything through the educational system or the NHS. Both our educational system and our NHS were founded on the principle that education and health should not just be the preserve of the rich. It is, quite frankly, appalling that whether a child gets the support that they need to lead a satisfying and productive life can depend on whether their parents have sufficient resources to buy them the help that they need.

The Ofsted report from February this year is not encouraging. It identifies three areas of serious weakness that were all previously identified in 2016. The first is the poor timeliness, integration and quality of SEND statutory assessments and plans. This includes when statements of special educational needs are transferred to education, health and care plans, and the delivery of subsequent individual packages of support. The second is the lack of local understanding of the support available and the poor quality of the local offer, including access to child and adolescent mental health services support across the area. This leads to high levels of parental complaints and anxiety. In this section of the report, Ofsted particularly points out the long waiting times for assessments for autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and states that current pathways do not support best practice in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. The third area of weakness is the lack of joint working to monitor, quality assure and maximise the effectiveness of the work undertaken to improve outcomes for children in a diverse range of settings and circumstances. In all three cases, Ofsted says leaders have not made sufficient progress to address the serious weaknesses.

Underfunded schools, a failing mental health service in Suffolk and a lack of adequate leadership have all come together to produce wholly inadequate SEND provision in Ipswich. This is not just about the provision of nice-to-have services. It is about us failing people and leaving them with ruined lives.

Let me describe some of the situations in which young people in my constituency have found themselves. One student was transferred from a statement of special educational needs to an education, health and care plan. The plan is supposed to give access to medical and social care services as well as appropriate education, yet the entire preparation work for the plan fell to teachers who did not have the qualifications, time or support to provide such a plan. This is one of the areas that have been assessed as failing by Ofsted.

There is also a student in my constituency who has profound difficulties, and would respond well to music and other arts stimuli, but who is being taught to recognise coins, even though there is no likelihood they will ever be able to shop for themselves. Another student built up a good rapport with a midday supervisor in the school, but then lost that personal support when the midday supervision service was outsourced and the staff were forced to spend time logging their activities on paper to ensure that they were fulfilling the contract, instead of interacting with the children.

Mainstream schools do not have the resources to deal with the issue. Teachers are already near breaking point, and some are leaving the profession as a result. Analysis by the school cuts coalition shows that 94% of schools in Ipswich still have less income per pupil in real terms than in 2015—£290 per pupil less. The results-driven competition between schools leads to decisions that particularly hit SEND pupils. The local authority does not have the resources to deal with the issue. The invaluable county educational advisory service, which used to be one of the jewels in Suffolk’s crown and led to the county reaching the top quartile for educational provision between 2000 and 2005, has all but disappeared. The county no longer has sufficient powers to properly control admissions, exclusions, recruitment or the allocation of funds within schools. The Ofsted report repeatedly blames “local area services” or “local leaders”, but it cannot pinpoint blame because, in reality, nobody is in charge anymore.

There are things that the county could do, but unfortunately it is doing the opposite. Improved children’s centres would go a long way to helping in early diagnosis of childhood problems and, in many cases, in preventing those problems from becoming embedded. As identified in the Local Government Association report on the subject in January, Suffolk County Council is in the process of closing many of its children’s centres and converting the rest to hubs, which will supposedly cater for young people aged nought to 19, although what a newborn baby has in common with a 19-year-old is somewhat beyond me—unless, of course, the 19-year-old is the parent.

Whenever hon. Members raise the issue of systemic difficulties in various services, it is normal for the Minister or Secretary of State to explain patiently that everything is now improving and the picture is based on past errors that are now being rectified. I do not believe that in the case of SEND provision in Suffolk. I believe that there are profound problems in the way in which the county approaches the issue, and that there is an underlying belief at Suffolk County Council and in other related services such as CAMHS that, somehow or other, the affected parents are just making things up and the problems will eventually just go away. I do not know what the answers are, but I do know that SEND provision in Suffolk is failing children and their parents in Ipswich, and that doing nothing is not an answer.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (Second sitting)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I believe that the evidence we heard this morning from both the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the lawyer and police officer made it fairly clear that there was confusion about which offences come under the Bill. Clearly, there are questions about whether an offence relates to a feral cat or a domestic cat, or a wild rabbit or a tame rabbit, but there are also questions about organised crime. We heard from the police officer about dog fighting, which would come under this Act. Serious and organised cases of cruelty can now be prosecuted and a sensible and serious sentence incurred, yet the equally serious and equally organised crime involved in hare coursing probably would not.

All sorts of issues need to be tested in the courts. Very often in this place we seek to tie all the knots, cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s, but it is not always effective. We need to test these issues in the courts, but if they are to be tested in the courts, we need to review the result in order to establish whether the Act is doing what we intended it to do.

We heard from Mike Schwarz that serious issues will be aired by members of the public as a result of the sentences that will be handed down if, as we suspect, the sentences for domestic and wild animals are suddenly, obviously and publicly very different. We have heard on several occasions from the Minister that the Bill needs to be passed as soon as possible. We could not agree with him more. In fact, we could not have agreed with him more if he had said that 18 months ago, when we could have passed it. There is no good reason why, if we accept proposed new clause 2, that would add a single minute to the length of time it takes for the Bill to pass into law.

I urge us to accept the amendment and ensure that, whatever the results in the courts, we review them swiftly and effectively with a view to ensuring that we get consistent sentencing for consistent levels of cruelty.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I will come to Sandy Martin and then the Minister. We have 15 minutes left, so perhaps you can ensure that the Minister has plenty of time to ask his questions.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Mr Bailey. Has either of you seen judges or magistrates deliberately choosing a sentence that is dependent on whether the animal is domesticated or wild?

Michael Flower: No, I can’t say I have encountered that. From my experience, the courts tend to consider the nature of the offence, rather than the animal, which is entirely right. You cannot really differentiate between extreme cruelty to a dog, cat, fox or badger—if it is cruel, it is cruel, and that is the way the courts tend to look at this, which is the right approach.

Claire Horton: I cannot give an answer to that I am afraid, as I have no experience of court sentencing.

[Sandy Martin]

Q Would you agree that there is some legitimate concern, particularly from farmers, that if wild animals were included in this or any subsequent Bill, that might circumscribe their activities? Do you agree that killing is not necessarily the same as cruelty, and that you can have a system where an animal needs to be killed, but that does not need to be done in a cruel way?

Michael Flower: Yes, I think that is right. There is already a clear distinction, and legitimate pest control continues. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not prevent that, and the Bill does not change that situation. I do not think the RSPCA has an issue with pest species animals being killed if that is done humanely—that is key. Cruelty is causing suffering unnecessarily, and there is a clear distinction.

[Sandy Martin]

Q You raised the issue of a baby badger being skinned alive. There is some controversy about or question whether that would be covered by the Bill. Do you believe it would be sensible to review the scope of the Bill at some stage in the not-too-distant future, to see how well it is working and whether it should be revised?

Michael Flower: I think it would be sensible, and I believe an amendment has been tabled that there should be a review after two years. I am not convinced that there will be sufficient data in two years to do that properly. If the Bill were to be enacted in the next three or four months, it would be a couple of years before results started filtering through the court system. A review would be welcome from our point of view because there might be anomalies between the Animal Welfare Act and other animal welfare protection legislation, such as the badgers Act. If this Bill is enacted, we must consider how sentencing can be applied to other areas.

Claire Horton: I agree with that. The Bill is clear and has been introduced because of the recognition that animal cruelty is a serious issue. We would be concerned by anything that slowed its progress. It is fairly uncontentious, and I urge Members to get this bit through, and to consider issues of review and inclusion once we have more evidence further down the line.

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

Q You have taken away my first question. I was going to ask whether our two witnesses agree that speed is of the essence now, notwithstanding some legitimate, and quite thorny, questions that we will, at some point, need to grip more fully. It has taken some time to get a coalition of opinion, but it has become clear to me that not only the two organisations that you represent incredibly well, but a far broader coalition, is now saying that, notwithstanding other issues that might be out there, we need to get the legislation through. Could you confirm that? It would be useful to hear the RSPCA confirm that time is a priority, and that there is a broad opinion that we need to get on with the Bill now.

Michael Flower: Yes, that would definitely be our view. Personally, I think that increasing sentencing is long overdue; it was unfortunate that that was not included in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is now clearly overdue, and needs to be implemented as soon as possible. The extremely narrow scope of the Bill should make it easier to push it through quite quickly, which would be very welcome from our point of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

Q What proportion of the cases that you have seen have pushed the envelope and outstripped the existing sentencing bracket?

Inspector O'Hara: It is a very small number.

Mike Schwarz: I do not know whether I can add to that. The only point I would make, triggered by that thought, is about the position in Northern Ireland, where the unnecessary suffering provision in section 4 is not limited to domesticated animals but applies across the board. There would be a significant disparity of sentencing for exactly the same facts for a case in Northern Ireland compared with England and Wales if the Bill is passed. That is the only helpful contribution I can make, other than to refer to the existing sentencing guidelines, which are very helpful.

[Sandy Martin]

Q Mr Schwarz, we have heard about the need to get the Bill passed. We have also heard about the difficulties of making a distinction between wild animals and domestic animals. I asked the representative of the RSPCA about a review, which he thought was a sensible idea. How soon after passing the Bill would it be sensible to have a review?

Mike Schwarz: I would like to think the points I make are sound in principle and therefore one does not need a great deal of evidence in order to have that review. I am not being vain about it, but there are flaws in the structure of the Bill which, if recognised, merit a review. Having said that, I would not dismiss evidence or views, particularly from the judiciary.

You mentioned how the judges might be grappling with this. Suppose the Bill were passed today, the first prosecutions might come about in the next six to 12 months, particularly they were Crown court cases. After 12 months, there might be some instances where problems—or lack of problems—emerge. I see that there were about 700 or 800 prosecutions in 2018 under the Animal Welfare Act. During that year, there was likely to be a significant proportion of helpful cases. Soundings could be taken of the judiciary and it could be advised after the Bill passes that Parliament would be assisted by view.

It would take perhaps a year, if one attaches importance to evidence, but sooner if it is accepted that, as a matter of principle, the absence of a level playing field needs to be addressed earlier.

[Sandy Martin]

Q On a separate subject, Inspector O’Hara, would you agree that this Bill might be helpful in clamping down on dog fighting in London?

Inspector O'Hara: Most definitely.

[Sandy Martin]

Q Clearly, having a stricter sentence for that will also fit in with other criminal activities that surround dog fighting. I am sure that it is not a problem in London, but your fellow police officers in other parts of the country have terrible problems with hare coursing. Would you support the idea that it would be sensible to have a Bill of this sort that would help to prevent hare coursing as well as dog fighting?

Inspector O'Hara: It is not really my area of expertise. I generally stick to companion animals and the position on that should probably come from wildlife crime. I suspect it dovetails very much into Mike’s point around the disparity of the two genres, for want of a better phrase.

[David Rutley]

Q Thank you both for your support today and for your very useful evidence. The question of guidelines and how important they are came up in the previous session and has come up in this one. Can you give your thoughts on the role of sentencing guidelines in how you deal with animal welfare legislation? Inspector O’Hara, how do they help with the cases that you have to deal with? It would be helpful to have a perspective from both you. It is clear that other members of the Committee feel that the guidelines are going to play an important role.

Inspector O'Hara: The guidelines play a very important role for any offence because they are the starting point at which the court will look upon sentencing as to where the offence will sit along with any mitigating or aggravating factors. It is really key that those guidelines are there and that they are robust. Having them in place will ensure consistency across the board, depending on which courthouse the matter sits.

Mike Schwarz: As you know, there are two sets of guidelines: one is the overarching principles for sentencing in all criminal cases, which I referred to earlier when I talked about harm and culpability; then, as has been mentioned a number of times, there are the specific guidelines of the Animal Welfare Act and animal welfare laws. I think they are very good, but nothing should escape review. It is important that it is reviewed with the passing of this legislation.

Earlier we heard that the point that when the threshold for custody is passed is now more important, bearing in mind the threshold goes up and the length of sentencing goes up. So far, the guidance is just in section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but the sentencing guidelines for animal welfare would benefit from some guidance on when the custody threshold is reached and what sort of sentences should lead to what greater lengths of custody. That exercise may throw up the disparity between the two areas, which is why I think a review is important and probably quite urgent.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Sandy Martin Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I would like to join the Minister in thanking all the Members who have brought us to this point over the years—13 years, according to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) in particular, as well as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who have pushed this forward over the last two years. It is good to see something that was promised to us two years ago finally come to the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made a point about what the maximum sentence would apply to. It is worth saying that the Bill is not about inadvertent mistreatment; it is about serious and deliberate cruelty. Several Members have made the point that deliberate cruelty to animals is an indicator of likely cruelty to humans, and especially domestic violence.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that eventually, it will be possible to save money if the number of prosecutions falls. To achieve that, we need to create the expectation among people who are thinking of being cruel to animals that they will be prosecuted and, in extreme cases, face heavy sentences, which means we must ensure that the Bill is put into place properly and properly policed. If we can deter this sort of cruelty, it will help to deter domestic violence. Any law-abiding society that applies the law properly saves money. Even if it does not save money in the short term, due to imprisonment or court costs, it will save money in the long term through encouraging and forcing people to abide by the law. We should not be counting the cost when it comes to abiding by the law; we should be ensuring that we are a law-abiding society.

Much of the cruelty that takes place is part of serious criminal activity. We are not just talking about lone criminal acts. In some cases, we are talking about international dog-fighting rings, with serious money involved. To clamp down on these rings, we need serious sentences. Dog fighting is a good example of where I part company with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. It is not a human being hurting a dog—it is a dog hurting a dog—but what happens to animals in most cruelty cases is a direct result of the attitude of the human beings who are responsible for those animals. We cannot say that we will not prosecute a case simply because another animal has created that violent situation. If a human being is meant to be responsible for that animal, they need to be responsible for what that animal is doing. I look forward to dog fighting becoming as much a part of the past as cock fighting and bear baiting.

There are serious issues about which animals should be covered by this legislation. The Opposition are not necessarily convinced that every animal that needs to be covered will be covered. Wild animals and farmed animals have been mentioned. Several campaigning organisations have contacted us—I am sure they have contacted other Members—to suggest all sorts of areas where the Bill could be improved. At some stage, we will need a comprehensive and effective animal welfare Bill, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) said. I believe that a Labour animal welfare Bill will probably be more comprehensive and effective, but that is something for the future.

We do not want to allow our wish to improve the Bill to get in the way of passing it. We will put forward things that we think might improve it, but the most important thing is that we get a quick resolution of this specific issue and pass the Bill. I am proud and delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) in commending the Bill to the House.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Sandy Martin Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I thank all those right hon. and hon. Members whose persistence has led to the Bill coming before us today: in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who as Secretary of State at the time promoted the initial consultation; Thomas Docherty, the previous Member for Dunfermline and West Fife; my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick); the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison); my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman); and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who made the very powerful point that it is important for the public perception of the force of law that the police should have at least equal powers to inspectors in the enforcement of the Bill. Of course, we have all been ably assisted by the officers who have prepared the Bill.

There is overwhelming popular support across the country for the Bill, with 94% supporting a total ban on wild animals in circuses in the 2009 consultation. There is almost unanimous cross-party support shown by the hon. Members from across the House, who have not just signalled their support but have pushed over a 10-year period for this Bill to come before us. As a newcomer to this House I do think there is an issue with the length of time it has taken for various uncontentious Bills to make it into law.

We can be pleased that the Bill has now been taken on by the Government and should indeed make it into law, but there is other outstanding legislation that has still not come before us. In this context, I want to mention the need for an animal cruelty sentencing Bill, the absence of which has been a bone of contention for the last three years, despite the best efforts of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, other campaigning organisations, various hon. Members and despite the Secretary of State assuring us that the Government would introduce one as quickly as possible.

We have supported the Bill all along and will obviously support it today. We have had assurances from the Minister that there is no added danger of a “last hurrah” of additional wild animals being introduced to circuses in this country in the remaining time between now and January of next year. In this context, it is sensible that the hon. Member for Shipley withdrew his amendment, as the opportunity for a last hurrah would be enormous in the additional two-year period that that amendment would have afforded. I expect many of us have been lobbied, as I have, by Martin Lacey of Circus Krone and invited to visit his circus in Munich. Mr Lacey also took the trouble to travel to this country to make the case for his big cats circus, and I feel sure that he would want to take advantage of a two-year grace period to bring his lions and tigers to perform in this country if he were able to do so.

The Minister also assured us that the definition of travelling circus, and the protection and welfare of any animals that were found to be in contravention of the Bill, would be adequately covered by guidance. We believe that the Minister is perfectly sincere in these assurances, but we still maintain that it would be preferable to have these things acknowledged on the face of the Bill.

We have the Bill before us because it was made clear that the existing Animal Welfare Act could not be used to ban wild animals in circuses. The test for welfare under that Act would not be clear enough to end the practice of transporting animals to perform for the amusement of the public, but there is a higher test: the respect we have for our fellow creatures. The Bill is but one step in showing that respect, but it is an important one.

Visiting animals in their natural habitat and seeing them living the lives that they would naturally want to live is uplifting and educational. Watching them jump or climb on to bits of furniture, or even on to each other, and contort themselves into unnatural postures is neither educational nor respectful. It is well past time that we should end the use of wild animals in circuses and we are pleased to support the Bill.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a good point. The narrow scope of the Bill means that we need to ensure that the circus element is tightly drawn and understood. A good point was made in the evidence session about the other environments in which wild animals can be displayed, but, although I am a fan of broadbrush interpretations and including as much animal welfare as we can, I fear that that might slip slightly outside the scope of the Bill. However, I echo the hon. Gentleman’s request for the Minister to respond to the points that were raised in evidence yesterday.

It was obvious that the Government were not prepared for the level of cross-party concern that was raised on Second Reading that the Bill was missing a definition of a travelling circus, which was also raised a number of times by the organisations that we took evidence from yesterday. Our amendment seeks to use established wording, which will be familiar to people who have looked at other pieces of legislation that ban wild animals in circuses.

The Minister has a number of options. I think we have established that having a definition of a travelling circus would be beneficial. That definition can sit either in the Bill—in primary legislation—or in the guidance that accompanies it. There are merits to both options. If the definition sat in the Bill, it would be clear, it would have good legal standing and there would be legal certainty about it. Putting it in the guidance, however, would give us greater flexibility and perhaps allow us to include some of the environments that the hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned.

There are advantages to both approaches, and it would be worth the Minister reflecting on how the definition should be drawn. My preference is for a clear definition in the legislation. However, I know that the Minister has strong thoughts on this matter, and I would like to hear his views before deciding whether to press the amendment to a vote.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I fully concur with my hon. Friend, but does he agree that it is a little anomalous that there are definitions in clause 1(5) of “animal” and “circus operator” but no definitions of a circus?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the Government’s choice of definitions to include, or not to include, in the Bill. Indeed, in evidence, we heard stakeholders’ concerns about the missing definition of what a travelling circus looks like and broad concerns about what “wild animal” means.

Having heard the evidence yesterday, Members on both sides of the Committee will think it important to ensure that we can comprehensively ban the use of wild animals in circuses. That means making sure that the legal definition is correct. We need to ensure, whether in the Bill or in guidance, that performances outwith a typical circus tent, such as on a tour of arenas or activity involving touring from place to place and not returning to the home location, are within scope. Our suggested definition refers not to a place but to the group of people and animals making up a circus. That reflects more accurately how circuses work, as we heard yesterday.

The definition that we propose is in line with the guidance accompanying the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018. Scotland does not have regulations on licensing animals in entertainment. There is a chance that circuses in England could merely classify their animals as being used for entertainment. That might, for example, be the case for reindeers in the circus being used in Santa’s grottoes. A definition of travelling circuses will provide clarity on what is in or out of scope. Without a robust definition of a travelling circus, there is a risk that wild animals could be used with entertainment licences as part of performances that are travelling circuses in all but name.

In the evidence sessions yesterday, it was quite clear that the circus operators were keen to hold on to their animals and continue to use them in entertainment, perhaps under different licences, if only because of their close emotional bond with the animals that they currently own and use. There is overwhelming evidence that, if we do not define what a travelling circus is, that might create difficulties with enforcement, and there could be unintended consequences. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight succinctly put it yesterday,

“unintended consequences are often the consequences of things that were not intended in the first place”.—[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 29, Q77.]

The attempt to get a clear definition of a travelling circus is an attempt to prevent unintended consequences and to make the scope of the measure sufficiently tight to be legally enforceable.

I should be grateful if the Minister set out the options. Is primary legislation the right place for a clear definition of a travelling circus or would including it in guidance to be published by his Department carry similar weight and allow flexibility? I am interested in the end effect, and not necessarily the words on the page.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

The clause gives effect to the Bill’s schedule, which makes provision for the appointment of inspectors and sets out their powers and duties under the Bill, including powers of entry, inspection, search and seizure. The Committee may wish to debate the inspection provisions when we consider the schedule.

[Sandy Martin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The inspection regime, which is crucial—there is no point in passing legislation unless we can enforce it—does not enable police officers to take part in enforcement of the Bill. Members of the public would be a bit surprised to find out about there being areas of the law in which the police are not allowed to be involved, so I urge the Minister to reconsider whether the police should be involved and allowed to take part in inspections and enforcement of the Bill.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I will be brief—if I had been a bit quicker off the mark, I would have intervened on the Minister. My concern is that, as with so many other aspects of the Minister’s Department, although there will be powers of inspection, unless there is proper resourcing and people in place doing the job with the power to carry it through from start to finish, it all becomes pretty meaningless. We see that, for example, in the work of the Environment Agency. Will he reassure us that the power for action will mean something in practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

It is an honour to be reminded in Committee of the commitments I have made. I will follow up that point, but I confess that I do not have that information to hand. I look to my trusted officials, who will get back to us on that later today.

The hon. Member for Ipswich raised the use of police. Paragraph 6 of the schedule allows inspectors to “use reasonable force” when necessary and also to take “up to two…persons” with them, which could include a police constable, when exercising the power of entry.

[Sandy Martin]

Paragraph 4 of the schedule repeatedly says “an inspector” and defines an inspector as someone appointed for the purpose of inspections. It does not mention police officers at all. I am not sure why the Minister thinks the police are being given any powers at all.

[David Rutley]

To reiterate, based on the work done by the Department, an inspector, or the persons whom the inspector takes with them, could be a police constable.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the final hurrah. I hope and believe that the owners of the different circuses that appeared before us in the evidence session yesterday fully understood the strength of opinion in Parliament on this issue. They will also understand that if they were to bring wild animals into a circus event at this point in time, there would be a strong public reaction. There might be an economic cost, because they will need to consider how they will look after those animals in retirement. Notwithstanding differences of opinion about the efficacy or rightfulness of the work that they do, the circuses seemed to be concerned about the welfare of animals.

[Sandy Martin]

Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that those circuses that currently have licences to show animals cannot bring additional animals in for the last few months of the licence that they already have? Clearly, the close relationship between the two circuses that gave evidence yesterday and the gentleman from Circus Krone, who shows large numbers of big cats, suggests that he might want to bring his big cats over to this country, just to make a point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

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

The new clause is an attempt to consider what will happen if an offence is committed under the Act, and if wild animals are still being used in circuses after the legislation has commenced. We seek to understand what type of punishment and consequences there will be for repeat offending. For those in breach of the Act, the new clause proposes disqualification from owning or keeping animals, or from participating in the keeping of animals. Should someone break the law on keeping wild animals and using them for entertainment in circuses, the new clause would introduce sufficient punishment to ensure that those animals could no longer be used, because the circus owners would be disqualified from keeping animals.

We heard yesterday about a number of domesticated animals, such as horses, that are used in circuses, and their use can continue because they are not wild animals. That provision would remain, but the new clause sends a strong signal that if the law is breached and wild animals are used in a circus, the owner would be disqualified from owning a wild animal.

We heard yesterday from one circus owner about the possibility that some wild animals would continue to tour with the circus, even though they would not be used for entertainment purposes, because of the owners’ close affection or concern for the wellbeing of those animals. Committee members may have different views about the wellbeing of animals who continue to be taken on tour around the country, rather than put into a habitat that is as close as possible to their natural environment, and where they could live out the rest of their lives in freedom. However, the new clause would prevent owners of wild animals from owning, keeping or participating in keeping those wild animals, should there be a breach of the rules.

[Sandy Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the main thrust of the new clause is not automatically to disqualify anybody who has been convicted of touring with a circus with animals, but to give the court the opportunity to make that a factor if the treatment of those animals has been bad enough? There are all sorts of different gradations of offence, and if there is a particularly serious offence, people would want the courts to have the opportunity to disqualify the owner from having animals at all.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that leads into a question about the powers and consequences of the Bill. As a country, we have a number of pieces of good animal welfare legislation. Indeed, we are on the cusp of considering what is animal welfare legislation—meaning in the welfare of the animal—and what is a moral ban. This Bill will be enacted on ethical grounds. We, as a Parliament and a country, have decided that keeping wild animals in circuses is no longer something that we as a society want to participate in or to see. That legitimate and genuine concern is held by Members across the Committee and by our constituents. Beyond that, people want to know about the consequences of breaching these laws. Under existing protections for wild animals and other animal welfare provisions, certain types of punishment are already available. The new clause seeks to explore what punishments would be available to the courts for those offenders who continued to offend under the Act. Beyond that might be a civil sanction. I am trying to understand the consequences if someone breaks this law.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

New clause 2 and amendment 3 seek to provide inspectors with powers to seize animals and make alternative arrangements to care for them. Although we understand the concern that, in some situations, animals might need to be removed from the premises on safety or welfare grounds, such powers are already provided for in existing legislation. As such, the amendments are not necessary.

The inspection powers provided by the Bill are only those that inspectors need to properly enforce the ban, including powers to enter and search premises, to examine animals and to seize objects. In this context, “premises” includes any vehicle, tent or moveable structure. In addition, inspectors have powers to video or photograph an animal, which would provide sufficient evidence of an offence.

We have not provided powers to seize animals during the course of an investigation or post-conviction penalty. In respect of pre-conviction seizure as evidence, that is because it is unnecessary. If there are welfare or public safety concerns, animals can be seized under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

[Sandy Martin]

To use an analogy, it is often the case that if someone who owns a large tree that they want to remove hears that a tree preservation order is about to be placed on it, they will chop it down before the order can be placed. Is there not a real danger that if it is not possible to seize animals under certain circumstances when they are about to be removed from a circus, they may be destroyed before they can be rehoused?

[David Rutley]

That is an interesting point, but I think it is unlikely. There are protections, so if a circus owner was minded to do such a thing, I would have thought that we would have seen evidence of animal welfare concerns, which would be dealt with under the 2006 Act. I will explain in more detail as I proceed why we have come to that conclusion, which will hopefully answer the question more fully.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 permits seizure if an animal is suffering, or if it is likely to suffer if its circumstances do not change. The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 permits seizure of certain types of animals, including camels and zebras, if they are being kept without a licence under that Act or if a licensing condition is being breached. There is also no need to seize an animal to prove an offence has been committed under the Bill. As the Bill bans the use of animals in circuses, the evidence would need to establish that use. Simply establishing that the circus had a wild animal would not be sufficient.

We do not think that the seizure of an animal is appropriate post conviction. The only offence that a circus operator will have been convicted of is using a wild animal in a circus. To deprive them of the animal entirely would be unprecedented and clearly disproportionate, and would lead to the threat of or concern about legal challenge. I appreciate that there may be concerns about repeat offending, but there is no limit to the fine that can be imposed by the courts, as we discussed in relation to disqualification. The way to tackle the challenge is to escalate fines over time, so a repeat offender would soon find themselves out of business.

As I have already outlined, where there are welfare or public safety concerns, the Animal Welfare Act and Dangerous Wild Animals Act provide the powers to seize animals. On those grounds, I urge the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I do not wish to detain the Committee for any great time, but the point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich about the power of police constables in relation to the exercise of search and seizure options is substantial and deserves the Committee’s attention. I come at it from the point of view of someone who, many years ago, made a living in the criminal courts as a solicitor, having worked as a procurator fiscal depute in Scotland and later as a defence solicitor.

I am aware of the presence of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire, who is a much more eminent source and should be taken much more seriously than me on these matters, but there is a small advantage from never having achieved such eminence: one perhaps has a better and fuller understanding of how things work at the sharp end and the practicalities of these matters. I am influenced in my thinking in particular by my experience working as a prosecutor, where the overwhelming number of reports we received—well in excess of 95%, I would guess—came from the police. However, there was always a small number from other reporting agencies including the Health and Safety Executive, the RSPCA—occasionally—the television licensing authority and the British Transport police.

It is fair to say that the approach taken by the other reporting agencies was not always as focused on a proper understanding of the laws of evidence as that evident from police reports. I say that gently, and not in any way to criticise those other bodies, because they all existed principally for other purposes. People do not become RSPCA inspectors or health and safety inspectors to gather evidence for prosecutions; people generally become RSPCA inspectors because they care about the welfare of animals, so that other focus is secondary.

To put it bluntly, people often do not understand the full legal significance of the way in which they go about their business. For that reason, there is substantial merit in giving police constables powers under the Bill. It is not necessarily desirable to leave it to the choice of the inspector to take along a police constable as one of the two other people they may take with them. If police constables are to be brought into inspections on a multi-agency basis, they should be there in their own right, able to exercise their own professional judgment as police officers and gatherers and observers of evidence, not simply as a bit of muscle behind the inspectors who have powers under the Bill.

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire points out, quite fairly, that anybody who is with an inspector has the powers of an inspector, but that is to be exercised under the direction of the inspectors, so in effect the only way in which a police constable can exercise the powers of an inspector is if they do so at the instruction of an inspector.

As a procurator fiscal depute, it was part of my job—because that is how the criminal justice system works in Scotland—occasionally to direct the police in an investigation. One always did that with extreme care and humility, because the police are exceptionally professional, but I, as a professional prosecutor, had a good understanding of the laws of evidence and that was how I was able to do it.

I just venture to suggest that an inspector given powers by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under this schedule would not necessarily have the necessary background and understanding of the laws of evidence and procedure, and that ultimately, if things went wrong procedurally, we would not see successful prosecutions, which should be the outcome of a criminal offence.

I do not ask the Committee today to reject the schedule being agreed to as the schedule to the Bill, but I will say to the Minister that this is a serious matter requiring further consideration and that he should, if he can, undertake to give it that consideration. Otherwise, the House will, I think, want to revisit the matter on Report. Failing that, it will be, I suspect, given more rigorous and learned scrutiny in the other place.

[Sandy Martin]

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s statement, which I largely concur with, I think that I ought briefly to make clear my view on this matter. We have a society in which people expect the rule of law to be maintained by the police. At the moment, the police face all sorts of problems, not least the lack of resources and of police officers. However, I think that most normal people in this country would expect that if any law were being broken, a police officer would be able to enforce that law, whether or not they had been invited in by somebody from DEFRA. I urge the Minister to think again about why it should be necessary for an inspector from DEFRA—an appointed inspector—to invite a police officer along with them before that police officer can uphold the law.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for the flattering picture that he painted of me.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I was leaning forward to make sure that I could hear everything. My apologies for the room. The microphones are at their maximum, so there is nothing else I can do except ask people to speak up. A lady at the back has also indicated that she cannot hear, so it is not just me.

If Members have one or two questions that they want to run together, I am more than happy for them to do so. You do not have to limit yourself to one. Equally, if you want to come back later with another question, I am happy with that.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Q Some of the people who argue that we should not pass the Bill or that we should water it down say that we need to be much stricter about the definition of wild animals. In particular, they say that if animals are born and bred and live all their lives in a circus environment and know nothing else, it is wrong for us to take them away from that environment. What is your view of the animal welfare of animals that are born and bred in a circus environment and have lived there all their lives?

Nicola O'Brien: There are, perhaps, animals that find themselves born and bred into a situation that is not in their best interests. That does not mean that is all they know and therefore a situation that they should remain in. When a wild animal is born in captivity, it is still a wild animal with the same needs as its counterparts living in the wild. What matters is the fact that the environment is limited and does not provide that wild environment, not whether that is all they have ever known. The aim should be to give those animals the best that we can give them. If we deem that a circus environment does not meet those needs, that is what is important, and removing them from that situation into a better situation is the aim of this, ultimately.

Dr Ros Clubb: We are in agreement that whether an animal is born in a circus environment or in the wild, it is fundamentally the same animal biologically and has the same needs. We are satisfied with the definition of “wild animal” in the Bill, because it is very close to the definition used in the Zoo Licensing Act, which has been well used and well understood for many years; this definition will provide parity with another piece of legislation. We are satisfied with the definition as long as it is clear that an animal born in captivity is not domesticated; it still falls within the definition of a wild animal.

Daniella Dos Santos: We also agree on the definition of “wild animal”. Just because a wild animal is born in captivity does not make it domestic. It takes generations for an animal to become a domesticated animal. And a wild animal born in captivity will not necessarily have a life worth living, so we are not meeting their welfare needs. I do not think it is a justification: just because an animal is born in captivity does not mean that that is the best that we as a society can offer them.

[Sandy Martin]

Q What would you say to the argument that because animals are used for other purposes in other countries, that means that it is all right to use them to perform tricks in circuses in this country?

Daniella Dos Santos: We have a duty to lead. We have a duty to set out good animal welfare legislation and be at the forefront of animal welfare. It reflects directly on how we, as a human society, will respond to other humans and animals in our care. Just because something is occurring in a different country is not a justification for it happening here. I do think we need to put animal welfare above all else.

Dr Ros Clubb: In terms of the definition of “wild animal”, if an animal is not commonly domesticated in this country, we agree it should fit within that definition of a wild animal. The animals are not commonly kept as domesticated species, so they should fall within the “wild” category.

Nicola O’Brien: We have nothing to add, really.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Q Each of you has made the very good point that this is about travelling circuses; we need to have effective legislation, as people move around the country. And you have mentioned the Scottish definition and how you feel that it would be beneficial if this Bill were to include that definition. It is my understanding that the Welsh Assembly has a draft Bill as well, so could you comment on the draft Bill and how compatible you feel that that is with the Scottish legislation and potentially this Bill?

Dr Ros Clubb: In terms of a comparison with the Scottish Act, there are a number of differences, one of which is that, on the definition of “travelling”, that Act goes into a bit more detail. There is also a quite detailed guidance document that goes along with the Act. We would like to see a similarly detailed guidance document to go along with England’s Act, to help to provide the background in terms of what is and is not covered. Scotland’s Act includes powers for constables to go into premises and to gather and seize evidence, which we would like to see in England’s Bill. My understanding from the Welsh draft Bill that we have seen is that it is more similar to Scotland’s Act. It would be beneficial if there were parity between the Acts across those three areas, because the circuses are travelling, as you say. Some of that could be done within the Act itself, but there is also that route of providing additional guidance to help to marry up the pieces of legislation.

Nicola O’Brien: Again, we do not have much to add to that. Fundamentally, the Acts will have the same impact as to where the circuses can be and what they can do, in terms of using animals or not, so we feel that the pieces of legislation match up quite well, but again, we would include the comments made by the RSPCA.

Daniella Dos Santos: My only extra comment would be that the more parity that there is, the less likelihood there is for any confusion when it comes to cross-border implementation and enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Q You talk very compellingly about wild animals in circuses and their welfare. There is nothing in the Bill about domesticated animals in circuses. Do you have any views about whether that should be in scope, or whether there are welfare needs of domesticated animals that are not currently addressed?

Nicola O'Brien: Our organisation feels that those should also be banned from circuses. We feel that there are welfare needs of domestic animals that, again, are difficult to meet in a circus environment. The transportation—the loading and off-loading, and being transported—has its impact. A large part of the Bill is about ethics, and we feel that people are uncomfortable with animals being used in circuses, full stop, not necessarily with whether they are wild or domesticated. There is probably a difference: they are probably more concerned about wild animals because of their wild nature and freedom. There is definitely the argument that domestic animals are more suited to being around humans in the kind of environments that we house them in. However, we also recognise that the Bill is about wild animals. That was the question put to the public in the consultation—that is the focus for today—but this is something that we would also like to see prohibited in future.

Dr Ros Clubb: From the RSPCA’s perspective, we also have a position against the use of any animal in circuses. We have concerns because of issues such as the travelling, temporary enclosure and so on, of domestic animals. As Nicola said, in some cases the concern is probably less, because they are more adapted to a captive environment; nevertheless, concerns remain. We are very much minded that this legislation is focused on wild animals. That is where the opportunity lies to make change.

[Sandy Martin]

Q I want to ask quickly about the problem that might arise if there is nothing in the Bill about the seizure of the animals and care for them afterwards. There was an allegation in the evidence we have been sent that, after the ban was introduced in Mexico, a large number of animals were destroyed. Do you think that powers to seize animals and ensure that they are properly cared for afterwards would be important parts of any Bill that was going to protect the animals?

[The Chair]

Single-word answers and quickly, please.

Daniella Dos Santos: Yes, we would welcome guidance.

Dr Ros Clubb: Yes, we would also welcome that.

Nicola O'Brien: Yes.

[Sandy Martin]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions—we really do count it down in seconds in this place. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence and Committee members for being so tolerant and withdrawing questions at the end.

Examination of Witnesses

Angie Greenaway, Dr Chris Draper and Jordi Casamitjana gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

Q In the interest of animal welfare, is it more important that we ban the wild animals from accompanying the circus, or that we have a transition plan in place for each and every one of the 19 wild animals?

Jordi Casamitjana: I think the important thing is to create a ban that prevents more animals being added to the equation and then deal with the 19. I think the ban is the first step, because that prevents any future problems from arising, and then you can deal with the 19 animals.

Dr Chris Draper indicated assent.

[Sandy Martin]

Q I would like to return to protection of animals that are currently in circuses and, indeed, protection of any animals that might be introduced into circuses in the future. First, have you had any experience in other countries of animals being put down as a result of bans? Do you know of that happening? Secondly, do you agree that we need to have in the Bill powers of seizure, and powers to ensure safe and sensible rehousing or rehabilitation of animals that are seized to protect their welfare?

Angie Greenaway: We have not come across any specific cases of euthanasia; I know you mentioned Mexico earlier. We have pulled together some information that we can provide to the Committee, but a lot of fake reports were put out. There were photos of animals, which were not the animals that were in the circus, showing them killed, but it was not the case—it was fake news. Obviously, circuses are not happy if you are legislating, because you are stopping part of their livelihood, so there will be a lot of stories and rumours. You have to look to see the truth behind that.

Whether this is dealt with in the guidance or something else, we and the public would really like to see these animals have a better life at the end of this. Even in winter quarters, as our investigations have shown, there are issues. There are animals that are abused and how they are kept might not be appropriate—there might not be the space to keep them. It would be better, and I am sure it is what the public want, if the legislation ensured that those animals have a better life afterwards.

Dr Chris Draper: I concur. Born Free has said repeatedly, alongside the RSPCA, that we would happily work with Government, the circuses and any other stakeholders to ensure a good retirement for any animals currently in use. I think it is worth reiterating that the proposed ban is on the use and therefore the activity. It is on the use of wild animals in circuses; it is not a ban on circus proprietors owning animals. There is a distinction to be made there.

That said, I think it is very much in the public interest that a plan is put in place, either within the guidance or through some other mechanism, to reassure people that the animals’ needs are not going to be compromised and that they will live out their life in the best possible situation.

Jordi Casamitjana: I would welcome a power of seizure—having something in the Bill that gives that power. It would not be used all the time, but would be an extra tool to be sure that problems do not occur. In cases where there is a conflict in terms of the owner not wanting to relinquish the animals or not wanting to take the animals to the RSPCA, Born Free sanctuaries or places where they could be rehabilitated, having that power would, I think, be a positive thing.

[Sandy Martin]

Q Also, you mentioned one circus trying to reintroduce elephants in this country. Three of the respondents to this Bill have suggested that elephants and lions could and possibly would be reintroduced to circuses in this country, even under the current licensing regime. Therefore, do you believe that, if possible, we should introduce this ban sooner than 20 January 2020?

Dr Chris Draper: In an ideal situation, absolutely. I think the risk of new—well, they are not new. The risk of species that are not currently in use being introduced is very real. There was, as I understand it, an application by a big cat exhibitor for a licence under the current system. In my understanding, the current licensing system was put in place as a temporary stopgap, but the unfortunate consequence of it is that it legitimises the use of animals in circuses. I think we need to do an about-turn from that fairly quickly, and if that can be done before January next year, so much the better.

Jordi Casamitjana: I agree: the sooner, the better.

Angie Greenaway: I agree. Our organisation conducted the investigation of those elephants when they came to a circus in this country. There is actually an act that toured multiple countries across Europe. Our investigation found evidence of chaining for 11 hours of the day and abuse from both the person caring for the elephant and the presenter. That is a real worry. A lot of these elephants have been captured from the wild and still perform in circuses. Anne the elephant was permanently chained in her winter quarters and violently beaten. The thought that that could happen fills us with dread.

It has been a few years since big cats have been in this country, but our investigations have shown that they are kept caged most of the day and exhibit stereotypical pacing behaviour to show that they cannot cope with the environment they are in. All wild animals suffer in circuses, but elephants and big cats suffer especially.

[Mr Seely]

Q Are you and other welfare groups happy that there are sufficient powers in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for the police to intervene and take action against circuses and owners who abuse animals in the traveling circus format that we are talking about?

Dr Chris Draper: The point we discussed a little earlier about giving powers to the police for site visits and inspections and seizures would be an improvement on the current draft of the Bill. I defer to the RSPCA’s experience on the existing powers, given that it works so closely on those issues.

Jordi Casamitjana: In terms of animal welfare, the Animal Welfare Act comprehensively covers that. The bit it does not cover is in identifying whether there is a wild animal in the circus. You need powers in the Bill specifically for that purpose. It does not need to be a DEFRA inspector to cover that—it could be the police as well—but you need that extra power to be able to enter a location and find out which animals are kept there, whether they perform and whether they are wild. That is kind of beyond the Animal Welfare Act.

Angie Greenaway: I agree and defer to the RSPCA. Our issue is that we have exposed suffering and violence where inspections have not. It is about being aware. While these animals are allowed to be used, it is quite difficult to obtain evidence of their suffering. It takes long-term observation, and inspectors who just come for a couple of hours might miss things that are happening behind the scenes.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Hoare]

Q Could you give me your justification for that?

Peter Jolly: My service is a family service. It is family orientated, so we deal with a lot of children. They do not get to see these things. Why should we deprive those children of contact with live animals? They are not wild animals; they are live animals. As Carol said, our animals, in our eyes, are exotic, not wild animals.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Q I believe you are basing some of your evidence on the idea that the animals that you have are domesticated; you mention, Ms MacManus, that camels are domesticated in most areas of the world. However, at least one person has written to us saying that elephants have been domesticated for thousands of years. They could be counted as domesticated animals.

Carol MacManus: But we do not have any elephants.

[Sandy Martin]

Q I am not suggesting that you do; I am asking whether you believe that elephants should be counted as domesticated animals. If so, why should we not allow elephants in a circus? We had a submission from the Fédération Mondiale du Cirque, suggesting that all circuses should have animals, including lions, and a submission from a circus in Germany that also has lions, making the case that having lions in circuses is perfectly acceptable. Were it possible for you to have elephants and lions, would you? Also, do you agree that if we do not ban wild animals in circuses there is every possibility that somebody else will come in with a circus that has elephants or lions, or both?

Peter Jolly: My point of view is that I do not have elephants or lions at the moment, and I do not intend to, so that would not apply to me. Obviously, I cannot speak for another circus coming in from abroad. That is up to the Government, in terms of imports and exports, and whether DEFRA would allow them in. I cannot see why, if a circus came over from another country, it should not operate.

Carol MacManus: There are not many—no, I should not say that really. The regulations with DEFRA should have carried on. I do not believe that they should have stopped. That would have stopped any issues with anybody who did not keep their animals correctly. What we had to do for the DEFRA regulations was more stringent than what zoos, safari parks or any other industry has to do. If someone does it correctly, why should there not be other kinds of animals in circuses? However, at the moment we are arguing for our animals. We do not have any elephants or cats.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q On the definition, let us start with birds. We are told that budgerigars and canaries are not wild animals; they are domesticated in Great Britain. However, apparently macaws are considered wild. You have described some other issues. How clear do you think the definition is of what is or is not domesticated?

Peter Jolly: There are a few animals. I have a miniature cow that is on the circus licence. It should not be on the circus licence; it is a cow. Hundreds of people keep macaws as pets. Mine has bigger facilities than any pet macaw. He is allowed to free fly, and he has a large enclosure when he is not free flying. I got him from a home that kept him in a 2 foot by 3 foot cage. These animals, in some hands, are allowed and are classified as non-wild, but because the word “circus” is added to the licence they are classified as a wild animal.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

At the end of the sitting our Clerk will collect the book from you, and if colleagues are interested, they can get it copied.

Martin Lacey: Thank you.

[Sandy Martin]

Q Mr Lacey, are you saying that your lions were bred to perform and are bred in a circus environment?

Martin Lacey: My original lions, from my father, are from English zoos, and that goes back 22 generations. The last 12 generations were born in the circus.

[Sandy Martin]

Q Do you believe that the life that the lions lead in your circus can be justified by the fact that they are bred for that life?

Martin Lacey: I can justify that the animals are very healthy, and because it is a much easier life in the circus than in the wild. We have our own vets and the animals are well taken care of. Life expectancy is of course important, but you also have to remember—this is proven and I sent a link for a stress test in my written evidence—that circus animals not only live to an old age, but are very fit in old age, because they are always moving. It is like a human being: the minute you stop working, it goes downhill, so you always have to keep fit. The animals are kept fit by what they do.

[Sandy Martin]

Q Last week we had a debate about trophy hunting, and we heard about lions that are bred to be shot. They are very well cared for, because clearly if somebody is going to shoot a lion and put a trophy on their wall, they want it to look good and not to be bruised or damaged. The lions are very nicely cared for, right up to the moment they are shooed out into the field to be shot by trophy hunters. Do you think that justifies the way they were bred?

Martin Lacey: First, I was over in South Africa because I also have the Lacey Fund, which is basically a non-profit organisation that investigates trophy hunting. They are not healthy lions—they are inbred and very poorly. They are completely unhealthy. Can I justify breeding lions to shoot them? No, I cannot justify that at all.

Rona Brown: Neither can I.

[Sandy Martin]

Q On a slightly different track, you are very firm in your belief that the treatment of animals in circuses is ethical. Surely you accept that circuses used to have human exhibits as well as animal exhibits—people of reduced stature or with abnormalities. Joseph Merrick, for instance, who was also known as “the elephant man,” was exhibited in circuses. Those people were gawped at for entertainment purposes, and I imagine that you probably recognise that that was an unethical use of circuses.

Martin Lacey: Yes, but years ago we used to set people on fire and we used to have slavery. That is a different thing altogether—

[Sandy Martin]

But—

Martin Lacey: Just one second. First, we are looking at facts. I have noticed that we are now talking about ethics, which is probably a circus’s strongest point. The way that a child’s eyes open when they sees those animals—no book or picture could ever do that for children. Given what you see when they come close to the animals, ethics is one of our strongest points in circuses, and not just because the animals are well taken care of.

The picture painted is that man and beast were never together. That is not true. It is only in the last 30 years that a picture has been painted that it is very bad that people and animals are together.

If we are talking about ethics, it is a very fine line. Ethically, we love our animals. Ethics is built on religion, and if you really go back and you believe in religion—Noah’s ark; that was a myth, or not a myth—you are talking about animals and people together, and saving animals. If we are talking about ethics, how can people save animals if you do not want people to be involved with animals?

They paint the picture that it is Disney in the wild. It is not Disney. I do not know if anybody has visited the wild, but there are some beautiful places—Kenya is very beautiful. I was in Botswana 10 years ago and there were rhinos. There are no more rhinos in Botswana. As long as the World Wildlife Fund keeps taking lots and lots of money and every time an animal becomes extinct, people such as myself and my family and well run circuses—you asked whether I believe in circuses; no, I believe in well run circuses, not all circuses—are the ones who will have the future gene pools for these animals.

Ethics is completely on the circus side, if we are talking about the ethics of animal ownership. Let us go to what you were just talking about—when there were shows with small people and bearded ladies. If we are talking about ethics and slavery, does that mean every person who owns a dog or cat does cannot have an animal anymore? It has gone a little bit too far. That is where you have a fine line of animal rights and animal welfare, and people have to find a fine balance. If you do not have your feet on the floor, this thing will go out of the window and we have become a real big show when it comes to ethics and animal rights. The local cat that kills a mouse will be in front of a jury for murdering a mouse. That is how far it goes. That is where ethics is really on the circus side.

[Simon Hoare]

Q Mrs Brown, I have read your evidence. Can I take you to something that confuses me, at the top of page 3? “They”—by which you mean circus families—

“pay their taxes and obey every animal welfare law. Their ethics of running a business and keeping families together is very high. This is how they treat their animals too. I would like to suggest that government would not ban them if they were a Muslim family.”

What do you mean by that?

Rona Brown: Can you say the last bit again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Seely]

Q Fair enough. I do not know whether you can answer this, but let me try you with one other question. Non-governmental organisations say that keeping wild, but trained, animals in circuses is cruel—we heard that very clearly this morning. The circus folk we heard this afternoon say that it is not. Do the NGOs make a good point, or do you think this is part of a journey whereby animals are effectively anthropomorphised—we project free choice and other human characteristics on to them—as part of an agenda that may or may not lead to the outlawing of falconry or bird shooting for sport in the years to come?

Mike Radford: Circuses have been subject to an offence of cruelty for a good number of years, going back to 1835. Standards, however, have changed during that time. Circuses have been subject to the Animal Welfare Act provisions since 2006. Let me give you an example of how attitudes change. This is not to do with circuses, but I think it illustrates the point. When I was young, if there was an unwanted litter of puppies or kittens on a farm in Cambridgeshire, where we lived, it was standard that they would have been drowned in the water butt. What else would you do? That is now an offence of causing unnecessary suffering, not because the law has changed—the term “unnecessary suffering” is exactly the same—but because public perceptions and attitudes have changed. It is about judgment and attitudes.

[Sandy Martin]

Q Mr Radford, in your first answer you were getting to the stage where you were telling us about the need for primary legislation to make this ban work. In the first sessions of evidence that we took today, we were discussing—several people mentioned it—the need for some provision for removing animals from circuses in extremis if there were no other way of dealing with the case and to make sure those animals are cared for. In you view, will it be more effective if those provisions were actually in the Bill, rather than simply being guidance?

Mike Radford: I think that as much should go in the Bill as possible. Guidance can be helpful, but it is not the same as legislative provisions, as you well understand. The question of how quickly a ban could be introduced was raised earlier. My view is that those who have a licence to use wild animals are entitled to have a legitimate expectation that their licence will remain in place until it expires, and they could have a claim for compensation if it was stopped earlier, but there is no expectation beyond the lifetime of the present licences.

[Sandy Martin]

Thank you very much.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q Do you think the definition of “wild animal” in the Bill is sufficiently clear? I will just make a couple of points. On birds, for example, we have heard that canaries and budgies are considered to be domesticated in Great Britain, but parrots are not—that is one example. Then we heard from the witness Carol MacManus this afternoon that most pack animals— things like llamas, donkeys and ponies—are considered domesticated, but camels are not. What is your take on that? Is it adequately clear if we specify an animal of a kind that is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain, when some of them may be domesticated but just not seen in Britain much?

Mike Radford: There is a difference between domesticated and tamed. There is a difference between domesticated and trained. The term “wild” is not important in this, because it is further defined by the test of domestication. It is domestication and what that means that is important. In my submission, I gave the example of Scotland, where in both the legislation and the guidance they have tried to further define what domestication means. Then there is a reserve enabling power, which enables a Minister by way of regulations to specify whether a particular type of animal is or is not.

Draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, even if it is for yet another set of amendments in the long series of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Brexit statutory instruments. Once again, the Minister states that the statutory instruments make technical changes. We can only hope that there are no policy consequences, impacts or costs for individuals or businesses and no risks to biosecurity or environmental or health protections. The fact is that, as with most other Brexit SIs, we are left with no choice but to take those words on trust.

Paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 states that the regulation “creates new offences”. Paragraph 12 states that no impact assessment has been done because it has no impacts. What assurance can the Minister give that the criminal offence of failure to comply with an order in respect of a demarcated area can be properly enforced? How will that be done without incurring any additional significant costs? Can he be certain that any additional costs will be below the de minimis threshold for an impact assessment? Regulation 12.10 states that the increase in public sector costs will be largely covered by charging businesses. Will he assure us that there will be sufficient public budget for the new offences to be detected and prosecuted whether or not the costs can be recovered?

In the debate on the draft Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 on 19 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), said that the number of Animal and Plant Health Agency plant health inspectors was being doubled to 227 full-time equivalents. Will the Minister provide an update on how many of those staff are now in place, and the equivalent numbers for Northern Ireland?

The legislation being amended includes the Plant Health (Phytophthora Ramorum) Order (Northern Ireland) 2005, which concerns a serious fungal disease affecting native and introduced trees and plants, including oak and rhododendron. Will the Minister tell the Committee how many outbreaks of phytophthora ramorum are currently known in Northern Ireland? Why does the factsheet about that disease on the DEFRA website not seem to have been updated since 2012?

As with all the Northern Ireland EU exit legislation, it is important to have clear arrangements for plant health checks in any scenario. How can checks prevent the spread of disease in plant material and wood if there are no border checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Is there not a danger that those wishing to import dubious material might choose to import via the Republic in order to avoid checks? The amended wording states that no person may move any specified material

“into or within England unless it is accompanied by a UK plant passport”.

Again, how will that be monitored and policed in practice without border checks?

The amended legislation includes emergency measures to put in place controls where there are outbreaks of disease. How will control areas be set up and made secure across the border with the Republic? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that close collaboration continues? How does the Minister justify the use of the exceptional urgency provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 now that we have agreed to extend article 50 to 31 October? Will the Minister continue to use the Act’s urgency provisions for further SIs that are needed to correct errors and omissions?

It is of huge concern that most SIs are being pushed through with little or no engagement with industry or voluntary groups who are, in any case, suffering from consultation fatigue. Of more than 500 Brexit-related statutory instruments churned out since last June, more than 120 are from DEFRA. Amid all the other chaos generated by the Government’s misguided handling of Brexit, surely it is legitimate to ask whether such a huge investment of parliamentary effort has resulted in effective scrutiny.

As the Opposition have said in other Committee debates, this is not a dry parliamentary issue. The regulations have a significant potential impact on the people of Northern Ireland. They are in place to protect commercial interests and livelihoods, prevent the spread of animal and plant pests and diseases, and protect food safety and animal health and welfare. Getting any of this wrong, even in small matters of technical detail, risks serious consequences. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), said in the corresponding debate on the EU exit SIs on UK animal trade on 19 February,

“it would be economic madness if we allowed things like rabies to come in because we did not have enough people to check as a result of having a different process for allowing animals with such diseases to come in.”—[Official Report, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 February 2019; c. 7.]

Ministers have rightly praised the officials, expert advisers and lawyers who have responded with the professionalism and dedication that we expect of them—often entirely unreasonably, considering the manufactured suspicion of experts in some quarters. However, the Government are now effectively asking Parliament to take their work on trust. Hon. Members have zero realistic prospect of following the jumble of lumped-together SIs on disparate subjects, each of which makes changes to a vast array of domestic and EU legislation. It is inevitable that the process will produce a statute book that is all but impossible for lawyers and the courts to track through, let alone real people struggling to run a business.

We have repeatedly warned Ministers that errors and omissions will happen. For the record, I repeat my request to the Minister that, once the process is complete, a comprehensive survey be made of all the DEFRA statutory instruments passed to facilitate Brexit, so that any further errors or omissions can be discovered. I hope he will reiterate his commitment to carrying out that survey.

If we could be certain that Brexit would not involve leaving the EU without a proper deal, much of this SI madness could have been avoided. We still hope that the Government will see the light and agree that there should be a permanent and comprehensive UK-EU customs union, close alignment with the single market, dynamic alignment on rights and protections, and clear commitments on participation in EU agencies. That would ensure that we can continue to share knowledge and expertise with EU bodies and would avoid extra costs and burdens for business, save jobs and protect our livestock, trees and plants from pests and diseases. Given where we are, however, we understand the Government’s rationale for introducing the regulations, so pressing for a vote today would serve no purpose.

Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I intend to speak to SI 2019, No. 809; my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will speak to the other SI.

I believe that the Minister told us that the measures in today’s SIs were intended to have been covered in previous ones. Perhaps he can confirm that. It can surely never have been the plan to deal with African swine fever and seed potatoes in the same SI. I also assume that the reference to the EU Commission in relation to the production and manufacturing processes in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies is simply an omission that was not picked up by a previous SI.

Is all that confusion not indicative of other possible omissions, one or two of which may turn out to be seriously damaging? Was there ever any serious possibility that the Crown dependencies would not want to be covered by the regulations? The explanatory memorandum states that it was agreed that they would be covered

“Following recent discussions”—

well, they were recent in February—

“with the Crown Dependencies”.

Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether the discussions started with, “After careful consideration, would you like to change your mind and be included in the UK regulations?”. Or was it more a case of, “Oh dear, we seem to have left you out of the regulations. We can put that right with a catch-all mopping up SI, but we need your consent”?

We are here to make amendments to amendments because the previous amendments fell short of what was needed. On aromia bungii, the EU regulations were changed in October. The SI was originally laid before Parliament on 12 February, but we could all be forgiven for having lost track, because it has been scheduled and pulled so many times, with or without minor amendments, and with or without the added complication of there being completely different SIs with the same title that dealt with Northern Ireland.

The Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were passed on 19 March. Will the Minister explain why they did not include the changes necessary to cover the new EU regulation in this area, given that SI 2019, No. 809, which was originally laid before Parliament on 12 February, mentioned things that were not in the regulations passed on 19 March? Why was no mention made of the fact that further changes needed to be made when we debated this on 19 March?

This all sounds minor and pettifogging, but if infestations of aromia bungii, also known as red-necked longhorn beetles, were to spread unchecked, that would have a serious effect on our fruit growers. Hopefully, the further amendment before us today will help to prevent its spread, but are there other pests for which preventive regulations have inadvertently not been accurately amended, and how can we tell? Ms Ryan, you would be forgiven for believing that we had passed the SI already. Can the Government be sure that they have, at last, got it right?

We have concerns about the changes proposed in the SI. In line with the series of concerns raised by the House of Lords Committee, will the Minister tell us whether the need to facilitate trade post Brexit will be allowed to compromise the UK’s biosecurity in any way? Will the Minister explain how checks on biosecurity will be made at the Northern Ireland border in the absence of a hard border and of any legal requirement for checks on material in transit to the UK to be done at the first point of entry to the EU?

The SI demonstrates that there have been omissions in previous SIs. Will the Minister commit to a complete review of all EU exit SIs once we have passed them, in order to identify any other errors or omissions? This repeat SI also gives us the opportunity to follow up on questions that I asked on 19 March. I asked whether the Government had any plans for information sharing with other EU countries on biosecurity. The Minister mentioned that the UK was developing its own database. Can he tell us whether that is now available, and if so, how much does it cost? I asked about the preferential treatment for roll-on roll-off plant shipments. The Minister mentioned the increased biosecurity afforded by containerisation. Could the Minister tell us whether that would also apply to containers being shipped directly by rail?

I asked about the volume of trade for which this SI is relevant. The Minister replied that the Government do not have data on the volume of EU transit trade in plants, which makes the point that I had intended to raise, namely that as they do not know what volume of checks will be needed, the Government will have to plan for significantly greater capacity than they expect to need. Otherwise, there is a very real danger that the capacity will not be sufficient. I would like to remind the Minister that the aforementioned red-necked longhorn beetle was introduced into this country from China in a consignment of decorative plants, so the lack of checks has already proven to be an issue, and may well become more of an issue. Following the previous Minister’s reply on 19 March, has the Minister asked for an assessment of the volume of checks that will be necessary?

No purpose would be served by voting against this SI, as it does not contain any provisions that we object to. However, as with all these SIs, the problem lies more with what might not be in them than with what might be in them. Our fear remains that if we do crash out of the EU without a deal, it will be extremely difficult to overcome these omissions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandy Martin]

This is quite an important point. The issue being dealt with here is imports from third countries that are currently checked at the first EU point of entry. If they come via the United Kingdom, and then go into the Republic, how can they be checked at the first EU point of entry if there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

[David Rutley]

With the hon. Gentleman’s permission, I will come back to that point later. I will seek a more detailed explanation.

The hon. Gentleman raised some other points, which I will get on to right away. On his point about systematic inspection of regulated goods, in future those goods will be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, which is an official document issued by the relevant national plant protection organisation confirming that prescribed requirements have been met. These requirements will be the same as those under the plant passport scheme, and the phytosanitary certificate will be required for each consignment exported. This will require a greater level of official oversight than is currently necessary under the plant passport scheme, and is necessary to meet international obligations. I hope that gives comfort to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman also made points about databases and systems. We are developing our own database to capture details of interceptions and incursions from day one, to inform our decision making. All EU systems have publicly available elements, which the UK will continue to be able to access after EU exit. Our dedicated UK-wide horizon-scanning team will continue to gather intelligence on plant health risks, including information from other organisations, agencies and networks, by increasing bilateral relationships with key trading partners and nearest neighbours. Functionality has been added to the UK plant health portal to replace some of the EU notification system functions.

The hon. Member for Ipswich made a point about red-necked longhorned beetles. We have general powers to act against such pests, but the EU has recently introduced specific emergency measures and we wanted to make sure that those elements were added to the UK statute book. He also made points about importers’ readiness to change around inland inspection posts. To date, 33 viable applications have been received for premises wishing to be authorised as places of first arrival for regulated plant material from third countries arriving via the EU into the UK, by our roll-on/roll-off ports. These applications are under assessment and we expect that they will be completed by EU exit day.

The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns around transmissible spongiform encephalopathies errors and wondered why they had been included in this SI. This correction refers to a requirement for the owner or keeper of animals placed under movement restrictions, in accordance with these regulations, to comply with the prohibitions in the new TSE law on feeding certain products to such animals. This amendment will transfer the power for approval to the Secretary of State, following EU exit.

I hope that I can now answer the question from the hon. Member for Ipswich about Northern Ireland border issues. We have always been clear that there will be no physical infrastructure or related checks and controls at the border, and this will be a key part of our ongoing negotiations.

Notifications will be required for live animals. Germplasm and animal by-products not for human consumption, and high-risk food and feed are subject to vet checks,. Live animals and these other elements that travel through the EU are subject to vet checks from third countries before arriving in the UK, and will need to be notified and checked at the UK border inspection post, or BIP.

High-risk food and feed not of animal origin will need to be notified and checked at the UK BIP or designated port of entry. If the hon. Gentleman has further questions on that issue, I will be happy to answer, either in writing or outside the Committee. I hope that I have addressed his questions.

I will move on to a couple of the other questions; I have taken quite a lot of the Committee’s time already. I will just try to answer the last question from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Notwithstanding his concern about corrections, we will make sure that lessons are learned from what has taken place. The head of our legal department within DEFRA will review the process but also our current status. All I can say is that there are multiple layers of checking— I am sure that was the case—and lots of scrutiny. So the number of errors that we have come up with, while massively regretted, is small in comparison with the sheer volume of work that we have been through over recent weeks and months.

The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about invasive species. Article 15.6 of the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation states that costs incurred during enforcement of the import controls in regulation are to be met by the importer, unless the member state concerned determines otherwise in a domestic enforcement and permitting order, which supports the EU regulation and was made earlier this year. The UK Government decided that importers will be responsible for these costs.

The invasive species instrument, which was made earlier this year to correct operability deficiencies in the EU regulation, corrected article 15.6, but not in a way that was compatible with the provisions in the enforcement and permitting order. The amendment to regulation 7(3)(e) of the invasive species instrument made by this instrument corrects that oversight and ensures that the EU regulation and the domestic order are compatible after we leave the EU. I will carefully consider the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there should be a future “review”; I think that was the word he used, but I will clarify afterwards.

I hope that we have been able to answer in some detail the questions that have been put, and for the reasons that I have set out, I commend these SIs to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 809).

ANIMAL HEALTH, ALIEN SPECIES IN AQUACULTURE AND INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECICES (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 813).—(David Rutley.)