Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Sandy Martin and David Rutley

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

[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 ---

[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.

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

Debate between Sandy Martin and David Rutley

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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 ---

[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.

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

Debate between Sandy Martin and David Rutley

Thursday 9th May 2019 General Committees

[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.)

Draft Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines AND RESIDUES (amendment ETC.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Sandy Martin and David Rutley

Wednesday 20th March 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Whether or not we protect GIs here in the UK, will that have any further effect in the rest of Europe? If we introduce new GIs in the UK, will the rest of Europe recognise them?

[David Rutley]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about new GIs later in my speech, but on the UK GIs that are currently in operation, our understanding is that the EU will continue to recognise those, because we are listed in its legislation.

In addition, the instrument will amend retained EU law on the method of analysis used to ensure that spirit drinks comply with the relevant rules. It also amends retained EU law concerning the documentation that must accompany the movement of wine and imported wine, the certification of wine and the registers that must be kept by wine operators relating to the wines handled by them.

The Government launched a public consultation in October 2018 to seek the views of stakeholders and the public about our proposed new UK GI rules. The majority of respondents supported the Government’s proposals. GIs are intellectual property and, as such, reserved. The relevant powers currently exercised by the European Commission will therefore be transferred to the Secretary of State. We have worked in partnership with the devolved Administrations on the whole of this instrument, and where it concerns devolved matters, they have given their consent.

I turn to the provisions on veterinary medicines. This is the second EU exit statutory instrument to cover veterinary medicines. The other, with which Opposition Members may be familiar, is the Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That instrument has already been debated in, and accepted by, both Houses.

The instrument we are debating covers three areas of veterinary medicines. It transfers powers and functions to set maximum residue limits for veterinary medicines. It provides for veterinary medicines that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency to remain on the UK market. It also makes necessary consequential changes to the fees charged by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as set out in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013.

Maximum residue limits are the maximum safe limit of a particular substance in produce from animals. These limits are used to establish withdrawal periods—the period that must elapse after the last administration of a medicine before produce from that animal may enter the food chain. The UK MRL-setting framework is necessary to ensure the safety of produce from food-producing animals.

Veterinary medicines are devolved to Northern Ireland, so the power to set MRLs is shared between the UK Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be able to act on a UK-wide basis with the consent of DAERA, and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will continue to act as the UK-wide regulator to ensure consistency. In addition, this instrument brings across from the European Medicines Agency the existing MRL application fees of £62,300 for a new MRL and £18,850 to amend an existing MRL. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, these fees will be reviewed as soon as possible.

As a cost recovery agency, the VMD recovers its assessment costs from the pharmaceutical industry. Until the data is available in a few months’ time to underpin a more accurate cost base, the VMD will administratively and significantly reduce the fee, to better reflect the actual cost of the assessment. Once a robust cost base has been established, the fee in the legislation will be amended, and that will be subject to consultation.

Medicines approved by the EMA—there are only 389 of them—account for a small percentage of all veterinary medicines in the UK, at 13%. However, they are often novel treatments and substances, so it is highly important for these medicines to remain on the UK market after we leave the EU. This instrument provides for their conversion to UK national approvals, with no charge for the conversion. Pharmaceutical companies will not need to take any immediate action to enable them to continue to market their products in the UK.

Lastly, this instrument makes minor consequential changes to the fee schedule charged by the VMD for the function it carries out. Apart from bringing over the existing MRL fees, which I have set out, these are minor corrections, and no new VMD fees are being introduced.

The amendments proposed to schedule 7 of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 are merely to correct deficiencies arising from us leaving the EU. Without these amendments, the UK would be unable to regulate the marketing and use of veterinary medicines effectively. That would have negative impacts on business, as well as on our ability to protect human and animal health and the environment. This instrument will maintain the existing high standards for the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines.

In line with the Government’s better regulation principles, and given the small costs involved, a formal impact assessment has not been carried out. The impact on business has been assessed as being well below the threshold requiring an impact assessment. Although a formal public consultation has not been carried out, the Government have proactively engaged with the animal health industry to discuss how we ensure that the regulatory regime continues to function effectively after exit day.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble has met the Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association and the National Office of Animal Health on a number of occasions, as part of our extensive engagement. Officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate continue to hold regular meetings with key industry representatives. The industry has welcomed our proactive and continued engagement with it. NOAH has expressed some concern that introducing a separate MRL-setting regime for the EU could increase burden and cost on industry. The Government recognise that MRLs are key to facilitating trade in animal produce, and will therefore look to align with international standards when setting MRLs.

[Sandy Martin]

In addition to the additional cost of this process, is there not a real danger that it will be difficult to carry out if there is a shortage of trained and professional staff?

[David Rutley]

The good news is that we have those trained and experienced members of staff available, and we are ensuring that, whatever the eventuality, we will have the resources available for the change. As the hon. Gentleman has intervened, it is important for me to answer his previous question about whether the rest of Europe would recognise new GIs from the UK. That would not happen automatically; new UK GIs will still need to apply for EU GI status, although the Government will support them in that. However, existing ones would be protected.

The steps I have outlined will ensure high-level protection for human health. MRLs must be based on sound science and data; the UK has a proud and growing reputation in the area of food, and GIs play an important part in that. The Government are committed to protecting and celebrating the success of those products and driving further market access to make sure that they and other great British food are enjoyed around the world. For the reasons I have set out, I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

Dog Meat in the UK

Debate between Sandy Martin and David Rutley

Thursday 21st February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sandy Martin]

That is of course the answer that the Minister had to give, but it is exactly the same answer as was given a year ago. This will not be a complicated Bill or one that takes a long time to get through. In fact, I have been told by someone—I am not sure whether this is true—that there could be an increase in the sentencing regulations as part of a statutory instrument; it would take only a day to do it.

[David Rutley]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s frustration and desire to move things forward. I can assure him, on the sentencing point, that that cannot be done by secondary legislation. It requires primary legislation, and that is why we are in this situation. However, I can assure him and others in this Chamber that we are moving forward on that front. The same would apply to animal sentience, on which there was clearly an outpouring of concern several months ago. We are actively working on that issue with stakeholders.

I paid tribute earlier to service animals. To underline the Government’s commitment to protecting them, we are supporting Finn’s law—a private Member’s Bill currently before Parliament. Finn’s law makes it clear that attacking a service animal or dog is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill will have its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 1 March, having successfully completed stages in the Commons. I was pleased to hear that the Scottish Government are taking similar steps; that is to be commended.

We are going further to protect animal welfare by banning the third-party selling of puppies and kittens. That will ensure that only breeders can sell puppies and kittens for commercial purposes. We are banning certain types of electronic training collars for dogs. We have introduced an updated and improved animal activities licensing regime to cover dog breeding, cat and dog boarding, pet selling, riding schools and exhibiting animals. The new licensing regime came into force last October and means that licensees must maintain statutory minimum welfare standards. The licensing regime also encourages licensees to adopt higher standards, which, when achieved, will mean longer licences and fewer inspections.

I am very pleased to say that, as of last November, all slaughterhouses in England need to have closed circuit television in operation to aid official veterinarians in monitoring and enforcing animal welfare standards.

The Government—led, I am proud to say, by this Department—have animal welfare at the top of their agenda. I again recognise and welcome the steps that are being taken by the Scottish Government, which were highlighted by the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley).

The hon. Member for Strangford eloquently outlined in his speech, and I want to make it clear, that there is no evidence that dog meat is consumed in this country. That is a relief to us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton and the hon. Member for Ipswich also made that point. We have on the statute book a combination of laws that, taken together, make it extremely difficult even to conceive of doing such a thing. Most importantly, it is already an offence to sell dog meat commercially for human consumption. Strict food hygiene measures mean that dogs and cats cannot currently be commercially slaughtered, or sold or given to others for human consumption. There are strict rules for food businesses on slaughter and production of meat for human consumption in the UK, and dog meat would not be permitted under those requirements.

We have specific laws on the sale of food. EU regulation 2015/2283 on novel foods prohibits the sale of dog meat in the EU. That is enforced in England by the Novel Foods (England) Regulations 2018, which make it an offence to sell dog meat in England. That prohibition will, I am pleased to reassure hon. Members, be retained after EU exit. As colleagues will know, the UK has very strict rules on the welfare of animals at the time of killing; the rules are contained in EU regulation 1099/2009. Slaughterhouses must be licensed to kill certain species of animal. No slaughterhouse in the UK is currently licensed to slaughter dogs, which means that dogs cannot be slaughtered for human consumption. We are exploring how that can be strengthened.

Furthermore, it would be highly unlikely that an individual would or could humanely kill their dog, although it is technically legally possible. To humanely kill a dog would involve either a lethal dose of barbiturates—the recommended method—which would have to be carried out by a vet and would render the meat unfit for human consumption, or it would involve the correct use of a firearm, for which someone would need a licence, or the correct use of a captive bolt gun. It is important to emphasise, as hon. Members have, that there is no evidence of the consumption of dog meat in the UK.

I commend the United States for introducing legislation to ban the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption, which brings it broadly into line with the position in the UK and the EU. The US legislation is not a complete ban on the consumption of dog meat, as some have claimed. It is important to point out that there are good reasons why we and other countries have stopped short of banning the consumption of dog meat. It would be difficult to prove that someone had consumed it—a successful prosecution would need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that dog meat had been consumed by the accused, which might require testing.

A relevant comparison is that we do not ban the consumption of drugs—instead, we ban on the possession and sale of drugs, which is the focus of criminal prosecution. Proving beyond all reasonable doubt that someone has knowingly consumed dog or cat meat would be very difficult in practice. Unless we have a witness or video evidence of someone slaughtering, preparing and eating a dog or a cat, a defendant would be able to claim that they were unaware of what they were eating, which would prevent the prosecution from meeting the standard.

Proving consumption to the required criminal standard would also require proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant had ingested the banned substance. That would require a form of intrusive test, such as a blood test. There are other tests, but we will not go down that route now—it could be unpleasant, so let us leave it at blood tests for the moment. For the same reasons, there is no offence in English law of consumption of human meat.

I admire and agree with the intention behind the debate and the campaigners, including those in the Gallery, but it is clear that there are challenges with the proposed solution. The Government have an ambitious programme of animal welfare reform. We want to ensure that we can use the parliamentary time available to deliver on our commitments on animal sentience; on increasing maximum sentences for animal cruelty, as I have said; and on banning the use of wild animals in circuses. Those measures will have a direct and positive impact on the welfare of animals in the UK. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ipswich is itching to help the Government to take those measures forward. I welcome his support.

I understand, not least from today’s debate, that one of the core aims of the campaign is to set an example and highlight to other countries that the UK considers that the dog meat trade is cruel and unnecessary. I applaud that aim and the contributions that have been made to the debate. The Secretary of State and I are working with DEFRA officials to explore what more we can do to address the matter, as I set out in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton in DEFRA questions today.

We want to send a clearer message, particularly to those countries where dog meat is eaten, that the consumption of dog meat should never be tolerated. That includes raising the issue directly with other countries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has discussed it with South Korean counterparts. We are working through other avenues, including with welfare groups such as the Humane Society International, which has been highlighted—the dialogue with HSI was opened just over a year ago. DEFRA officials are exploring opportunities with the Department for International Development. By discussing the issues directly with the countries concerned, we hope to have an effect on the dog meat trade internationally.

I will keep the hon. Member for Strangford and other interested colleagues updated on progress. Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate and all hon. Members who have made such impassioned contributions to this important debate.