Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. In the UK, the glass manufacturing sector supports more than 120,000 jobs, adding £2.2 billion to the economy each year. I am immensely proud to have Beatson Clark in my constituency, which has been manufacturing glass in Rotherham for more than 270 years. It is a key local employer, and the only remaining independent UK-owned glass container manufacturer. It is also the only company in the UK that still produces amber pharmaceutical glass. After adding in the supply chain, more than 2,000 people are dependent on Beatson Clark for their livelihood.

As we move to a fully circular economy, glass is the perfect packaging material. It is infinitely recyclable, does not lose quality over time and does not release harmful microplastics into products, including the human body or the environment at large. It is easily and widely recyclable, with no degradation as part of the recycling process. Bottle banks were first introduced in the UK in the 1970s. Glass that was collected then is most likely still in circulation today.

Glass manufacture is energy-intensive, but with electric and hybrid furnaces and readily available technology there is no reason why glass cannot be a net zero product in the not too distant future, especially with Government support with infrastructure and electricity costs, as per the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. Yet, because of the Government’s dogged decision to press ahead with extended producer responsibility, initiated by the previous Administration, we instead face the decimation of our domestic glass industry.

Job losses and the closure of sites are literally just around the corner. That is not the industry overreacting. British Glass has already received warnings from more than one beer and cider manufacturer that there is no future for glass in this country due to the EPR policy. EPR follows hot on the heels of a challenging few years for UK glass manufacturing. The energy crisis, increased costs and a reduction in trade tariffs from 6% to 0% since leaving the EU have made cheaper imported glass so much more attractive.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Holden’s Bottling company in my constituency has written to me with concerns about EPR, saying it makes the company simply uncompetitive. Does my hon. Friend agree that if EPR fees were calculated on volume not weight, it would incentivise using more sustainable materials such as glass over plastic?

[Sarah Champion]

I support my hon. Friend 100%. It is crazy that we are not doing that by volume, because glass is heavier. We are forcing people to move to lighter products, particularly plastic.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend also accept that because glass is heavier than other products, it costs more to recycle and transport? It may break during transport, so it is not the case that it is a more sustainable product.

[Sarah Champion]

I have not heard that or seen any evidence of that. All I can say is that in Wales, 95% of the glass is kerbside-collected and recycled. I do not know where my hon. Friend’s stats come from. If she would like to share them with me and the industry, I would like to have a look.

Glass produced in Turkey is not currently covered by emissions trading, so the CO₂ emitted is not captured by matching penalties. In addition, Turkish glass manufacturers have built factories in organised industrial zones and benefit from Government support in the form of lower water, natural gas or telecommunications costs, as well as a lower taxation scheme.

The lower cost base, supported by the Turkish Government in the form of state aid, is assisting Turkey in targeting export prices at rates that are lower than UK factory costs. However, it is the baseline fees set for glass under the extended producer responsibility that are set to be the hammer-blow. And the hammer administering that blow is being wielded by a Labour Government, which I find hugely disappointing.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I want to put on the record my pride in having a glassworks in Irvine in my constituency and in its many workers, including Mr Thomson, who lived next door to me in Auchenharvie Place when I was growing up. The Government must consider the concerns of the sector about the EPR and look at the evidence that has been supplied. And I urge the Minister to adopt the sensible solutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is suggesting today.

[Sarah Champion]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

The glass sector has always supported the principle behind EPR. It lobbied, on sound environmental and safety grounds, against inclusion in the deposit return scheme, knowing and accepting that that would mean the inclusion of all glass products in EPR. Yet the terms of EPR have seemingly been deliberately stacked against the sector.

It is not only glass manufacturers who will be hit hard by this change. Indeed, since being granted this debate I have been inundated with messages from organisations worried about the impact of EPR.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that the implementation of EPR avoids unintended consequences for businesses such as pubs, which are already facing huge headwinds? In many cases, pubs already manage their packaging waste through commercial contracts, so they would face double the levy.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend makes a sound point, which I will reinforce.

Let me go through some—I emphasise “some”—of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this issue. They include Vinarchy, one of the world’s largest wine companies; the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates; the Campaign for Real Ale, CAMRA; the British Beer and Pub Association; the Wine and Spirit Trade Association; UKHospitality; the Foodservice Packaging Association; the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association; the Scotch Whisky Association; the Irish Whiskey Association; the English Whisky Guild; the Brewing, Food and Beverage Industry Suppliers’ Association; the National Association of Cider Makers; and WineGB. All these organisations have spoken out against EPR and their criticisms of the approach being taken by the Government have been surprisingly—indeed, strikingly—similar. Minister, they cannot all be wrong.

Other assessments of EPR plans have been similarly damning. The Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that EPR is a tax. It will not improve recycling rates and it will damage businesses. The Bank of England and the British Retail Consortium have recently stated that the impact of this policy on businesses will be similar to that of the increased national insurance costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, all this is coming at a time of rising economic uncertainty, which is the result of the Trump tariffs. Pubs face an estimated £8 million hike in their costs, which will equate to an extra £2,000 per year for a large pub.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Like her, I have heard from the British Beer and Pub Association, and I have also heard from several of the pubs in my constituency of West Dorset. The British Beer and Pub Association has said that the increase per bottle on beer and cider will be between 5p and 7p. That comes on the back of increases in business rates—one of my local pubs, The George in West Bay, saw their business rates rise from £8,000 a year to £27,000 a year, with increased national insurance contributions on top. If we want to keep village pubs, we need to support them and not keep taxing them.

[Sarah Champion]

I agree 100%. These consequences —one hopes that they are unintended consequences—are the stark evidence that has been put to the Minister, but seemingly it is not making any difference.

I go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay made. EPR is intended to apply to household waste only. As pubs and similar businesses already pay for their packaging waste collection via commercial contracts, they are being charged double.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is pointing out the double counting and the effect of EPR. I have 19 pubs and Fuller’s brewery in my constituency, and they employ about 4,000 people. With all the other pressures on pubs and the hospitality industry at the moment, this is a bridge too far. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to reconsider this?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend: the Government need to pause, and I will go on to argue why they need to do that.

One of the problems is that packaging producers are unable to exclude these products from their EPR liability. There is no way out for pubs and hospitality businesses other than to pay. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said:

“Defra’s new rules do not work, and the vast majority of bottles sold in hospitality will pay EPR fees, completely unfairly. Defra are aware of their mistake but have admitted the issue would not be prioritised.”

Why? For brewers, the cost of glass beer bottle packaging is estimated to be more than £150 million per year. These additional costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. The Government themselves estimate that 85% of EPR costs will fall on the end user. With the public already facing stubbornly high costs of living and inflationary pressure, I cannot comprehend why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is proceeding with a policy that its own analysis suggests may not meaningfully improve recycling rates. I urge the Minister to change course and step away from this madness.

Let us look in detail at this flawed scheme. The exact methodology for calculating EPR has still not been fully shared, even though it came into effect last month. The process to date has been far from transparent. Based on current illustrative fees, glass is liable for around 30% of EPR costs, while only representing around 5% of in-scope material by volume. That is because fees are calculated by weight, not volume. Glass, as a relatively heavy material, suffers unfairly because of that, yet volume is the limiting factor when collecting and processing waste, not weight.

British Glass has raised several areas that it believes are incorrect in the methodology for calculating the base fees, but it has received no certainty from DEFRA that these will be reflected in the final fees. I am aware that other packaging trade associations have serious concerns about the methodology used to create the base fees. The fee for glass currently stands at £240 per tonne, which equates to around 10p per glass bottle—significantly higher than under similar schemes in Europe.

Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as having a good example of a successful EPR scheme. In Germany, the fee stands at £24, or €28, per tonne of glass. I appreciate that collection methods are different in Europe so the comparison is not exact, but are we seriously expected to believe it costs 10 times as much to collect and process glass in the UK as it does in Germany?

The policy makes even less sense when we consider that brands and retailers do not buy packaging by weight, but by unit. That is why it is essential to have an EPR fee that takes into account unit numbers. Recyclable glass can be 20 times heavier than less recyclable packaging, resulting in vastly disproportionate EPR fees on glass.

When I raised these issues previously, the Minister acknowledged that the per-unit impact on glass is higher than for other materials, yet the Government have failed to address that, calling into question their repeated claim that the policy is material-neutral. That is simply not true. Glass is being penalised. The implementation of EPR leaves glass at the mercy of its competitors. Glass beverage containers have been subject to EPR fees since the start of April 2025. Competing materials such as aluminium and plastic will face no policy fees until the introduction of the DRS in, at the earliest, October 2027.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sarah Champion]

Not at the moment.

In the meantime, our Government are driving packaging customers decisively and permanently away from glass. If, for example, a brand sells 1 million half-litre bottles, the EPR fees for glass would be £72,000. If, on the other hand, the brand decides to put its product into plastic or aluminium, it will pay no EPR fees whatsoever. Officials and Ministers have argued that materials that are part of a deposit return scheme will be subject to set-up costs, and it is on those grounds that they are granted exemption from EPR fees for close to two and a half years. Yet those set-up costs are still unknown publicly and therefore cannot be, and have not been, considered by brands and retailers when making their packaging choices. The truth is that brands and retailers can avoid the imminent threat of additional costs from EPR by switching away from glass packaging to not pay EPR fees on their beverage products. Once those producers have decided to switch packaging materials, they must invest in new filling technology, and that makes it highly unlikely that they will ever switch back to glass.

This is not a hypothetical problem. The glass industry is already seeing evidence of material-switching to less recyclable packaging. I know that DEFRA has been sent a great deal of evidence of material-switching but, let us be honest, this policy choice does not seem based on evidence but on some unfathomable ideology.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sarah Champion]

I am sorry, no.

In public, and in response to correspondence, DEFRA stated that there is no, or not enough, evidence of material-switching. That is simply not true. The industry, our businesses, and the sectors affected have supplied that evidence. It makes me wonder whether there is any threshold of evidence that would result in a rethink of the scheme.

DEFRA has highlighted the modulation of future EPR fees to address those expansive concerns, but let us be honest, even at the earliest point that such modulation would be introduced, huge and likely terminal damage will already have been done to glass manufacturers. It is not clear under the current guidelines whether glass will receive a reduction in fees, and it could even receive a fee increase in the future. Fees are currently charged retrospectively so, given the lack of confirmed information on the level of fees that glass will face, the costs are essentially unrecoverable. How can businesses be expected to operate under this profound uncertainty about their current and future costs?

For DEFRA, “reuse” often represents a magic bullet that will address all concerns, if only the industry would get onboard. The glass sector is keen to be part of the development of reuse and glass is the perfect material for it, but we must accept that large-scale national reuse systems are at least a decade away because there is currently no reuse infrastructure. Furthermore, not all products are suitable for reuse. Glass manufacturers can already supply reusable bottles, but a reuse scheme is much more than that. It would require significant buy-in across the whole supply chain.

The Minister also needs to recognise that not all glass bottles are for drinks. Beatson Clark, in my constituency, manufactures medicine bottles. Reuse is a laudable goal and one that the glass industry is keen to collaborate with the Government to achieve, but it is being repeatedly deployed as grounds to ignore the industry’s concerns about EPR. Reuse and EPR are two separate issues, and the conflation seems a deliberate muddying of the debate. The short-term impact of EPR could destroy the UK glass industry long before plans for reuse are even on the drawing board.

DEFRA has stated that the recycling reforms will add at least 21,000 new jobs and £10 billion to the UK economy, and stimulate the growth on which the Government are rightly focused. Yet it is unclear how those new jobs will be created. They are unlikely to be the kind of wealth-generating jobs that we currently have in the glass sector—jobs that are based in our manufacturing heartland, which really needs that work. Even if the Minister’s prediction were true, why risk existing jobs? Why not take the time to get EPR right and have both?

This is not scaremongering. The glass packaging industry is being driven into a crisis directly of the Government’s own making. UK glass manufacturers are already reporting that demand is down by 20%—although the EPR policy has been in place for only a month—and that low-cost imports have increased to help to absorb EPR costs.

On paper, I get that the Government are ostensibly seeking to encourage recycling, while recovering the cost to the public purse of its delivery. That is the right objective, but their approach will achieve the exact opposite. It will encourage switching to less recyclable materials; add costs to businesses such as pubs and breweries already struggling under inflationary and other cost pressures; and increase prices for consumers. If the concerns of industry are not addressed today, the Government also risk destroying our domestic capacity, leaving us reliant on highly polluting foreign imports.

I have raised these issues with the Minister time and again, as have other hon. Members, British Glass and individual businesses. I cannot therefore understand the reticence to engage with these very real problems. The origins of EPR lie with the previous Administration, but by continuing this flawed and ultimately self-defeating approach, a Labour Government risk destroying a great British industry. Does the Minister really want to be responsible for killing off our most recyclable packaging producer?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have approximately 39 minutes before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, and eight Members who wish to speak, so I will impose a five-minute limit on speeches. Could hon. Members speak to the time, or slightly less? If there are interventions, I will have to reduce that limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.

In the 10 months since I was elected MP for Ealing Southall, one issue has been raised with me more than any other: litter and fly-tipping. That is why I have made it my business as an MP to campaign on the issue, and that is why I welcome the extended producer responsibility regulations. They sound complicated, but they mean that the businesses that make the packaging that ends up on our streets and in our parks need to pay for that packaging to be recycled or disposed of. It is the polluter pays principle, and it makes complete sense to my constituents in Ealing Southall.

Up to now, local councils have had to pay the full cost of getting rid of that rubbish, and that means it is actually local council tax payers who foot the bill. That is not fair, and I know that my constituents will welcome the businesses that produce the packaging finally being forced to pay for it. When they buy a SIM card on the internet, they wonder why it comes with so much plastic and paper packaging. The new system means that businesses will face extra costs for that, which will give them a reason to reduce packaging, taking rubbish out of the system in the first place. For my constituents, that will mean less cardboard and plastic strewn on our streets.

The new system will also mean that Ealing council will now get an extra £4.7 million this year from the levy. It sounds like a lot of money, but in fact it costs £30 million every year to collect and get rid of all our rubbish. It is only right that the people who produce the rubbish should have to pay at least some of that massive cost.

[Sarah Champion]

Will my hon. Friend please assure her constituents that the whole sector supports EPR, but that, because of the two-year lag, there will be more plastic on her streets, not less?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am afraid that the glass industry is perpetuating some of these untruths, and it just needs to get on board with the policy—it constantly wants to delay, but we need to make EPR happen now.

The glass industry says that it does not support the policy and that glass is more recyclable than other products. Let it tell that to my constituents, who see glass bottles in black sack fly-tips in parks, or dropped in little piles on streets where people have been street drinking, every day. In fact, just 43% of glass is recycled back into bottles. The glass industry also says that glass is being treated unfairly compared with plastic and cans, but plastic and cans will be included in the deposit return scheme, as we have already heard. Glass had the opportunity to be part of the scheme and the industry lobbied hard not be included. I congratulate it—it did a good job—but it cannot get off scot-free. It is either part of the reverse vending machine plan or part of the “polluter pays” system that we are talking about today. It has to be in one or the other—it creates litter and it must pay for the cost of clearing it up. Council tax payers cannot be left to continue picking up the tab.

The glass industry also says that it is being charged more than it should be, because the fees are based on weight. As I have said, weight is important: the heavier a product is, the more it costs to transport for recycling. It is also breakable, which increases the cost further, and glass costs a lot more to recycle, both in money and in carbon, as the heat has to be so high. Recycled glass bottles use 75% of the energy needed to make new bottles, compared with just 15% for reuse. The charges in the plan are based on the estimated costs to councils of recycling glass, and the industry needs to understand that. Glass really does need to come up with a sustainable plan for reuse, rather than arguing against the tide of the “polluter pays” principle.

I know the published fees are still in draft so that the Minister and her Department can ensure they are fair and based on actual costs. I have a lot of sympathy for the pub and restaurant businesses that might be affected, but the Department is looking in detail at some of the points raised, so I am sure a sensible solution will be found. It is important to emphasise that clean streets are vital for pubs and restaurants—they will not make money if no one wants to go to their mucky town centre.

The final argument from the industry is that it does not think the fees it pays will be spent on waste and recycling. I have heard that a lot, but already my local council in Ealing is making plans to spend some of the money on cracking down on fly-tipping. It will use CCTV by Southall common and treat fly-tipping as an environmental crime with police tape and a cordon, based on work by Keep Britain Tidy. Ealing council also has plans to open a new reuse centre in Acton.

There are calls from the glass industry, as we have heard, to delay the “polluter pays” levy, but I strongly urge the Minister to resist those calls. The previous Government delayed taking action, which led to rubbish on our streets increasing by more than one third on their watch. People in Ealing Southall want cleaner streets. They are sick to death of bottles, cans, cardboard, mattresses, sofas and all the rest of it blighting their community. The Government have already shown they are deadly serious about making local areas feel loved again. Let us get on with sorting out the mess and bring in the new law to clean up our streets.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Stringer. I did not do that last week, so the Clerks have clearly made a mark against my name. I will do my best, and I have my team on standby to yank me down, as I am sure you will do. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for asking for this debate. She has been a doughty supporter of Beatson Clark in her constituency and of the glass industry in general. I also thank hon. Members from across the parties who have made valuable points today.

The aim of the reforms is to create a more circular and resource-efficient economy. They are the biggest reforms in a generation. The three elements—simpler recycling, DRS and extended producer responsibility for packaging—will turn the dial on recycling rates, which, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, have stagnated over the past 15 years and are bumping along at 42% to 44%. Assessments show that getting our household recycling rate up to 65% over the next 10 years will drive £10 billion of new investment in the British economy and create 21,000 new jobs.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will make some progress and then give way.

UK circular industries—those that keep products and materials in circulation for as long as possible—currently deliver £67 billion a year to the economy, up from £44 billion in 2008, and provide 827,000 jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about the innovators in her constituency creating new packaging. I will take away the point about weights and measures and see what we can do in a cross-ministerial way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will give time at the end but I want to make some progress.

The annual growth rate of circular industries is 3%, more than double the UK’s overall growth rate of 1.2%. Extended producer responsibility for packaging—pEPR—moves recycling costs from taxpayers to packaging producers. Think about it: not everybody drinks and not everybody shops online, but we are all paying for the costs of collection. We have had a great tour of drinking places, hostelries and amazing producers, but at the moment everybody in the country is paying for that, through council tax and general taxation. These reforms are creating systematic change, and that is hard.

Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and consistent. People will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether they are at home, work or school, which will create a step change in the quality and quantity of recyclate streams. That is enabled by pEPR, which will pay for the new costs associated with the change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned.

We are also introducing deposit return schemes in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland that add refundable deposits to single-use plastic, steel and aluminium containers. I discussed this with my colleague in Northern Ireland last week at the British-Irish Council environment ministerial meeting at Kew Gardens. We had a two-hour debate about how we would co-operate on the circular economy, in particular looking at the challenges of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man—island economies with no real reprocessing facilities—and what we can all learn from each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I decided not to intervene on the Minister because we have had this argument a lot and she still does not seem to be hearing a whole room of MPs bringing examples to her. She talked about all producers paying their fair share. I agree, and the glass sector agrees, but that is not happening because only glass is paying. The freeloaders the Minister talks about are currently plastic and aluminium. I am really supportive of all the other examples of packaging—absolutely, let us have all of them—but at the moment the Minister has a stark choice. She mentions the jobs that will be created; she does not mention those that will be lost. It is those jobs, and the likelihood of our losing the glass industry, that I urge her to focus on. She should pause the scheme, listen to and act on the concerns, and bring the whole scheme into force in October 2027, when the other two key materials will be in place. That is the only fair, just and, dare I say it, Labour way of doing this. At the moment the good guys are being punished, and people in our constituencies are going to lose their jobs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.

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

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy.

Clause 1 creates a regulation-making power that will allow the Government to introduce measures through secondary legislation to tackle low-welfare movements of dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom from third countries. Importantly, the clause gives the Government the ability to introduce regulations to respond dynamically to pet smuggling practices as they evolve in the future. We know that illicit traders are quick to react to legislative changes and find ways to circumvent new restrictions, so the ability to impose restrictions to protect animal welfare both now and in the future will be important and will ensure that we can tackle illegal activity and pet smuggling quickly and effectively.

Subsection (1) empowers an appropriate national authority to make regulations about the bringing into the UK of dogs, cats or ferrets for the purpose of promoting their welfare. Subsection (2) makes it clear that that includes the ability to prohibit or restrict such imports according to specified criteria. An appropriate national authority is defined in clause 3 as the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland. Clause 1(2) provides an indicative list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. Those include exemptions to prohibitions or restrictions, issuing permits and enforcement mechanisms.

Many Members have asked me about this next point. Ferrets are included in the scope of this regulation-making power to align with the scope of the non-commercial pet travel rules, which apply equally to dogs, cats and ferrets. Our pet travel rules apply to dogs, cats and ferrets because they are species that are susceptible to rabies and commonly kept as pets.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for inviting me to be on the Committee, for introducing the Bill and for mentioning ferrets. It is very important. In discussing the last iteration of this legislation, I put on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar, and I would like to repeat that.

[Dr Chambers]

I am delighted to hear that Oscar is still with us.

[Sarah Champion]

No, he isn’t!

[Dr Chambers]

He is not—my condolences to the hon. Lady’s brother on the loss of Oscar, his much-loved ferret.

Crucially, subsections (3) and (4) state that the first regulations made under the regulation-making power in subsection (1) in relation to England, Scotland and Wales must include prohibitions on the three specific types of low-welfare imports. Governments in Great Britain must first use the power to raise the minimum age at which a dog or cat can be brought into Great Britain to six months, to prohibit the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats that are heavily pregnant and to ban the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations, such as cropped ears.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Clause 3 outlines who can exercise the regulation-making powers in clause 1. For the purposes of those powers, clause 3(1) defines the “appropriate national authority” in respect of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That subsection confirms that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland will have the power to make regulations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

Animal welfare is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, including in relation to the movement of animals into Scotland or Wales for the purposes of protecting animal welfare. In Northern Ireland, animal welfare is generally a transferred matter, but the subject matter of the Bill means that the reserved matter in paragraph 20 of schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is engaged. Therefore clause 3(2) sets out that the consent of the Secretary of State may be necessary when DAERA proposes to make regulations under the powers in clause 1. To provide for effective collaboration, clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that extend and apply to Northern Ireland where DAERA gives its consent. Subsection (4) sets out that DAERA’s consent would not be needed in such circumstances as described by subsection (2).

[Sarah Champion]

I think this is the first time I have served under your guidance, Sir Jeremy; it is a pleasure to do so. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for using his private Member’s Bill to shepherd this vital legislation through the House and for inviting me to be part of the Committee. The Bill is deeply welcomed. I have campaigned on animal smuggling for a decade, and those hon. Members around me have been campaigning on it for just as long. It generous of him to let us see the Bill through what is hopefully the final phase.

My constituents often write to me expressing their concern about this vile, exploitative practice and urging legislators to take meaningful action. They are frustrated by how many animals experience unnecessary suffering, which so often could be stopped with a stroke of a pen in this place. But let me be clear: these measures should have been acted on years ago. I urge the Committee to use this momentum to push for the strongest protections possible and support the Bill.

The puppy smuggling trade is worth billions in the UK. The Naturewatch Foundation found that an estimated 80% of dogs and puppies in the UK still come from unknown sources, including unlicensed breeders, illegal puppy farms and puppy smuggling operations. There are huge welfare concerns for puppies being transported long distances at such a young age having been taken from their mothers too soon, which hampers their development and often leads to illnesses and lifelong conditions. There is a human risk, too, with imported dogs leading to serious biosecurity concerns. I did not know, but in 2022 we had the first case of Brucella canis transferring from an imported dog to an owner. It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly support the Bill’s actions, with 83% backing stronger rules to stop puppy smuggling.

Cats face similar mistreatment. Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlighted that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. It is unclear whether they received health and welfare checks or what conditions they were subjected to during travel. Without proper regulation, cats likely arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health, carrying infectious diseases that they would inevitably pass on to other cats.

I therefore strongly support clause 1(3) and (4), which increase the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens from 15 weeks to six months. They also introduce new measures to prevent the import of mutilated animals. For years, puppies and kittens have been imported into the UK, completely legally, with painful mutilations, including docked tails, cropped ears or having been declawed or debarked. Continued importation normalises these practices and makes it near impossible to enforce a ban in the UK.

The abhorrent declawing procedure, is, I am sorry to say, the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip to the first knuckle. The 2024 PDSA “Animal Wellbeing” report stated, alarmingly:

“4% of cat owners who acquired their pet from abroad told us they did so because they wanted them to be declawed”.

That equates to 15,000 cats whose owners want them to be mutilated. To end such an appalling practice once and for all, I urge the Committee to maintain the strength of the Bill’s core provisions. In so doing, we will answer the public’s long-standing call for reform, protect our beloved dogs, cats and ferrets from ill treatment, and entrench the UK’s leadership on animal welfare.

Finally, if you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy, while I appreciate that the Bill looks at a very specific area of animal imports, I want to take the opportunity to reflect the strong feelings of the animal welfare and conservation sector about the decline in cross-border movements of zoo animals between the UK and the EU. Those movements are often part of essential conservation breeding programmes, and I share the hopes of the sector that, as the Government address dog, cat and ferret imports, they will soon address cross-border animal movements for zoos and aquariums.

I fully support the Bill. I wish it well with its progress, and I hope that it has the Committee’s support.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK.

As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few.

It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health.

Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill. I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk.

I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health.

I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals.

As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.

Global Deforestation

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—in this case, he is a friend—on raising a matter of paramount importance that will affect the future of our children and grandchildren. I am fortunate enough to have five of the latter. I decided to participate in this debate having yesterday received a work of fiction, in the form of a briefing note from the Drax organisation. I also had the good fortune yesterday to meet two charming ladies, Dr Krystal Martin and Katherine Egland, both from the United State of Mississippi, where Drax has an operation that is hugely impacting their lives and their communities.

I am a simple man and I find long equations hard to follow, but it strikes me that if someone fells carbon-sequestering trees, using power to do so, and if they turn the wood into pellets, using power, transport those pellets across the United States, by either water or land, and then transport those pellets across the Atlantic in diesel-powered boats, the chances are that they are using quite a lot of carbon. It strikes me that Drax’s claim that its operation is somehow carbon-friendly has to be a myth.

One of my wiser colleagues reminded me that, for Drax, the clock starts ticking when the pellets arrive at the power station gates, and everything that goes before is written off. This is an absolute nonsense. It was subsidised by the British taxpayer to a considerable extent under the previous Government. To give credit where it is due, the current Government have secured a rather better deal than the previous one. Nevertheless, these practices are still being subsidised to a ridiculous extent.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

First, I would like to correct the record, because the right hon. Gentleman is anything but simple. He has always been a leading light in every debate he contributes to. In my constituency we reclaim wood that would have otherwise gone into landfill and turn it into pellets, but unfortunately the Government subsidy for that is about to end, making the situation the right hon. Gentleman describes ever more perverse.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Lady makes an unassailable point.

This should not be happening. Drax is felling trees in the southern states of the United States—in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana—and throughout Canada on an unimaginable scale. The people at Drax claim that they are using pulp wood from

“thinnings that help to open up the forest canopy and get light onto the forest floor”.

Oh no they are not! They are engaged in scorched-earth forestry. They are felling acres and acres of woodland in the southern United States and Canada, and that is not acceptable. And it is being subsidised by the British Government. Worse still, the health of the local populations in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi is being directly and adversely affected by Drax’s practices.

Drax has lied—there is no other word for it—to secure its contracts and licences. I shall do my damnedest to ensure that the renewal of those licences is contested in every way. I urge the Minister to go back to her Government, particularly the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to expose the myth that is Drax, and to insist that we must find viable alternatives—not tomorrow, but now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Vickers, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this debate. It is very poignant to have it on the day that the Climate Change Committee is saying that we will not reach our climate targets.

I will focus on building on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd). It is an important issue and one on which the United Kingdom can demonstrate real leadership: tackling illegal deforestation linked to the UK supply chain.

In the Environment Act 2021, Parliament rightly included a requirement for due diligence provisions to prevent larger businesses from using forest-risk commodities that contribute to illegal deforestation. Those regulations are crucial to our meeting our commitments to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. Yet today, more than 1,100 days have passed since the consultation on implementation closed, and the due diligence regulations remain unpublished and unimplemented. Every hour that passes, an area of rainforest equivalent in size to 300 football pitches is cleared, often to make way for unsustainable agricultural practices. Such destruction not only exacerbates climate change but pushes precious wildlife, such as orangutans, tigers, rhinoceroses, hornbills and elephants, towards extinction. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, there are now more MPs in Westminster than there are Sumatran tigers left alive on Earth, which is a sobering and powerful reminder of what is at stake with this issue.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for zoos and aquariums, I am pleased that Chester zoo, one of the world’s leading conservation organisations, has been at the forefront of efforts to champion sustainable palm oil and combat deforestation. The zoo is leading the way in creating the world’s first sustainable palm oil city in Chester, and it has worked with plantation owners in Malaysian Borneo to restore over 200 hectares of rainforest, reconnecting fragmented landscapes and protecting our critical wildlife corridors.

Chester zoo’s real and practical experience makes it an invaluable voice on this issue, so it is no surprise that DEFRA officials have previously visited the zoo to consult its experts and even filmed content for what was intended to be the public launch of the regulations. That launch was postponed due to the general election, but the fact that it was planned proves that the due diligence regulation is sitting on a desk somewhere, waiting to be published.

The delay in publication and implementation risks sending entirely the wrong message to businesses seeking certainty, to our international partners and to the public, who rightly expect us to lead on this issue. Chester zoo, alongside other organisations, is calling not for endless revisions of proposals but for the Government to introduce their version of the regulations without further delay.

Just last week, the EU proposed adapting its deforestation regulations to streamline their implementation. In my view, that shows that the UK Government should move faster on implementing their regulations to create certainty on this issue. A practical, balanced approach would be for the Government to conduct a formal review 12 months after implementation, which would allow us to address any operational challenges and assess the compatibility of the regulations with the EU’s deforestation regulations.

This is a moment when we can turn our commitments into reality. Introducing the regulations now would honour the spirit of the Environment Act, provide businesses with much needed clarity, and show that the United Kingdom remains determined to protect the world’s precious forests and wildlife. I urge the Minister to act swiftly and to ensure that trusted voices such as Chester zoo and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums—the membership body for zoos—are included in any future reviews, so that the regulations are grounded in real conservation and operational experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I am afraid I have absolutely no idea; I will have to write to my hon. Friend. That is genuinely not my area.

We welcome the positive conclusions to the COP in Rome. The key outcome is the launch of the Cali fund, which will drive benefit sharing from the use of DSI—digital sequence information—on genetic resources, allowing companies using this information to direct funds towards indigenous people and local communities who safeguard biodiversity. At the biodiversity COP, for the first time we created the process by which IPLCs now have a seat at the table, which is very important.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) mentioned the UK-Indonesia joint energy transition. As I have said, we will continue to work with key partners, including Indonesia and China, on the stocktake that supports the objective of halting and reversing forest loss by 2030. Future ICF is subject to business planning this year and to the spending review from next year. I am meeting the Minister for International Development this afternoon to discuss our approach on that; this is all work that is happening at the moment.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a particularly important region, but it has received less attention and less climate finance than the Amazon and south-east Asia. We are committed to working with others to secure the next phase of support, which will be announced at COP30, for the forests, people and biodiversity of the Congo basin countries. That will sit alongside the pledge for IPLCs’ land tenure. We know that communities are better able to protect ecosystems when their land rights are secure, and that areas managed by IPLCs are better protected than any other areas. The Foreign Secretary has already announced that the UK will lead on this IPLC land tenure pledge.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister be covering the regulations on due diligence and when they will be published?

[Mary Creagh]

I am coming to that. Legislation complements the measures I have described. The UK timber regs aim to eliminate demand for illegally harvested timber, and the EU’s timber regulation continues to apply, unamended, in Northern Ireland. Both regs require operators that place timber on the market to implement due diligence and review their supply chains, and a recent review of the UK timber regulations demonstrated that they have led to a reduction of illegal timber in UK supply chains.

Over the past 12 years, our delivery partner, the Office for Product Safety and Standards—which, again, is part of the Department for Business and Trade, so not my area—has reviewed the due diligence systems of more than 600 businesses and issued 100 warning letters and 100 notices of remedial action. Recent notable enforcement by OPSS includes the prosecution of luxury yacht maker Sunseeker International, which received a fine of £360,000 plus prosecution costs in relation to illegal imports of timber from Myanmar and Africa.

At home, the Government must also abide by the rules we have made. The Government’s timber procurement policy requires all Government procurers and suppliers to prove the legality and sustainability of timber. We will only accept sustainable timber, and we have a wider approach to encouraging legal and sustainable forestry domestically and internationally. We are currently reviewing the timber procurement policy, with the aim of securing better recognition of British certification schemes such as Grown in Britain and FLEGT—forest law enforcement governance and trade—licensed timber.

We are at a critical moment for forests, and the international community must go further and faster to deliver our ambition. We need to tackle nature loss and enhance planetary stewardship. We are working to unlock more finance for nature, promote deforestation-free agriculture and reform global supply chains. Supporting indigenous rights and access to finance are also vital, and require targeted efforts across all tropical forest basins.

COP30 in Brazil, home to the world’s largest rainforest, will be a pivotal moment. We are working closely with Brazil and other partners to ensure that forests and nature take centre stage. We are partnering with Guyana as co-chairs of the forest and climate leaders’ partnership to build a valuable forum for driving wider ambition.

Agricultural expansion, particularly for a few key commodities, is the primary driver of illegal deforestation worldwide. As colleagues have said, the Environment Act made provision for the Government to bring forward legislation to exclude commodities. We recognise the urgency of the task to ensure that UK consumption of those commodities—

Environmental Protection

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am very proud that Beatson Clark manufactures glass right in the heart of my constituency and has done so for 270 years; it employs 200 people directly and a further 2,000 in the supply chain. Glass can be recycled almost infinitely. Currently, almost 74% of glass is recycled, and 80% of that comes from kerbside collections. I recently met representatives of Beaston Clark and British Glass, and they all expressed grave concerns about the impact of this Government’s current policies on the glass sector. DEFRA’s latest figures show that the number of glass containers placed on the market in 2024 was 23% lower than earlier estimates.

With increased pressure from imported glass, the outlook for UK manufacturers is indeed grim. UK glass manufacturers are already under severe pressure. The failure to introduce tariffs on imported glass, predominantly from Turkey, has left the industry facing punishing competition from overseas producers, who have significantly lower energy costs and no carbon charges. Although the move towards a circular economy as part of environmental improvements is laudable, it will ultimately be futile if the outcome is dependent on foreign imports, with no environmental impact mitigations in place. Can the Minister confirm whether imported glass will face the same EPR, and who will be liable to pay it?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend raised this issue with me prior to the debate. I have checked with my officials, and I am happy to confirm that the person who places the product—regardless of whether it is made in the UK or purchased from abroad—on the market will be responsible for paying the EPR fees on glass bottles.

[Sarah Champion]

I rise happier than when I sat down. I thank the Minister for clarifying that.

The sector has legitimate concerns that the DRS will lead to poor environmental outcomes, with less recycled glass going back for remelt, as it will likely be crushed in the process, thus rendering it unsuitable for its purpose. The DRS could also cause storage and safety issues for both consumers and retailers, especially smaller shops. The Republic of Ireland did not include glass in its scheme. It is important to point out that the DRS is not a reuse scheme; it is a collection scheme. Many people reminisce about the UK’s old deposit scheme, but that was a deposit refill scheme, which is completely different from the proposed DRS.

Wales has achieved a 90% glass collection rate from kerbside collections without the need for DRS, and is ranked second in the world for recycling. Following the Welsh Government’s recent announcement that they will withdraw from the four-nations DRS and re-examine its scope, it seems to me and many others that the scheme will be ineffective across the UK. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the Welsh blueprint for collection, which would be the simplest way to improve recycling rates? Given that local authorities receive money from the extended producer responsibility, it is a shame that the Government are not encouraging them to use it to improve collection quality.

The glass sector supports the principle behind the extended producer responsibility, but it sees the excessively high EPR fees on glass packaging as punishment for speaking out. The arrangement in Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as a good example of an EPR scheme, yet its glass fee is more than 10 times lower than the UK’s, at €28 per tonne. According to the indicative figures recently announced by DEFRA, the fee will be £240 per tonne in the UK.

In my discussions with the Minister last Monday, she confirmed that the final EPR figures were unlikely to be finalised until June. How is a business meant to budget on that basis? I urge her to take a serious look at the indicative figures to see if they can be reduced dramatically; otherwise, we will lose the most recyclable sector. Currently, per unit, glass is facing significantly higher fees than less recyclable, less circular materials. That goes against everything that other Government policies are trying to achieve, and I ask the Minister if they are really confident that the EPR policy and other waste policies will lead to more recyclable packaging in the UK.

Further, the delay to the DRS means that there is a two-and-a-half-year period when glass beverage containers will be paying EPR fees while competing beverage containers will not, due to being in the DRS. Put bluntly, this Government are driving businesses towards less recyclable packaging such as plastic in those two and a half years. It was never intended that EPR would be in place before the DRS, and this leaves glass at a huge competitive disadvantage in the beverage market, which makes up 80% of the glass market. Given the history and the uncertainty that still exists around the DRS, it is vital that all materials pay EPR fees until the DRS is fully functional, to create a level playing field for all beverage packaging. There is a backstop for 2028, but can I ask the Minister to clarify whether the backstop fees will be backdated to April this year when EPR launches?

World Species Congress

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the World Species Congress.

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance as ever, Sir Charles, and I thank you for letting me proceed with the debate on the World Species Congress and the importance of the Reverse the Red movement. The aim of the debate is simple and straightforward: to recognise the urgent species recovery and conservation work that is needed to build a future where nature can thrive. Tomorrow on 15 May the World Species Congress, hosted by the Reverse the Red movement, is being held, and this debate is part of a network of satellite events hosted around the world to shine a light on species recovery. The events will offer a forum for collaboration and a road map for success to all who strive to create a healthier planet, with the ultimate goal of reducing species decline and restoring wildlife.

As chair of the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group, I am particularly pleased that the country’s most visited zoo and, indeed, one of the most visited attractions in the country—Chester zoo—is spearheading World Species Congress activity in the UK. With initiatives ranging from a science webinar on saving species to a livestreamed lesson for schools and presentations to the World Species Congress programme, I thank Chester zoo for its national leadership.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. From a remaining total population of just six plants, Chester zoo and partners have worked to rescue the critically endangered Cotoneaster cambricus, which is only found in north Wales. Thirty individual plants have now been returned to our cliff sides. As a result, the long-term survival of this north Walian plant species is now looking promising. Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating all involved?

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely will, and I intend to go through some other examples in our nations that we should also be celebrating.

We stand at a pivotal moment in history. We face a global biodiversity crisis where the fate of over 1 million species hangs in the balance due to human disruption and the destruction of habitats. There is simply no more time on the clock. The UK is one of the worst countries in the world for nature loss, with just 3% of our land and 8% of our seas sufficiently protected in nature terms. The 2023 “State of Nature” report makes worrying reading. It states that in the UK native species have on average declined by 19% since 1970 and that nearly one in six species are now threatened with extinction.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the debate; she is absolutely right to do so. Does she not agree that the protection of the species we have is vital and that we as a nation and, indeed, our Government have a greater role to play in the protection of native species in the UK, as well as more widely? We in this United Kingdom can play our part globally as well, which is highlighted by the World Species Congress.

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We cannot see any of those declines in isolation, because more than half of plant species have declined. Among the world’s worst-hit groups are pollinators such as bees and butterflies, falling by 18% on average. I am ashamed to say that this has left the UK with the lowest level of biodiversity among G7 countries.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the example that the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the zoos are setting has not been copied by the country’s largest landowner, the National Trust? The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has been complaining about this issue ever since I was elected 23 years ago, yet it is still failing on its reserves. Is it not time that we asked the people who complain about this to try a lot harder to achieve what they want the Government to do?

[Sarah Champion]

The hon. Gentleman is the expert on that, so I accept his argument. I say again that it is only if we all work together with no exceptions that we can make the difference. Of course, the largest landowners need to be pulling their weight, if not leading by example.

It is a relief that, in 2022, the UK joined 195 nations and committed to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. That framework includes a commitment, by 2030, to have threatened species recovering, genetic diversity being maintained, and human-wildlife conflict being managed. Despite those commitments, we are well behind in our efforts to reverse the harrowing decline of biodiversity. One thing is clear: we must do more to meet our international commitments, and that work must begin immediately.

First, I call on the Government to set more ambitious nature restoration and species recovering targets. The aim should be to provide the long-term certainty needed to drive action and investment in environmental restoration.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I do not disagree with her call for the targets to be more ambitious, but does she share my concerns that the Government are not on track for a single one of those targets that they did set? Before they start getting more ambitious, they need to show us that they have some kind of plan to actually achieve the targets they have set out so far.

[Sarah Champion]

Sadly, I agree. We want leadership, which I—and from what it sounds like, those on the Labour Front Bench—feel is lacking at the moment. As my hon. Friend rightly says, these targets should not just be our end goal; they are signposts that we can follow to get to the peak of ecological restoration and healthier habitats, which I think all of us want.

Of course, climate change is a key driver in nature’s decline, and the loss of wildlife and wild places both contribute to climate change itself, leaving us ill-equipped to reduce carbon emissions and to adapt to change in the future. We must therefore recognise that climate and biodiversity crises are intrinsically linked, and take comprehensive and joined-up approaches that tackle both the climate emergency and the nature crisis together. Only then will we start to turn the tide. We are falling behind, but there is hope. Organisations and charities across the country are working hard to recover species and restore nature. I am particularly pleased with the massive contribution that these organisations are making to reintroduce native species, rejuvenate ecosystems and rekindle hope for the future.

There are several exciting examples from across the UK, and I thank my colleagues, the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for raising two of them. Let me give some more. Take, for example, the Scottish wildcat in the Cairngorms national park. The population of these highland tigers has plummeted as a result of human-wildlife conflict and significant losses of native woodland, to the extent that they are now functionally extinct—that is to say, there is no longer a viable wild population for the future. Now, however, the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland have worked to breed and reintroduce this iconic species, the last surviving native cat in Britain, to the beautiful Scottish landscape.

In Wales, there has been impressive work to reintroduce the native pine marten by the Vincent Wildlife Trust, assisted by Chester zoo, helping to pull this species back from the brink. European pine marten populations have declined dramatically, and by the 20th century, they had mostly disappeared from their once-intensive habitats in the UK. I am pleased to say that not only have the pine martens been reintroduced to Wales, but they have also been successful in breeding a viable population that can create a new stronghold for the species and ensure its survival.

In Northern Ireland, Belfast zoo is working with partners to secure the long-term future of the increasingly rare red squirrel, which is threatened by the invasive grey squirrel. This breeding and reintroduction scheme has taken place for many years now, and is proving effective.

[Jim Shannon]

Near where I live, Rosemount, Ballywalter and Mount Stuart all have a red squirrel programme, so there are others outside the zoo doing that. On bees and pollinating, just again for the hon. Lady and for Hansard, the black bee used to be a very scarce and almost extinct species of bee in Northern Ireland, but is coming back through the efforts of Chris and Valentine Hodges, who live just down the road from me. They have black bee projects across a lot of estates, and even on my own farm. There is a lot being done not just by the zoos, but by individual people as well.

[Sarah Champion]

It also seems appropriate to mention the farmers who, without those pollinators, are really suffering. I am pleased that today the National Farmers Union is at the Farm to Fork summit, and I hope the Government listen to it.

Finally, in England the Wildwood Trust has worked to reintroduce bison into Blean woods near Canterbury. Remarkably, those are the first bison to roam freely in the UK in thousands of years. They will help to reshape the landscape to make the area more resilient to climate change, and reverse species decline through the natural management of woodlands. Paignton zoo and the National Marine Aquarium have collectively restored acres of seagrass to our coastline, creating vital carbon sinks as well as homes for species such as seahorses.

This is not just in the UK. The UK’s overseas territories have 94% of our unique native wild species, and 11% of those are threatened with global extinction. Zoos are also working to recover species. In Dominica and Monserrat, for example, a consortium of zoos, including Chester zoo and the Zoological Society of London, is helping bring back the mountain chicken frog, one of the world’s largest frogs, often weighing up to a kilo. They are called that because they taste like chicken, which has been one of the problems. The frog has been almost wiped out by over-hunting and disease.

Despite the commendable efforts of these conservation powerhouses, the stark reality remains. The rate of species loss is accelerating at an alarming pace, but things are looking up for the mountain chicken frog and the population is back on—not on the menu but on the climb. Those shocking statistics serve as a sobering reminder of the magnitude of the crisis we face. According to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, species are disappearing at a rate a thousand times faster than the natural background rate. We may be witnessing the sixth mass extinction event in the Earth’s history. Despite that, it appears the Government do not have a realistic plan to recover species in the UK. Indeed, under the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs described species reintroduction as “not a priority” for the Government.

Although species reintroduction is just one part of the road we must take to protect the intricate web of life that sustains our planet, it is an important one, because conserving our remaining wildlife is not enough. We must also take action to support nature’s recovery, and I urge the Government to act accordingly. I hope that any future Labour Government would certainly work hard to ensure that the UK meets its 2030 targets.

Sir Charles, you may be aware that as part of the COP15 agreement, every country is now obliged to revise its plan, formerly called the national biodiversity strategy and action plan, to bring it in line with a new global framework. Conservation organisations up and down the country, including zoos and aquariums, are patiently waiting for the UK’s publication. There is real concern, however, that it will not include nearly enough ambition and urgency.

Will the Minister confirm that the UK’s plan will outdo expectations, and will not just be a rehash of old promises? Will it contain new plans to fill the gaps? Will the Minister also announce when it will be published? The publication of the NBSAP could be the perfect opportunity for the UK genuinely to show its global leadership credentials, with the whole of the UK working together to produce an ambitious and co-ordinated plan for nature. To do that the UK’s vibrant conservation sector of non-governmental organisations, which includes zoos and aquariums, must be fully engaged in formulating and executing this plan.

Will the Minister agree to take advantage of this fantastic opportunity to ensure that we really put nature on the road to recovery by 2030? The World Species Congress acts as a spotlight on the work needed to ensure that nature can thrive. I have already mentioned some of the successes that we are seeing in the UK. They are proof that it is possible, but we need a national effort. Nature cannot wait. Only immediate and decisive action will put us on the right path to restoring nature across our United Kingdom and further afield. We need help to accelerate species recovery and reverse the red, so I urge the Government to prioritise this existential issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the Minister, because I know she is truly dedicated to the topic and has done a huge amount to move it forward, but whenever I go into schools, biodiversity and climate change is the one topic that pupils want to know why we are not doing more on. When we look back on the contributions that have been made today, part of the problem is that the topic is so broad. There is deforestation, sustainability of fishing, the decimation of our wild birds, and better land and habitat management. One of the things I say to the schoolchildren is that until we get proper cross-departmental buy-in and collaboration, we are always going to be struggling, because we are dealing with symptoms in isolation. One particularly good example is marine protected areas. On 3 May, the Government rolled out another 70 oil licences, and a number of those directly hit our marine protected areas. I urge the Minister to try to get that cross-Government collaboration going.

I will end by paraphrasing my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who said that what we need is robust, ambitious and integrated programming when it comes to securing biodiversity in the UK and internationally. I really hope that this Government and future Governments take that on board and act with the urgency that we need. We do not have time to wait any more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the World Species Congress.

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

Sarah Champion Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Selaine Saxby]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that the Minister can provide guidance on that at the end of the debate.

The Bill will ban the import of puppies and kittens under six months and dogs and cats that are mutilated or heavily pregnant. It will also address the abuse of non-commercial rules that compromise animal welfare and biosecurity by making it more difficult and less profitable for traders to fraudulently import animals for sale under the disguise of owners travelling with their pets. The Bill also addresses the issue of commercial imports being disguised as non-commercial movements by amending the rules that govern the non-commercial movements of dogs, cats and ferrets into Great Britain from third countries.

The puppy trade has become a multimillion-pound, transnational industry, with UK sales of up to 2 million puppies annually and a value of £3 billion. However, 50% of the industry is either illegal or unlicensed and off the enforcement radar. Of that, half originates from animals coming from outside the UK.

According to the Animal and Plant Health Agency, in 2023, more than 500 landings of dogs and cats were intercepted at the port of Dover and found to be non- compliant with import requirements. Of those, 116 puppies and kittens were quarantined for being below the legally required minimum age for import. That data does not include animals detained at airports or found inland. We cannot know the true extent of puppy smuggling operations, so those figures likely capture only a small proportion of the animals smuggled into the country.

Ferrets are included in the Bill, because dogs, cats and ferrets are in the same category for rabies risk. I have not had strong representations from the ferret community, but I would like to mention on the record the ferret of the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who was the Minister for the original Bill. Her gorgeous ferret, Roulette, is no longer with us, but I know that the now Attorney General has previously ensured that references to many of her much-loved pets are recorded in this place, and I am delighted to remember Roulette today.

While not many ferrets have made my inbox, I have done much to support the work of our fantastic animal welfare charities on puppy and kitten smuggling, so I will focus on their travel arrangements. Pet animals can be brought into the UK from EU member states through two different schemes. One is for the travel of owners with pets and the other is for the commercial import of pet animals. Under the EU pet travel scheme, or PETS, vaccinated and microchipped dogs, cats and ferrets are allowed to travel between EU countries for non-commercial reasons, as long as they have a pet passport and have complied with all the requirements of the scheme, which include a rabies vaccination.

The current pet travel scheme is designed to allow a maximum of five pets to travel with their owner rather than for the commercial movement of animals intended for sale as pets. Under the scheme, pet owners must fill in a declaration confirming that they will not sell or transfer the ownership of the pet. An approved transport company must be used for the travel of the pets, unless travelling between the UK and Ireland, where a private boat or plane can be used.

Although I understand that the pet travel scheme was created to make it easy for owners to take their family pets on holiday with them, the system has been abused by unscrupulous traders. Traders have taken advantage of the scheme’s simple set-up to illegally import thousands of puppies for sale, making a huge profit at the cost of welfare. The most common method of attempting to smuggle puppies into Great Britain is by bringing them in under the pet travel scheme when they are, in fact, being imported for commercial sale and should instead be subject to the requirements of the Balai directive and the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011.

Most of all, I highlight the great work that the pet charities have done to raise this issue. Dogs Trust exposed the cruel puppy smuggling trade in 2014 and has been pushing for changes to the law to help stop it ever since. The Dogs Trust puppy pilot scheme was set up in 2015 to aid the interception of illegally imported puppies by APHA at the ports and to provide care and rehabilitation for them until they find loving new homes. Since then, it has cared for more than 2,000 puppies.

As part of the Dogs Trust puppy smuggling taskforce, I first experienced the documentary and identity checks that currently operate at the border. I saw for myself the tactics that smugglers employ to avoid detection. I thank Dogs Trust for all its hard work in campaigning on this issue and for working with me on the Bill’s progress, through the roundtable and the event this Wednesday to discuss their recent “Tragic Tales and the Decade of Delay” campaign, which featured four real-life case studies of dogs who have been helped by the puppy pilot. Special thanks goes to my local Dogs Trust site in North Devon between Ilfracombe and Braunton, which does exceptional work to rehome dogs locally.

I also thank the RSPCA for its work on this issue and for its #ForPupsSake campaign, especially during the pandemic when interest in getting a puppy sky-rocketed. The campaign called for a stop to illegal puppy imports and highlighted how smuggled puppies can cost the owner more than they think. On behalf of the fluffy, furry kittens, I would like to thank Cats Protection, which published its 2023 “Cats and their Stats” survey. It found that 3% of the cats obtained in the 12 months preceding the survey were from abroad, equating to 50,000 cats. It is unclear what conditions those cats were subjected to during travel.

There have been significant changes in the cat market in the past five years, with a big rise in pure bred and pedigree cats. Of the cats obtained in the past 12 months, 42% were pedigree and pure bred cats, compared with 17% five years ago. It is likely that many of the imported cats are pedigree. Having had a cat while I was living overseas, I know that cats are extremely stressed by transportation over long distances, which in turn can supress their immune systems so that their risk of infectious disease and other stress-related illness is markedly increased by importation.

Vet charities, such as the British Veterinary Association, have also raised directly with me the significant threat posed to biosecurity by the large number of smuggled puppies entering the UK. Although it is not in scope of the Bill, I hope that raising the issue is a first step and that the Department will take forward those concerns. Other charities, such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, FOUR PAWS and the Kennel Club, have all done invaluable work to campaign on the issue. I thank them all today.

Moving on to the Bill and the measures that will be enacted through primary legislation, clause 4 will reduce the number of animals that can travel under non-commercial rules from five per person to five per vehicle, or three per foot or air passenger. The charities would have preferred three animals per vehicle, as their research shows that over 97% of pet owners have three or fewer dogs. However, the reduction is a significant and welcome step to tackle the illegal smuggling of pets. The non-commercial rules are intended to make it easier for genuine pet owners to travel. Unscrupulous traders fraudulently claim ownership of several pets that they are actually importing for sale. They do that because the requirements for owners travelling with pets are less stringent. The Bill reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be brought into Great Britain non-commercially. Reducing that number is proportionate and takes into consideration other pets owned by the household that may also travel.

Article 5A in clause 4(5) ensures that when a non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret is carried out by an authorised person, it may only take place within five days of the movement of the owner. There is evidence that the ability for a pet to travel with an authorised person under the non-commercial rules is being used as a loophole to bring in animals that should be moved under the commercial import regime, and therefore subject to more stringent requirements for sale or transfer of ownership. The new measures will ensure that pets are moved under the owner’s direct responsibility or, where the pet animal cannot be moved at the same time as the owner, under the responsibility of a person authorised by the owner and within five days of the movement of the owner. An authorised person is one who has authorisation in writing from the owner to carry out the non-commercial movement of the pet animal on their behalf. This will also ensure that only an owner of a pet can sign a declaration that a movement is non-commercial. This will stop non-commercial routes being used as a loophole by traders. Movements that are not within five days will require the dog, cat or ferret to be brought in as a commercial import, rather than a non-commercial movement.

On the measures to be enacted through secondary legislation, the Bill contains an enabling power to make regulations on the bringing of dogs, cats or ferrets into the United Kingdom for the purpose of promoting their welfare. The first regulations that can be made in relation to dogs and cats in Great Britain under that enabling power have been outlined on the face of the Bill to provide reassurance of the Government’s intention to lay the measures through secondary legislation. The enabling powers provide the opportunity for the Government to gather further evidence and discuss the proposals with stakeholders and the public in order to develop the new restrictions effectively. The powers will enable the Government to tackle low welfare imports dynamically. They will allow us the flexibility to address known issues quickly, but also act to close down emerging practices, including those attempting to circumvent previous restrictions.

The Government will use that power alongside the other powers in the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) to clause 1 introduce prohibitions that restrict the commercial import and non-commercial movement into Great Britain of puppies and kittens under six months. We are still seeing high volumes of smuggled puppies—dogs under six months which do not comply with current animal health rules and are landed in Great Britain for the purpose of commercial sale—as well as other low-welfare movements and imports of pet animals.

I understand the Kennel Club’s concerns about genetic diversity and rescue dogs that are brought into the country at the age of four months. However, the need for a six-month minimum age is due to the practicalities of identifying the age of a dog or a cat that can come into the UK: at six months old, the majority of puppies and kittens will have a full set of permanent incisors, canines and premolars, and can therefore be aged more accurately. The measure will enable the identification of puppies and kittens that are being moved at young ages and are thus at risk of low welfare.

The prohibition is intended to prevent the import of under-age puppies and kittens by increasing the minimum age from 15 weeks to six months. To illustrate the importance of that, I want to talk about Bruce, who is available after today’s sitting for photos in room W3, if you would like to meet him, Mr Speaker. Bruce highlights the need for a change to the minimum age. He is a French bulldog who was seized at the border at just 10 weeks old alongside three of his siblings, who had all endured a journey in cramped and squalid conditions over thousands of miles from Bulgaria in 2018. Ten weeks is well under the 15 weeks that puppies must have reached to legally enter the UK.

Bruce and his siblings were found in a poor condition, infested with worms and severely underweight. All four of the dogs weighed roughly 2.8 kg, which is half the expected weight of French bulldogs of their age. Their passports were faked, with at least three claiming that the dogs had been wormed before they were even born. The dishonest traders claimed that Bruce and his siblings were all their own pets. Upon seizure, however, Dogs Trust staff were able to find evidence of all four dogs being advertised for sale online. Fortunately for Bruce, the Dogs Trust was able to take him in and care for him until he could find his forever home. Bruce has now been rehomed responsibly through the Dogs Trust. He is a very cute French bulldog.

Some of these dogs are bred for fashion, and the Kennel Club, along with other animal charities and vets, has highlighted the health and welfare issues that can be associated with such breeds. Although the issues of breathing and flat-faced dogs are about genetic mutilation and are therefore not in scope of the Bill, I would like to highlight the need still to safeguard dogs of this type that are already in the country. We must look at what else we can do to help with genetic mutilations, which cause our pets to suffer.

Last week, it was reassuring to hear about Crufts’s respiratory function grading—RFG—scheme for brachycephalic dogs, such as French bulldogs, pugs and bulldogs. It was great to meet Dr Jane Ludlow, the vet who has devised the scheme, which assesses dogs with a stethoscope. The dog exercises for three minutes, and the process is then repeated. We saw at first hand that the test is quick and straightforward, and it assigns an RFG rating to each dog. Those with the lowest grades should not breed.

Far too many flat-faced dogs have brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, known as BOAS, which can chronically impair the ability of the dog to breathe normally and carry out everyday tasks. All the dogs at Crufts had the option of being tested, which becomes compulsory next year, and all those that win are tested to ensure that the breed retains high health standards. I hope that my highlighting this issue today will ensure that more potential pet owners ask questions about the health of the parents of their future pet.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am really glad that the hon. Lady has brought up this issue. I do not know whether she has seen the number of brachycephalic dogs that are going to Battersea because pet owners cannot afford to have the operation. The charity has seen an exponential rise in these dogs being dumped. Does she agree that much more needs to be done?

[Selaine Saxby]

I have indeed been to Battersea, which is what really triggered much of my interest in this particular area. Like the hon. Lady, I was deeply shocked by what I saw, which is why it was such a relief to see the new system come into effect at Crufts. It gives people the opportunity to find out whether their dogs are unwell—ideally, before they have been adopted as puppies.

Cats Protection has highlighted the issue of under-age kitten smuggling. Nala was smuggled illegally into the country when she was around eight weeks old. She had been with her owners for eight days when they brought her into the UK from Germany without a pet passport and appropriate vaccinations. They became concerned for her health and took her to a vet, who realised that she had arrived without meeting the requirements of the pet travel scheme and reported the matter to trading standards. The pet travel scheme—PETS—allows pet cats, dogs and ferrets to enter the UK without quarantine as long as they are microchipped, have a pet passport and a rabies vaccination, and have waited 21 days after the vaccination before travelling.

In addition to breaking the terms of PETS and been facing prosecution, Nala’s owners were also unable to pay for the costs of seven weeks of quarantine, which came to £1,500, so they signed her over to feline welfare charity Cats Protection. It ensured that the tiny cat was appropriately quarantined and received vet care before being taken into its Ferndown adoption centre. Despite being removed from her mother at about seven weeks old, a week earlier than is advised, Nala was a lively, energetic kitten, and a suitable home was found for her.

Clauses 1(3)(b) and 1(4)(b) introduce prohibitions that restrict the commercial import and non-commercial movement into Great Britain of heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those that are more than 42 days pregnant. There is an emerging trend in the import of pregnant dogs, but there is a strong consensus to tackle that, with Dogs Trust polling showing 79% support for a ban on the import of heavily pregnant dogs. The prohibition in the Bill is intended to ensure the welfare of pregnant dogs and cats by lowering the gestation limit to prohibit the movement into Great Britain from a third country of dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant—and so within the final third of the gestation. That aligns with clear markers in pregnancy, and therefore pregnant dogs and cats under that limit can be more easily identified. In addition, we expect that traders will respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. This measure is needed to prevent that anticipated increase in imports of low-welfare dogs and cats from producers with unacceptable welfare standards.

The tragic case of Snowy, the heavily pregnant bichon Maltese, shows how important this measure is in this Bill. Snowy was seized at the port of Dover in May 2023, after being illegally transported into the UK. Before she was intercepted, Snowy had travelled to the UK from an EU country. Snowy was 56 days pregnant when she was seized—in the final 10% of her pregnancy, when it is illegal to transport dogs. Just days after she was seized, and despite her ordeal, Snowy gave birth to four healthy puppies. Snowy and her puppies have all now been responsibly rehomed through the Dogs Trust. The disturbing trend of transporting heavily pregnant dogs into the country in the later stages of pregnancy causes significant suffering and health implications to both mum and puppies. Not only will importing one dog attract less suspicion at the border, but as responsible buyers will ask to see the puppies with their mother, this tactic allows criminals to give the impression of being legitimate breeders, and thus avoid being reported to trading standards.

Clauses 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) introduce prohibitions that restrict the commercial import and non-commercial movement into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations, for example, dogs with cropped ears or docked tails, and declawed cats. From my previous meetings with pet charities, I know there is a clear consensus among the charities about a ban on dogs and cats with cropped ears and declawed cats, and I am delighted that it has been taken forward. The intended approach to the prohibition of mutilated animals is set out in further detail in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation “Commercial and Non-Commercial Movements of Pets into Great Britain”. The summary of responses and the Government response to that consultation are due to be published in due course, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the consultation response.

The ban on cropped ears mutilations would have helped six-year-old Maisie, who came into RSPCA care in October 2023 due to welfare concerns. She was incredibly malnourished and underweight. She is a sweet and gentle girl who absolutely loves playing with a football, chasing tennis balls and eating sausages. She arrived in RSPCA care with a docked tail and cropped ears. She has a passport from overseas, so the RSPCA believes she was imported having already been cropped and docked. Unfortunately, it is not just dogs that are mutilated. Many kittens are subjected to declawing, an extremely painful and distressing procedure that prevents cats from exhibiting normal scratching behaviour, and is the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip at the first knuckle. Although it is already illegal for cats to be declawed in the UK. Cats Protection, the RSPCA and Battersea have been campaigning hard to ensure that cats with this mutilation are included in the Bill and banned from importation. That is both to deter any market or interest in declawed cats, and to keep in line with ensuring that the highest standards of cat welfare are consistently maintained in the UK. The PDSA “Animal Wellbeing Report 2022” states that

“alarmingly, 5% of cat owners who got their cat from abroad, equating to 31,000 cats, told us that they chose to get their pet from abroad because they wanted them to be declawed.”

Clause 1(2)(b) delivers relevant exemptions to the prohibitions, for example, for recognised assistance dogs or military or service working animals. The enforcement measures and exemptions for the Bill will be delivered through secondary legislation. As with the exemptions, delivering the enforcement measures through secondary legislation will enable us to work closely with enforcement bodies to develop guidance and ensure they have the correct tools to deliver these measures effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It is a privilege and an honour to speak in this vital debate. I declare my strong personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I strongly support the Bill.

I have had to frantically rewrite the introduction to my speech, having heard my colleagues name-check their pets. I know that my two lovely dogs, Poppy and Juno, are following the debate closely, so I now have to name-check them. They would never forgive me if I did not, and I am sure that they would punish me by rolling in something unspeakable.

We are a nation of animal lovers. Animals provide us with so much companionship, and help our physical and mental wellbeing. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for driving forward this important Bill and colleagues across the House for supporting this important area of legislation over many years. I also commend many charities, institutions and organisations. The British Veterinary Association, Dogs Trust—I mention specifically Paula Boyden, its veterinary director, who has done so much work on this issue—Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea, the RSPCA, Four Paws, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and the veterinary surgeon Marc Abraham have done so much on this issue.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has taken a close interest in this area for many years, and we have run various inquiries in recent years. One was about moving animals across borders, and we have a current inquiry on pet welfare and abuse, which deals with a lot of the issues that we are discussing today. We had an emergency special session this week on issues facing the veterinary sector, and we looked at biosecurity and animal welfare as well.

I welcome the fact that this Bill is about dogs, cats and ferrets, because it is important that we encompass all those animals. I also welcome the fact that the Bill will increase the minimum age on importation to six months. I note that some measures are not in the Bill, but also that we want to get this legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that the Government will bring in secondary legislation to add things as and when necessary. We need to keep the option open for future secondary legislation to include things such as reinstating the rabies titer checks and increasing the post-rabies vaccination wait time to 12 weeks. Such measures would help to reinforce the increase in the minimum age to six months.

I hugely welcome the change to the policy on heavily pregnant animals. On the EFRA Committee over the last few years, we have taken harrowing evidence of the awful trade in heavily pregnant animals being shipped into this country to give birth and then shipped back out again, sometimes with fresh suture wounds. It has been awful and harrowing to hear that evidence. Since 2019, Dogs Trust has taken in 168 pregnant dogs that have been transported. Currently, it is not permitted to transport dogs and cats in the last 10% of pregnancy. It is difficult to assess when that is, so including the last third of pregnancy in the ban is a very important step.

We need to keep a watching brief on whether unscrupulous traders are flipping between the non-commercial and commercial movement of animals, and whether we need to act on the commercial importation of pregnant animals as well. We have taken evidence showing that there are bad people shipping animals in. Over recent years, these unscrupulous traders have been switching between commercial and non-commercial movement, and when the authorities move one way, they move the other. We need to keep a watching brief on this.

I welcome that clause 4 states that a movement is not non-commercial if there are more than five animals per vehicle. That is very important. Many institutions and charities wanted the figure to be three per vehicle, but five per vehicle is an awful lot better than 20 per vehicle, because people were picking up passengers and saying, “These pets are with these passengers on board.” The five animals per vehicle rule will be a game changer.

It appears to me that clause 5 will allow Ministers to bring in secondary legislation, so we do need to keep a watching brief and to allow secondary legislation. When previous laws have come in, unscrupulous people have found loopholes that were not predicted by the legislators drawing them up, so we need to be able to act to close the loopholes.

There has been a lot of discussion today about the mutilation of dogs and cats, and the Bill will do much to tackle that. To be clear, ear cropping is an absolutely horrific practice that has no role in a civilised society. There is no medical or clinical benefit to the animal in having its ears cropped. As has been discussed, a lot of this is about how the dog looks—it makes them look more formidable or ferocious. There has been an upsurge in the prevalence of dogs with cropped ears; when we are walking around, we see these dogs now.

The Select Committee has also taken harrowing evidence on this practice. It is illegal in this country to crop a dog’s ears, but we have evidence that it has been taking place here. People are doing it in horrific circumstances, potentially in their back garden sheds. Looking online, we see that the situation is horrific; there are online ear cropping kits. We need to stamp that out as well. This law is important and it will help address that; it will close the loophole.

We must look at popular culture as well, including popular animated films. One of my favourite films that I watched with my children was the Disney Pixar film “Up”, which we all absolutely love, but if you look closely at the dogs in that film, you will see that many of them are cropped. If people are going to the cinema with their kids and seeing this on the big screen, it looks normal, and that is wrong. In the last couple of years, there was another hugely successful animated film, the “Super-Pets” movie. Again, the lead character was an ear-cropped dog. Many people in our country who love their animals do not realise that ear cropping is not normal and want their dogs to look like that. Unfortunately, there is a popular and celebrity culture as well. We need to educate people that these dogs have been horrifically mutilated. The Bill will close that loophole.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon raised the important issue of brachycephalic dogs: dogs with very short faces that have real difficulty breathing. That is so important, because they are lovely and wonderful dogs but they have a lot of clinical difficulties. We need to do work to make sure that in the future breeding of these dogs, their noses become longer again so that they can breathe more easily. Again, this appears in popular culture and in the advertising of products. I will not name them, but a lot of major products use images of brachycephalic dogs in their advertising. We need to be very cautious about that.

[Sarah Champion]

May I draw the hon. Gentleman back to his previous profession? When a vet sees a dog that is unsuitable for breeding, does the hon. Gentleman think that the vet, instead of facilitating the breeding process, has a responsibility to say, “No, we’re not letting this go forward”?

[Dr Hudson]

I can give the hon. Lady a categorical reassurance that the veterinary profession is strongly looking at the issue very closely. It also has a role in educating the pet-owning public about where to source their dogs responsibly and to ensure that those dogs have a good and happy life. But yes, the veterinary profession is looking at this closely. What comes into frame with ear-cropped dogs is an upsurge in the past few years of unregulated canine fertility clinics, where acts of veterinary surgery are being performed by people who are not qualified. In future, we need to ensure that we strongly clamp down on those practices as well.

I am absolutely delighted that the Bill includes cats. The mutilations include those cats that have been horrifically declawed. There is no benefit to the cat in being declawed. The Bill will help an awful lot of cats.

In future, we need to look at whether secondary legislation is needed. We will ban the import of ear-cropped dogs, but we need to think, too, about banning the onward sale of those dogs in this country. However, I hope that the Bill will stop the importation, so that that may not be necessary. Again, we need to keep a watching brief.

Many colleagues today have talked about diseases. The importation of animals presents a risk to not only animals in this country, but people. One major disease that we are concerned about is canine brucellosis, caused by Brucella canis. There were 143 positive cases in dogs from 2020 to 2022 and 160 positive cases in 2023. There have been two laboratory-confirmed cases in people. This is a disease—zoonosis—that can be transmitted from dogs to people.

The Bill will ban the importation of heavily pregnant dogs. One of the main exposures to brucellosis is when a pregnant dog comes into the country and whelps here—the birthing fluids are a potential risk for people. Vets, nurses and practitioners on the frontline are at risk, as are owners. As I said, two people in this country have contracted the disease.

Brucellosis is an unpleasant disease for the dog. Treatment is not recommended; the prognosis is poor and often euthanasia is recommended. It is also an unpleasant illness in people, especially in vulnerable and immuno-compromised people. It is a salient point to make that we need to be cognisant that laws like this will help the situation, because we have seen an increase of dogs coming in that have such diseases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

This Bill is deeply welcome and I particularly support the measures to prevent pet smuggling, although I fail to understand why the Government pulled the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and instead are using precious private Members’ Bills to pass the same necessary legislation.

The puppy trade has become worth up to £3 billion in the UK with the sale of up to 2 million puppies annually, and as much as 50% of the industry is illegal or unlicensed. I also want to speak on the issue of cat and kitten smuggling; I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) but I will not be talking about ferrets in this part of the speech. I strongly believe that cats and kittens must be given parity with dogs from the outset in any new legislation.

Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlights that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. The charity says that it is unclear whether any health and welfare checks were done on those cats or what conditions they were subjected to during travel, meaning that some may have arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health or carrying infectious diseases that they could pass on to other cats. Many felines also become very stressed during long journeys, leading to related illnesses such as cystitis.

Cats Protection believes there is a heightened risk of kitten smuggling due to the increasing popularity of high-value pedigree breeds, which can be sold for thousands of pounds, and this demand is rising. According to its report, there has been a significant rise in pure breed and pedigree cats; 42% of the cats obtained in the last 12 months were pedigree or purebred, compared with 17% more than five years ago. Higher prices and increasing demand make these cats an attractive target for illegal importation by those wishing to make a quick profit.

I add at this point, both to Members and to everybody listening, that our rescue cats need homes. Many have said that I am a she-cat, and I am mother to Stanley, who came from Cat-CHING, a Rotherham and Sheffield charity, and to Mia Cat and Sue from Cats Protection. Rescue cats are fantastic pets and they need our support; owners do not need to spend a fortune on them and they get the support of the charity.

Let me change the tone and speak about the horrific mutilation of declawing cats. The kept animals Bill included positive steps to limit the importation of dogs with mutilations including ear cropping, but, concerningly, cats with mutilations were not included in the proposals. The most notable omission was the vile declawing procedure, which is extremely painful and distressing and prevents cats from exhibiting normal scratching behaviour. It is basically the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip at the first knuckle, and it is already illegal in the UK. I therefore give credit to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), as her Bill prohibits the importation of dogs and cats who have been mutilated.

I strongly support the Bill, as I believe that it will go a long way to protect our beloved dogs and cats from pet smugglers looking to exploit them for profit. I commend the hon. Member for her commitment to that cause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am very glad to hear that, because it certainly gives her a better chance of making sure the Government do not go soft or slack when it comes to doing the necessary things to ensure the Bill ends up on the statute book. She would be congratulated by many from across the House if she managed that. Obviously, the regulations will have to be written and consulted on. The Bill has to go through the Committee and Report stages in this House. There is a concertina effect on when private Members’ Bill Fridays are coming up, so she will have to get the Bill through Committee fast. That would be my other little bit of advice: there is a queue of Bills ahead of her that have passed Second Reading, so she needs to keep pushing in the right direction.

The Bill takes up some of the provisions that were in the more comprehensive Bill that, as I recall, the Government withdrew in 2023. They have been trying to legislate on this issue since the 2019 election, when it was in their manifesto, so I think it is a good thing that the hon. Lady is bringing forward these provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said, there is a little extra detail in this Bill than was apparent in the original legislation. That is also a good thing. It is not correct, as is the modern fashion in legislative drafting, to leave everything to the regulations; sometimes it is a good idea to have the provisions in primary legislation. That might make me a bit old fashioned, but I do think that there is something to be said for it. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on getting a few more details on precisely what is going to be done into primary legislation. That holds to the feet of whatever Government are then trying to implement the legislation to the fire, and there is something to be said for that.

The change in the law that the hon. Lady is seeking to make is good in respect of dogs and cats, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Currently, the lower age limit to import a dog or cat is 15 weeks. Pregnant dogs and cats may be imported—as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who has extra knowledge of these things, mentioned— until the last 10% of their pregnancy. Up to five dogs or cats can be imported per person, and the owner can authorise somebody else to travel for them. The changes that are being made to those limits can only be entirely good, for the reasons that have been made by other Members during the course of this debate and that I will not repeat.

Ferrets are included in the short title of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Devon was kind enough to respond to me when I intervened on her, saying that the reason that ferrets had been included is that they can get rabies, so there is something desirable to be said about controlling the import of ferrets. That, for me, is a good enough reason to include them in the short title of the Bill, but I have noticed that we do not seem to have had a lot of representations about ferrets, or examples of the abuse of ferrets in the way that we have in respect of dogs and cats. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, can let us know whether ferrets are there purely as a rabies control measure, or whether there is evidence that there is abuse in the importation of ferrets? I do not have a wide knowledge of that, so I would be interested to know whether the issues facing ferrets are similar to those of dogs and cats, or whether the fact that they are in the short title of the Bill is simply to do with disease control. To my mind, that is a good enough reason, but I wonder whether there should be further provisions on the safety of ferrets that are not set out in the regulations so far. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Sarah Champion]

I am interested that my right hon. Friend is keenly mentioning ferrets at every opportunity that she can in this debate, so let me just put it on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend now has that on the record. I do not really know what else to say about that, except that I am sure that Oscar brought her brother great joy. That is what pets do. I am sure there are many other ferret owners who might attest to the same thing. My interest in ferrets is purely because they are in the short title of the Bill, yet there does not seem to be any evidence that there is abuse. That is why I keep raising the issue of ferrets. I am sure the Minister will be able to enlighten us when he comes to reply.

The other issue that I particularly wanted to raise—I have raised it a number of times in my interventions—is that this legislation has been taken in part from the old, comprehensive legislation, but there are no provisions in the Bill about penalties. It is all very well for us all to object to the cruel and appalling way in which animals have been abused and treated in great numbers by those seeking to make profit out of their misery, but the only way we can make sure that that ceases is by having good, effective enforcement and by ensuring that those who seek to profit in this way are made an example of through the courts.

I know that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the sentences for animal cruelty from a maximum of six months to five years, but it is not totally apparent to me—the Minister might be able to enlighten us, if he is listening—whether that Act provides the enforcement and penalty regime for this Bill. Will breaches of this legislation be punished through the provision of that Act, or is that to be done by some other regime of punishment and penalty somewhere else? Obviously, in a comprehensive Bill the penalties would probably be included with all the provisions. Given that the Government, with the help of the hon. Member for North Devon, have chosen to slice and dice their approach to animal welfare legislation and bring forward separate Bills, I hope the Minister will be able to explain where the penalties are written and what they will be. Are they being increased? Can they be increased by regulation? What penalties and punishments might he expect those who fall foul of this improved legislation to meet if they continue in their nefarious activities?

That brings me to the other point I wish to raise, which is about enforcement. I have raised this in a number of interventions during the debate, and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border had something to say about it too. Having the law on the statute book is a good first step, but it does not stop abuse of the law—it is enforcement that does that. So will the hon. Member for North Devon or the Minister say something about enforcement? Since the 2021 Act increased the maximum penalties for animal abuse, has the number of prosecutions increased? Have people gone to jail? Have they gone to jail for more than six months, which was the previous maximum term? This is a lucrative trade and those who smuggle puppies can make hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the enforcement, penalty and punishment regime needs to match the scale of that potential profit. If it does not, the law will sit there and not work in the way in which its supporters in this House, who come from across the Chamber, wish it to work.

I welcome the Bill very much. I congratulate the hon. Lady on choosing it, when she fortuitously came up in the ballot in the way in which she did. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure its supporters from around the Chamber—very many of us have spoken in support today—about precisely what will happen on enforcement and what the penalty and punishment regime will be. It is all very well getting the law right, but if we do not then enforce it by catching the perpetrators and pursuing them through the law to the maximum available opportunity, these lucrative trades will continue and we will still have problems with animal welfare in this country.

That having been said, let me finish by congratulating the hon. Lady on bringing forward this piece of legislation. She said she is tenacious and she will have to be to get all this done before the Prime Minister calls a general election. I know that she will stick at it, and let us hope that we will then be able to get this Bill on to the statute book and do some of the good that it purports to want to do. This will work only if the Government can reassure us that they are going to get on with the regulations and get this working as soon as possible. They have spent the whole of this Parliament saying that they are going to do this without managing to do it yet. Perhaps, at the end of this Parliament, the Minister will be able to stand up and say that he actually managed to do this and got it right to where it needs to be, and perhaps he will be able to reassure us about enforcement and punishment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for any crime, let alone these particular vile and heinous crimes, is essential to deter others who want to profit from the same exploitation of animals and people that we see in this vile trade in puppy and kitten smuggling. Nobody wants to see that, but we could have had more focus on this, and sanctions, had the Government pursued the original legislation, rather than delaying it and then supporting it coming back—in part at least—as a private Member’s Bill.

The circumstances in which animals are bred are also changing. A growing number of puppies are bred not only in vast, industrial-scale puppy farms, but in sheds, repurposed smallholdings, urban tower blocks and warehouses. We have seen images of these poor, desperate creatures tied up, often left shivering in the freezing cold, in filthy cages, covered in their own excrement, and sometimes reduced to eating their own excrement. It is distressing beyond words to see any of these images and videos, so thank goodness we have this Bill before us today. But what a crying shame it is that the Government have done so little about this vile trade until now and then abandoned the original legislation that could have brought in measures far sooner to save countless defenceless animals from abuse by the most unscrupulous traders and criminal gangs.

The RSPCA is the world’s oldest and largest animal welfare charity, founded here in England in 1824. It has been at the forefront of raising public awareness and concern about puppy smuggling. I pay tribute to the RSPCA for its many years of campaigning on this and so many other animal welfare issues. The RSPCA has highlighted that many dogs smuggled into this country to be sold on the underground puppy market have long-term health problems, as well as behavioural issues because of their breeding and negative experiences early in life.

We are talking about puppies like Dobby, a 19-month-old French bulldog who was taken in by the RSPCA’s Mount Noddy animal centre in West Sussex. Dobby, who had been trafficked into the UK from Lithuania, was plagued with severe and painful health problems, which eventually required significant surgery. The RSPCA points out that importing sick puppies with zoonotic diseases into the UK not only poses a risk to public health, but can lead to the very sad outcome of the animal needing to be euthanised after enduring a short, wretched life of pain and suffering.

What about mutilation, which has been by hon. Members across the Chamber? Mutilation includes horrific acts of cruelty, such as tail docking, ear cropping and the declawing of cats. Ear cropping has been illegal for over 20 years in England and Wales—thank goodness—but the RSPCA reports a 1,243% increase in incidents of ear cropping in dogs between 2015 and 2021. That is such a staggering figure it is worth repeating—a 1,243% increase in incidents of ear cropping in dogs. How despicable! No wonder so many animal rights campaign groups have been pleading with the Government for so many years to bring forward measures to curb this cruel trade.

The RSPCA tells us that the current loopholes in the law that permit the importing of dogs with cropped ears offer a defence in court for those responsible for illegal ear cropping here in the United Kingdom. That helps them to avoid prosecution for abuses of dogs that were made illegal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Dog lovers across the United Kingdom are desperate for this horrific practice to be stopped once and for all.

Kitten smuggling raises further welfare concerns that I suspect will distress Members across the House. Cats Protection is the UK’s largest cat welfare charity. It provides administrative support to the all-party parliamentary group on cats, which I was proud to co-chair for many years before I was appointed to the shadow Cabinet by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The charity has produced a most helpful briefing paper on the Bill before us. It notes that its 2023 survey found that 3% of cats purchased in the United Kingdom over the previous 12 months had been sourced from abroad. We have no idea what conditions those cats or kittens were subject to during travel, but the long journeys they are forced to endure can cause them significant pain, fear and distress. That is not something anyone would wish to impose on a beloved family pet, or indeed on any animal, where it can be avoided.

The Bill is an important opportunity to prevent so much needless suffering. The Bill will crack down on puppy and kitten smuggling by closing loopholes in the law that have been mercilessly exploited by dishonest and criminal commercial traders. The Bill reduces the number of animals that may enter Great Britain in a motor vehicle during a single non-commercial journey to five. That will help stop smugglers who pretend larger cargos of animals are their own pets, when in reality they are intended for sale in this country. For similar reasons, the Bill reduces the number of animals that can be brought into the country by means other than a motor vehicle to just three. That will be of huge benefit in reducing the level of kitten and puppy smuggling into the United Kingdom.

The RSCPA has found criminal gangs using routes like this to smuggle animals into the country. The gangs then hire short-let properties, such as Airbnbs, to trick buyers into believing their puppy or kitten comes from a good home and has been well cared for by the animal’s mother. The animal’s new owners are incredibly distressed when they find out that their new pet may have a serious illness, an infection or behavioural problems caused by being removed from its mother far too young. It can even cost the new owners thousands of pounds in vet bills as they try to care for their animal. Of course, in many cases, the animal dies.

[Sarah Champion]

On that point, I have had a constituent get in touch with me because they went to get a dog—they thought it was a legitimate one—but when they got it home they found it had many complications. However, the children had already bonded with it, so they ended up having to take out a loan to cover all the vets’ fees. Surely more needs to be done to prosecute those people who are causing so much cost to the pet owners, who are innocent victims.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Through that example, she makes the most compelling case for why the Bill is necessary and why it should be brought in as soon as possible. Families who go out to buy a family pet are aghast, appalled and distressed when they get home and find out that that animal is not the healthy, well cared-for pet they thought they were buying, but has been subject to abuse. The animal may have behavioural or health problems that cost them thousands of pounds. It is simply unfair.

The Bill gives the authorities in different parts of the United Kingdom—including those with devolved Governments—the power to prohibit or restrict the transport of dogs, cats or ferrets into the UK for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the imported animals, since that, too, has often been used as cover for the illegal importation of ill-treated or sick animals for sale as pets. The Bill requires regulations to be made covering England, Scotland and Wales to prohibit the importing of dogs or cats that are below the age of six months, are more than 42 days pregnant, or have been mutilated through declawing, ear cropping, tail docking or other such methods. These are extremely important measures that will give a significant boost to animal welfare.

There has been a huge increase in the importation of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, which have often been stolen from their loving owners in continental Europe and smuggled into the UK in the most appalling conditions. The criminal gangs’ intention is to sell the puppies or kittens as quickly as possible after they are born. They do not care that the animals may have been made sick by the conditions in which they were transported, or even if the animals are born prematurely as a result of trauma inflicted on the mother. It is purely and simply a criminal money-making operation that needs to be stopped as quickly as possible.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” in line 1 to the end of the Question and add:

“this House notes the Government’s statement on 25 May 2023 regarding the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill; and welcomes the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries’ commitment that the Government will be taking forward measures from the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill individually during the remainder of this Parliament, including on the keeping and licensing of primates, livestock worrying, export of livestock, pet theft and the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets.”

We are a nation of animal lovers. Animal welfare has been the priority of this Government since 2010. Internationally, our animal welfare standards are already top class—according to the World Animal Protection index, they are the best not just in the G7 but in the entire world. Our manifesto commitments demonstrate our ambition to go even further on animal welfare. To remind the House, we have already committed to bring in new laws on animal sentience, introduce tougher sentences for animal cruelty, and implement the Ivory Act 2018 and extend it to other species. We have ensured that animal welfare standards are not comprised in trade deals. We have cracked down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, and we will bring forward cat microchipping. We will ban the keeping of primates as pets and imports of hunting trophies and endangered species. We will ban the cruel live shipment of animals and ensure that, in return for funding, farmers safeguard high animal welfare standards.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. It had cross-party support. We would have got it over the line and saved the lives of thousands of animals.

[Trudy Harrison]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member understands that the measures in that Bill were important. I will set out later just how we will achieve each and every one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

My inbox is full of angry constituents who feel profoundly let down because the Government dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which could have addressed things such as puppy smuggling, live exports and pet theft, about which we all care deeply.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for zoos and aquariums and will focus on the Bill’s zoo licensing measures. On Second Reading, colleagues across party lines were clear that the Bill was the right thing to do. Indeed, the zoo sector fully supported the Bill. It disappoints me that the Minister has not yet detailed how these individual Bills will come forward. If she could speak about the timetable, it would give much reassurance.

Good zoos and aquariums have, for many years, been committed to raising standards of animal welfare and boosting their conservation work. They have been leading on this and we should be proud that, through the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, our zoos and safari parks adhere to world-leading welfare standards. They are also leading the world in their conservation and research.

I urge the Minister to visit ZSL Whipsnade to see creatures that are extinct in the wild. Entire species now rely on the zoo to survive and recolonise in the wild. Or she could go to Scotland, where she will see that Scottish wildcats bred at Highland Wildlife Park have returned to the Cairngorms. Or Plymouth, where she will see the National Marine Aquarium restoring sea grasses to our seas.

In 2022, BIAZA zoos and aquariums undertook 836 conservation projects around the world and spent £28 million on conservation. They supported 90 native species projects and worked on 1,339 research projects. Conservation is the backbone of all good zoos.

The Bill set out the most significant changes to zoo licensing since the 1980s, and the measures would have strengthened the conservation, education and research of all zoos and aquariums. It would have made zoo licensing easier to enforce, and therefore guaranteed the high standards in animal welfare that good zoos and aquariums are proud to uphold, and it would have replicated them across the sector. Zoos and aquariums tell me they are unclear what happens next, so will the Minister please contact the society, speak to the zoos themselves and make sure this much-needed legislation goes through, in whatever form? We would appreciate that commitment today.

Animal (Penalty Notices) Bill

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Good afternoon, Mr Twigg. May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? It is a particular pleasure because we worked together on Falkland Islands issues; perhaps a last-minute amendment specifically about penguin protection might be appropriate. I thank you and all fellow members of the Committee for joining me to discuss and assist in the passage of what I believe is a landmark Bill.

As a lifelong advocate for the care and protection of animals, it is enormously satisfying to introduce a Bill that is so close to my heart in advancing the cause of animal welfare throughout this country. My Bill will reform fundamentally the way that we enforce animal health, biosecurity and welfare across all farmed and kept animals in England. It will safeguard and strengthen the health and welfare of animals in our care by building on the skeleton of our existing domestic framework for enforcement, which cruelly has few options beyond prosecution. Penalty notices will add a tool to our enforcement toolkit, giving our enforcement system the use of a wider range of deterrents.

Penalty notices will help to generate the right incentives for people to keep and handle animals, and will contribute to delivering high domestic animal health and welfare. They will enhance the credibility of our enforcement system in general. When, as I hope, the Bill is passed, it will apply to a range of listed Acts in clause 1, and will protect the health and welfare of companion, farm and zoo animals. However, for offences under the Acts to be used, they will need to be switched on through secondary legislation. That will be done only after proper consultation with non-governmental organisations, charities, enforcers, industry experts and others, to ensure that penalty notices are a good fit for the offence. Furthermore, the proposed reforms will continue to allow for education to be used as the right solution where appropriate, and for people to be redirected at an early stage away from inadequate practices.

I share the sentiment of many that redirection rather than punishment is often the most appropriate course of action, but there is a need for a proportionate approach when an offence is committed. I hope that there will be a strong cross-party consensus in support of the Bill, and I thank Members across the House for being open in sharing their thoughts and concerns with me to ensure that we get the new legislation absolutely right. I extend particular thanks to the hon. Member for Cambridge, who took the time to talk to me and the Minister about his views and concerns regarding the Bill. It was a productive conversation, and I hope we were able to reassure him and clarify points of uncertainty. No doubt we will hear from him later in the debate.

I believe wholeheartedly, as do many colleagues across the House, that it is right for animal keepers to face the consequences if they fall short of the actions required. Those who keep animals have a responsibility and an accountability for animal health, animal welfare and biosecurity across the country. Penalty notices will help to improve that accountability by steering individuals towards the right practices. Although penalty notices will have an impact, I want to be absolutely clear that they will not be an alternative to taking serious cases to court. They are an addition to existing laws, and do not take away from taking really tough action when serious offences occur.

The clauses build on each other to bring in a fair, proportionate and usable enforcement tool. They set out the scope of legislation covered, and allow for the detail of the offences to be determined in secondary legislation. This gives ample time for key stakeholder engagement, while the matters to be considered published on the face of the Bill give clear limitation on where, when and how penalty notices may be used in practice.

Once again I thank Committee members for their attendance today. I hope we can agree that the Bill is a significant one that should pass and go back to the House for its remaining stages. It will help to deliver our Government’s commitment to improving standards across animal health and welfare. The introduction of a new enforcement tool is a well-timed step forward in the cause of animal welfare, and I commend my Bill to the Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I begin by thanking my friend, the hon. Member for Romford, for all his work on this Bill and on animal protection, which is deeply appreciated. It shows that Back Benchers really can make change in this place if they put the hard work in.

There is no excuse for animal cruelty in this country. The Bill allows for financial penalties of up to £5,000 to be given, as the hon. Member said, for existing animal offences and offences relating to animal products. Financial penalties may not always be the best response to an offence, but they are a useful enforcement tool that can be flexibly and consistently used, sometimes in addition to or instead of existing penalties.

Penalty notices may be applicable in a variety of situations where animals could be harmed—for example, if animals that are transported are not fit for the journey, or are transported in a way that could cause undue suffering. Another example would be where pet breeders fail to maintain appropriate records or ensure that puppies are microchipped before being rehomed. Such issues need addressing for the safety of animals, but it would be disproportionate to require the offender to go to court. A warning is often not enough, so financial penalties may therefore be required, which is why the Bill is so useful.

The penalties would differ for each type of offence, but the aim of the legislation is to deter animal owners or keepers from acting in a way that could potentially risk the welfare of animals. It is important that we have proportional yet effective punishments for abusing animals or putting their safety at risk. I welcome the fact that the Bill allows local authorities to use their measures, which are easier, quicker and use fewer resources than many other punitive provisions, especially at a time when courts face such backlogs.

As the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Chris Sherwood, said:

“Fixed penalty notices are really useful to quickly combat suffering of farmed animals, horses and animals kept in zoos.”

The Bill is largely welcomed by the animal charities and organisations including the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and BIAZA—the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. I hope that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will work closely with them in developing the guidance to support the Bill.

Good and responsible zoos, farmers and pet owners or breeders should have nothing to worry about with the introduction of the Bill. The measures in it, however, can be used to ensure that standards are upheld and animals are looked after in the best and safest of ways. If that is not the case, enforcement agencies can decide on an appropriate response.

The hon. Member for Romford clarified some points, but I would also like reassurances from the Government. Under subsection (3), will the Government provide more detail on which Acts they expect to introduce regulations under? Furthermore, will the Government offer assurances on the process by which the decisions will be made? For example, will the Government consult the Zoo Experts Committee before introducing any further regulation under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

Overall, I am so proud to support the Bill as it passes through Parliament, to help ensure that no animal faces needless pain or risk to its safety. The UK can and should be a world leader in animal welfare standards. I hope that the Bill will continue to drive up adherence to those standards across the country.

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

It is a pleasure to speak in Committee today. I start by deeply congratulating the hon. Member for Romford. The Bill is excellent and will protect the most vulnerable animals. It will also steer owners in the right direction on education and their willingness to pursue it.

The Bill does not apply to Scotland directly, but I can inform the Committee and the hon. Member promoting the Bill that it has already been covered in the news in Scotland. In our local news, it was the most popular article for many months. We were astounded by the response. That shows that, wherever we are in the United Kingdom, we want to see animal welfare standards at the highest level. We support progress right across the United Kingdom on such matters.

[Sarah Champion]

In that case, will the hon. Member confirm that she will propose similar legislation for the Scottish Government to adopt in the future, as it is so popular up there?

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not in the Scottish Parliament, so that might be difficult, but given the groundswell of opinion and support for the Bill, we should certainly be looking at exemplars of best practice right across the United Kingdom and taking those forward wherever they happen. I will certainly be advocating the same, which is why I am here today, to support the Bill whole- heartedly.

We are here in Committee with a broad consensus, although obviously we have to look at some of the details about which there might be disagreement among those present, to take things forward. However, I want the hon. Member for Romford and the Committee to know that the public seem to be firmly behind the Bill. For animal welfare everywhere, the hon. Member promoting the Bill is certainly being innovative, and this ground- breaking work is showing true leadership in animal welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to the points raised. Members asked whether we are introducing penalty notices to avoid taking abusers to court and sending people to prison. We are not. Penalty notices are designed to complement existing measures. Penalty notices are like yellow cards: “The ref has had a word with you; you should be behaving better on the field…You are not—here is your yellow card…You have still not, and you have committed an offence. That is too bad—there is your red card. You are in court and you are facing the possibility of paying more than £5,000 and a sentence.” Extra tools allow that redirection; they provide more routes for our charities, zoo groups and farming communities to ensure the proper care of animals.

[Sarah Champion]

Does the issuing of penalty notices also have a cumulative effect when it comes to court hearings? If someone has received a number of them or has not paid a penalty notice, might a more severe sentence be issued?

[Jo Churchill]

Should somebody receive more than one penalty notice, that is part of the suite of evidence that shows that they have not been behaving. We cannot just carry on giving fixed penalty notices. We cannot argue for these measures as having the power of redirection to improve behaviour, and then not expect to see behaviour improving. A penalty notice might be the right thing to do for low-level offences—the hon. Lady gave examples of what those might be—but not for committing the same offence repeatedly. People cannot just be given fixed penalty notices repeatedly. We are looking for another tool in the toolbox to redirect and improve behaviour, to ultimately help care for the health and welfare of animals.

I have answered the hon. Member for Rotherham. The Acts are listed. We will speak to the zoos as we will speak to all Members.

I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for her comments. I hope we will see Scotland follow us in this measure, to ensure that animals right across the UK are looked after, because I know that, across all four nations, we are a true nation of animal lovers.

This is about ensuring the burden of proof. Penalty notices are another tool in the toolbox. I hope we do not focus on the fact that a fixed penalty notice cannot be issued without the proper investigation, because it has to be as robust as it would be if we were pursuing alternative measures. As we work through the finer points with the organisations—I know the hon. Member for Cambridge is in regular contact with them— I hope that we will get to the point where we have reassured him, but, more importantly, reassured those who look after animals that where there are cases, there is extra care for those animals. That is the whole point of introducing the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford said.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Sarah Champion Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I broadly support the overall aims of the Bill—I am keen to see increased animal welfare across the country and am glad that the Government share that ambition—but of course the devil is in the detail. My speech will focus on just a few areas.

First, the Bill’s attempts to tackle puppy smuggling are particularly welcome, but we need to ensure that they are as efficient as possible. I encourage Ministers to work with organisations such as Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home to make sure that their proposals are robust. I have seen the heart-breaking torture of puppy smuggling and its lifelong implications, particularly on animal health and psychology. Often, puppies are smuggled in car boots or under seats; sadly, some do not even survive the journey. That is totally unacceptable.

Right now, the profit motive is high and the risk of being caught is low for smugglers. The Bill proposes a maximum of five pets per vehicle entering the country, but Dogs Trust believes that that must be reduced to three per vehicle if it is to have any real impact on puppy smuggling. In addition, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, we must increase to six months the age at which puppies can be imported, and ban the transportation of all pregnant dogs for commercial purposes. These are simple measures that would improve the safety of many more dogs.

I would like to see increased protection for exotic animals kept as pets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, the RSPCA is concerned that the licensing system proposed in the Bill

“runs the risk of allowing some private keeping of primates to continue indefinitely”.

An outright ban on all exotic animals—not just primates, but bears, lions and tigers, for example—being kept as pets would be more effective and more manageable for local councils.

Clause 47 will make several changes to the standards of modern zoo practice. I am concerned that moving zoo standards from primary to secondary legislation will create the risk of the Secretary of State amending rules without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. It also concerns me that the legislation does not make a clear enough distinction between private collectors and zoos focused on conservation. We need assurances that there will be full transparency from the Government, both now and with respect to any further changes in the law.

There are still many questions that need answering. What role will the Zoos Expert Committee play in advising on proposed changes to zoo licensing requirements? Will the Government allow the committee to publish its independent advice and Ministers to respond to it? That would be beneficial for zoos and for transparency in the policy area.

Not only are zoos exceptional at caring for animals and providing a fantastic day out, but they do phenomenal conservation work. It is right to recognise that work in the new standards, but the definition of “conservation” must be subject to full consultation from the sector and needs to include all the work that zoos do, including education.

Earlier this year, I visited Chester zoo to see for myself its outstanding work. It has been working with schools to build its curriculum around conservation, engaging thousands of pupils with the topic, and over the next decade it will help to train 5,000 conservationists as part of its conservation training academy. Yorkshire wildlife park is close to my constituency and is well-loved by my constituents. I have seen the incredible work that it does, while expanding its premises and providing an ideal location for school trips.

We must make sure that the definition of conservation is not too narrow, and reflects all the excellent work that zoos carry out. Education is a vital part of conservation, and we need to ensure that it is recognised and supported. The Government must work proactively and effectively with zoos to ensure that no park will be punished or forced to change the important work that it does just to enable it to fit the new standards.

I should be grateful for reassurances from the Minister about the concerns that I have expressed—particularly those relating to accountability and the definition of conservation, which seem to be the two issues that worry zoos most.

Another aspect of animal welfare that the Bill does not cover is testing on animals, and I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to address that as well. A recent poll by YouGov found that almost two thirds of people want to see a plan to phase out animal experiments, and the setting of a target date for ending tests in the UK. When there are alternatives to testing on animals, it should not be allowed. Why are we still tolerating the use of this cruel and unnecessary practice by such huge companies? I also fail to understand why animal testing often occurs twice, with the same ingredient used in different products. Surely causing twice as many animals to suffer is unnecessary. I fear that the Government are backtracking on legislation to reduce animal testing, and I hope the Minister will reassure me about that.

I hope very much that the Government will listen to my demands and will work on the Bill with experts, because we all want it to be as effective as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point that needs to be emphasised more and more strongly by the day. Zoos do incredible conservation work, and they are there to ensure the survival of so many species. They are not just places that tourists go to see animals. We have an amazing network of zoos in this country that provide conservation and education, working with third world countries to protect animals in the wild and to re-inhabit animals. It is so important to emphasise that. I know that Belfast zoo does amazing work in that area, and that zoos contribute enormously to the work of animal welfare and conservation. That is why it is so important that they are included fully in this legislation.

[Sarah Champion]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his award and thank him for the incredible, consistent work that he does in this area. Does he agree that in most cases conservation means working with local people to invest in the animals and the landscape, not least because many in places—I am thinking of Kerala—it really helps tourism? It is a win-win all the way round.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Lady is completely correct. Without working with the local people—the indigenous people of those countries—these efforts are not going to work. We need to ensure that the people in those countries are playing their part, by including them in these projects, as our zoos are doing. That is vital for the sustainability of the projects. I thank her for her remarks.

To recap, can the Minister please give reassurances that conservation will be understood in the broadest sense at zoos and aquariums? Will the Government also seek to make the Zoos Expert Committee more accountable, because that is vital? Finally—I say this in all sincerity—I extend an invitation not only to the Minister but to all Members of the House to visit their local zoo or aquarium. We have the most incredible zoos across the United Kingdom, and it is only by seeing for themselves that Members will see the brilliant work that they do to protect the animal kingdom with whom we share this planet. Our dear friend David Amess said this in June about the forthcoming animal welfare Bills:

“I hope the House will come together, support them and get them quickly on to the statute book.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 243WH.]

I can think of no better tribute to him and to the animals across the United Kingdom that he so adored.

Draft Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your wise chairmanship, Mr Evans.

I listened to the Minister’s speech intently, and I have three specific questions to ask for the record. She talked about the scrutiny committees. Will she clarify whether they will be independent, and what weight they will have when their recommendations come to the Government? Secondly, will the UK have continued access to the EU invasive alien species information system? Thirdly, will the Government continue their commitment to ensure that UK invasive species legislation and public policy aligns with the Bern convention, the convention on biological diversity and the UN sustainable development goals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to respond to the questions that have been raised. In answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham, the independent bodies are already in place, and they will continue to be in place. On access to notification and intelligence sharing, the system enables critical information to be shared quickly between member states and the Commission. We have developed contingency plans to mitigate the impact of losing access to the system; I will not say at this point that an agreement has been made that we can continue to access it, but I assure her that there is an obligation for Ministers to co-operate with one another. I expect that obligation to be upheld, especially with reference to treaties of which we are full members, such as the Bern convention and the convention on biological diversity.

I remind the Committee that it is not just from the European Union that diseases can enter. As someone who represents a port constituency, I know the level of detail that authorities go into when checking that things like pallets do not have the bugs and beetles that can sometimes invade unduly. A lot of work also goes on, under a risk-based approach, to inspect the importation of trees and so on, for similar reasons. There is no reason for any of that to change, and the advice from the independent bodies will still be there.

The sustainable development goals are not strictly treaties, although they have been agreed worldwide. They tend to be quite broad, but of course the United Kingdom Government have signed up to them, and we will continue to work on the outcomes that we have signed up to.

To reply briefly to the right hon. Member for Exeter, the point of the draft regulations is set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act; they are not about the status of EU nationals or other issues to which he referred. He asked whether the regulations are fit for purpose—yes, they are. I have confidence in the legal advice that was given to my noble Friend Lord Gardiner, who is the Minister responsible for this portfolio and who has signed a transparency statement to the effect that the regulations are to make the system operable and no more than that—they do not seek to get into other issues.

The hon. Member for Stroud raised several points about what more we could do on biosecurity policy. The point is that we are active in this space. I think it was last year that the Secretary of State wrote to the Commission to ask it to take greater action against the spread of Xylella fastidiosa. While ash dieback affects one species, at least 50 species would be affected by Xylella fastidiosa, so we were very keen for the Commission to step up its actions. There are a number of ways in which we are already active; that relationship will continue, although I accept that we will not be part of the European Union.

I have not read the article by my former right hon. Friend Ben Gummer, so I am not sure what he was referring to. I appreciate that he may have some doubt about the primary legislation that may be needed, but I have every confidence that the statutory instruments drafted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the devolved Administrations will mean that we will be ready for exit day as decreed.

I cannot remember how many SIs we have got through so far; this is my third affirmative SI, but a number of negative SIs have already been through the sifting Committee. There is another way in which the drafting of such statutory instruments is checked: the peers and hon. Members on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the lawyers who advise it, scrutinise them to ensure that the drafting procedure is suitable. That Committee noted that the draft regulations have not been referred to the House; it is happy with them as drafted, in legal terms.

[Sarah Champion]

I hear what the Minister says. We do not doubt the skill of those who advise the Department, but a Treasury Minister confirmed to me before Christmas that 800 pieces of secondary legislation would need to be passed by 29 March in the event of no deal. The draft regulations are not particularly contentious, but we have been here for 35 minutes. Does the Minister genuinely believe that we can get through the outstanding pieces of legislation in two months? There are probably 700.

[Dr Coffey]

Within DEFRA, we have taken an approach of bringing several SIs into one, for instance when amending references to EU law and EU obligations so that they refer to retained EU law and retained EU obligations. For example, a statutory instrument that we debated yesterday will change several primary Acts—four, I think—and make three cross-cutting environmental amendments. We are grouping operability changes that commonly require several SIs within one SI. Those instruments often relate to one directive. The draft instrument covers one directive in its own right, which is why we are only discussing invasive species.

I appreciate the hon. Member for Stroud’s concerns about the draft instrument. As I say, it has been through the JCSI. It was laid in the first week of December, and prior to that, DEFRA opened it up to a group of stakeholders to look at, so that they could talk it through with our officials and raise any questions. So far, that has only happened to one other SI, to which he referred: the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Unfortunately, before that draft instrument made its way through the JCSI process, and in response to feedback from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Secretary of State took the decision to change it. I thought my noble Friend Lord Gardiner answered questions on that rather well. The draft instrument was again laid before Parliament last night and will come back before the House in due course. I do not have a date for its return. That shows how, via stakeholders coming to the Government with suggested changes, we have been able to effectively consider the draft instrument before reaching the Committee.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points, I fully understand the biosecurity threats.