Animal Welfare

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I, too, thank the various members of the public and numerous organisations that provided evidence to the Select Committee with such conviction and passion. Animal welfare is an emotive issue, but Committee members were extremely grateful for the help we got in reaching our conclusions.

I shall touch briefly on three areas of interest. First, our inquiry revealed that this was about a lot more than just puppy farming. On canine welfare, we learned a lot about the dangers of a wider form of neglect when, in some cases, people are simply unable to look after animals to the standard we expect. To be blunt about it, there is cruelty by kindness. We learned an important lesson about how education is almost as vital as prosecution.

We were also concerned about issues such as breeding disorders, and how it seems to be acceptable, in certain areas of canine ownership, almost to deliberately breed abnormalities into canines. That is an act of considerable cruelty that does not seem to be taken care of by the law. The responsibility must lie with breed societies and show organisers. If nothing else, I hope this debate sends them a small warning that, as society moves on, we will probably close in on the deliberate breeding of dogs to have bizarre physical deficiencies purely for reasons of fashion.

Our conclusion was that we should be more proactive and less reactive on some of the issues. In other words, prosecution is not always the answer and, increasingly, education probably is. If we get that right, the pressure on the puppy-farming network to deliver will be reduced.

Secondly, on puppy farms and the related market, opinions were probably as divided as any and emotions ran as high as any. With a lot of welfare legislation, I am suspicious that a total ban—a populist and eye-catching expression that we occasionally use in Parliament—is not always the answer to a welfare problem. Nevertheless, I confess to changing my mind on this issue as a result of the visits we made, the vets we spoke to, the expertise to which we were exposed, and the visits to pet shops and other establishments. All that led us to the conclusion that however hard people tried, the basic minimum standards that we all expect could never really be met.

The Committee was also not persuaded by the claim that public demand must be met, and that the only way of meeting it is through this mass production route. We were convinced by the fact that ethical, effective and commercial alternatives do exist. Indeed, in my own part of west Wales, there is an ethical puppy farm, which has large numbers of breeding bitches and which sells large numbers of puppies to the public, but it does so in a way that enables the buyer to meet the mother and the father, have a cup of coffee and do all the those things that we would like to encourage, and yet it is perfectly capable of running a commercially successful enterprise in the process.

The Committee also learned that demand is not a dirty word. As colleagues know, I am interested in working dogs, and gun dogs in particular. I want to bring on a new gun dog as we speak, but I expect to have to pay money for it and to travel to find exactly the animal that I am looking for, and that is absolutely how it should be. I should not be able to buy one by going online, popping down to the pet shop, or going to some dealer whom I have never met before. I need to research the purchase and understand everything that there is about veterinary records, breeding and the like in order to do so. I do not see why that practice should be restricted only to working dogs. If we get that bit right, there are only moral, welfare, and economic and commercial upsides.

My third point relates to prosecutions, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Despite what the press may have said, prosecutions featured fairly low in the Committee’s conclusions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been a little bit of misrepresentation in the media. The Committee never did, nor could it, recommend that the RSPCA be stripped of its prosecuting powers, because it does not have any such powers over and above those that we all have as private citizens in the UK—not in Scotland—which is the right to take out a private prosecution. The conclusion that we reached was based on the very compelling evidence that was offered by the SSPCA. It was just a more nuanced approach that avoids the accusations of a conflict of interest. We were also not persuaded by the argument that, in the absence of the RSPCA, no one would do this work. I have with me a schedule of animal welfare prosecutions, more than half of which have been carried out by local authorities and the police.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does my hon. Friend also recognise that it is very important that there is as much publicity as possible about how people misuse animals? It might be helpful if “The Archers”, of which I am a very strong advocate, were to run a storyline about animals that are being badly treated and badly harmed.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I need to listen to “The Archers” a bit more often. From what I gather, the programme is covering quite a lot of contemporary issues at the moment, but he makes a good point.

In conclusion, let me bring to the attention of the House the letter written by the Attorney General’s Office in the name of the Solicitor General to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) who raised the question about whether the Crown Prosecution Service ever refuses to proceed with prosecutions on the basis of resource. The answer stated:

“Resources are never the only bar to prosecution because as you know, the Code of Crown Prosecutors sets out the two stages of the Full Code Test”.

In answer to the question, “Does the Crown Prosecution Service ever refuse to proceed on the basis of a lack of expert knowledge in the subject area in question?” the Solicitor General said:

“No, but a distinction should be drawn between expert knowledge provided by expert witnesses and specialist legal knowledge.”

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I made reference to the wording of a recommendation, which I have reflected on significantly. It says that the RSPCA

“should, however, withdraw from acting”.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree that the CPS should be acting, but does he really think that the CPS will do it if the RSPCA takes a step back?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Wooler report, which has been much talked about and which has helped us to reach our conclusions, raises exactly the point that he makes. There is a transitional period, but it is fair to say that concerns have been expressed—not by people such as me who might be accused of having a partisan view, but by more arm’s-length organisations—about potential conflicts of interest between organisations such as investigators, prosecutors, campaigners and fundraisers. The Royal Commission inquiry in 1983 recommended that the CPS was created so that the police would not be accused of that kind of conflict. My view was that if it was good enough for the police to have an arm’s-length prosecuting process, it is probably good enough for the country’s second biggest prosecutor to be subject to the same criteria.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I see you hastening me to a conclusion. Thank you.