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

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate on the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill. Cestrians are certainly fond of animals and animal rights, and I have received hundreds of items of correspondence from constituents regarding the Bill and asking me to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on bringing forward the Bill.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and many of my constituents, I was disappointed by the scrapping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill last year—a manifesto pledge on which the Government stood—so I am pleased that some of the key issues from that Bill are addressed in this Bill. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

As important as this Bill is, does my hon. Friend agree that its provisions could have been on the statute book by now if the Government had not blocked Labour’s efforts to revive the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill last year?

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend.

The Bill is a declaration of our commitment to compassion and responsibility towards our furry companions. It seeks to address several pressing issues concerning the importation of these animals, ensuring their safety, health and wellbeing.

My constituency has always cared for animals and led the way on animal rights. Chester West and Chester Council was one of the first authorities to permanently ban the practice of trail hunting on council-owned land. The National Trust soon followed suit. The changes introduced by the last Labour Government have left an indelible mark on British history and have stood the test of time, from the bans on fox hunting and fur farming, to the action to stop experimentation on great apes and the testing of cosmetics on animals. We must ensure that we do not stop there. We should lead the way on animal welfare, and this Bill is another step forward and is long overdue.

Puppies, kittens and other animals continue to be illegally imported into the UK on an industrial scale, alongside increasing numbers of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and animals with mutilations, such as cropped ears. Every year, thousands of puppies are illegally imported into the UK to be sold to unsuspecting dog lovers, having been transported thousands of miles with little or no food, water or exercise. I am concerned that there is widespread abuse of the pet travel scheme to smuggle animals illegally, often under age, unvaccinated and in poor welfare conditions.

Dogs, cats and ferrets can enter the United Kingdom in one of two ways: as non-commercial pet travel movements or as commercial imports. More stringent requirements apply to commercial imports than to non-commercial movements. Evidence has shown that commercial movements are frequently being described as non-commercial movements to avoid the more stringent requirements.

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 these, 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 these figures likely capture only a small portion of the animals smuggled into the country.

According to Dogs Trust, since the relaxation of the pet travel scheme—PETS—in 2012, the number of dogs entering the country via PETS has increased exponentially. Dogs Trust has conducted five investigations, which have exposed smugglers using PETS as a cover to illegally import dogs into Great Britain for sale. In 2015, Dogs Trust set up the puppy pilot through which it funds the quarantine cost of illegally imported puppies seized at the border and then rehomes them responsibly through its network of rehoming centres. Since 2015, more than 2,256 illegally imported puppies have been cared for by Dogs Trust through the puppy pilot, which, if sold to unsuspecting members of the public, would have made more than £3 million for the illegal importers. As many as 75 dogs coming in through the Dogs Trust puppy pilot have had their ears cropped, despite this cruel mutilation being illegal in the UK and the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Animal welfare is a top priority for my constituents. I regularly get hundreds of emails a month from concerned residents who want to see action on a raft of animal welfare issues, from puppy smuggling to cat declawing and animal testing. As the husband of a veterinary surgeon, I completely concur with my constituents on the importance of this hugely significant policy area. It would of course be remiss of me not to mention my own pet cat, Frank, and the unfortunate recent passing of my cat, Smudge, and my dog, Roger.

I fully concur with the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby): pets are indeed part of our family, and are missed as much as family members. I am sure Mr Speaker will concur with that. I have yet to meet Attlee the cat—I do not know whether you have, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I hope to do so at some point in time.

Many of my constituents have written to me about the abhorrent practice of ear cropping. As colleagues may know, in 2022 the RSPCA recorded a horrifying 621% increase in the number of dog ear cropping reports it received over the previous five years. Of course, ear cropping has been illegal in this country since 2006. The previous Labour Government made sure of that—I will come to Labour’s animal welfare achievements shortly. The RSPCA has real concerns that an increasing number of dogs are being sent abroad for ear cropping to circumvent UK law. Let me be clear that there is absolutely no evidence that ear cropping is necessary or has any medical benefits for dogs. Innocent dogs’ ears are clipped, often simply because their owner wants their dog to look scarier—for cosmetic reasons. Most horrifyingly of all, far too often the procedure is carried out by amateurs with basic DIY tools and no anaesthetic for the dog. We must be clear that ear cropping is mutilation—it is cruelty.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) for her very interesting insight into the world of ferrets. And just to broach the inevitable question from my family when I return home, no we cannot have a ferret.

I am immensely pleased to see such an important Bill receive parliamentary time. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon for all her hard work in securing and bringing forward the Bill. She is a powerful campaigner on ecological and environmental issues, and on animal welfare. I have immense respect for her. But I have to say that it is a damning indictment of just how far this Conservative Government have given up on governing. They have their own MPs legislating from the Back Benches via private Members’ Bills, because Ministers refuse to pass an equivalent Bill in Government time.

The Tories repeatedly promised to progress the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but failed to do so, abandoning ship after two Second Readings despite it supposedly being a key manifesto priority for those on the Tory Benches. Colleagues may recall that Labour attempted to revive the Bill last year. How foolish we were to assume that, just because it was in the Tory manifesto and promised repeatedly during the last election and by Tory Ministers countless times since, the Government would actually stick to their word. I am glad the Government seem to be content with the Bill progressing, but it seems bizarre that they have to be reminded of a key plank of their own manifesto from one of their own MPs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), the shadow Environment Secretary said, it is as plain as day that the Conservatives have simply bottled it.

In contrast with this Tory Government, I am immensely proud of the contribution the previous Labour Government made to animal welfare. In 1997, Labour banned the practice of experimenting on great apes and introduced a ban on testing cosmetics on animals, extended to include cosmetic ingredients in 1998. Labour then passed the groundbreaking Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000.

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, because it was my private Member’s Bill that led to the 2000 Act. Although it was talked out on Report by then Opposition MPs who did not like the word “prohibition”, it was adopted by the Labour Government and passed into law, which was a very good thing and led to a European-wide ban on fur farming.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and for all the work and effort she made to make that possible.

Labour passed the Hunting Act 2004, which banned the hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, hares and mink. We banned the use of drift nets in fishing, freeing dolphins, sea birds and other sea creatures from painful and cruel ensnarement. Labour’s Animal Welfare Act 2006 saw, for the first time, animal owners responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals were met. Labour has a proud animal welfare legacy and it is a privilege to represent a constituency that continues to take these issues so very seriously.

This Bill will finally make provision for restrictions on the live importation of dogs, cats and ferrets, as originally attempted in the failed Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I am pleased the Bill has the support of many others, including Pets at Home and Vets for Pets, who have long supported action on this issue and whom I recently visited. The conditions on importation set out in the Bill are vital for efforts to continue to drive up animal welfare standards in the UK. The Bill’s banning of the importation of kittens and puppies under the age of six months, and dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant, or which have been mutilated by ear cropping, declawing or tail docking, are welcome provisions that will bring a wave of relief to my constituents in Wakefield who care so passionately about this issue.

Touching briefly on cat smuggling, I am pleased that the Bill has the support of Cats Protection. Its research found that 50,000 cats were obtained overseas in 2022-23. Without stronger restrictions on import conditions, there is very little that we can do to ensure that these cats get the veterinary treatment they need for legal entry into this country. Without stronger laws, there is very little that we can do to ensure that a cat’s travel conditions or point of origin were not traumatic, which is so often the case. Stress from long journeys is well documented and, as my husband has attested, can cause cats painful cystitis. It is critical for animal welfare that we get this right.

I particularly welcome the provisions for the regulation of the number of cats, dogs and ferrets that can be imported at a time per vehicle or foot passenger before it is deemed a commercial import. This is a vital part of the Bill that will go some way towards addressing the scourges of puppy and kitten smuggling and of animal mutilation, both of which blight our animal welfare reputation and actively harm the welfare of hundreds of animals every year.

I welcome the Bill, and I sincerely hope that the Government provide the parliamentary time for its progression.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point very eloquently. I am sure that all our constituents up and down the country are appalled by what they have seen not just on “Panorama” last night, but when they have visited our beautiful waterways up and down the country. Raw human excrement polluting our waterways is not just disgusting; it destroys natural habitats, kills wildlife and damages tourism. Perhaps most appallingly of all, it makes people sick—children most of all—if they swallow parasitic bacteria and chemicals that should be nowhere near our rivers, lakes and seas.

How on earth did we get here? The Conservative Government cut the Environment Agency’s resources in half. That led to a dramatic reduction in monitoring, enforcement and prosecutions, leaving illegal sewage spills to double between 2016 and 2021.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Like me, he will have noted that the Minister is in her place. She was strangely missing yesterday for the Lib Dem amendment on compensation for those harmed by the criminal handling of sewage, though she was present in the Division Lobby just 15 minutes later. Does my hon. Friend think that she was allowed to abstain, or should she be sacked?

[Steve Reed]

It is hard to know whether discipline has broken down in the Conservative party; its Members seem able to rebel with impunity. When the Minister speaks, I am sure she will enlighten the House about what happened.

Instead of acting on the warnings, the Government have turned a blind eye to what has been going on. Thanks to this Government’s wilful negligence, we see record levels of toxic sewage swilling through our rivers and lakes, pouring into our seas and lapping on to our beaches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like every MP across the House, I receive emails and postcards every week from constituents about the state of our environment, our nature and our planet. It is clear why our communities care so much about this: we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and we are living in a dirty water emergency. The two main rivers in the Wakefield district, the River Calder and the River Aire, are the second and third most polluted rivers in the country. Last year, there were 1,316 discharges of raw sewage into Wakefield’s rivers and waterways, totalling 5,816 hours—the equivalent of eight months non-stop. It is no surprise that that is happening under the Tories’ watch. The Government see action on nature and pollution as something they must do rather than something they want to do.

This is not the first Opposition day debate where Labour has called for tougher action on polluters— but, time after time, the Conservatives block it. We have seen the Environment Agency’s budget cut, leading to less monitoring and enforcement of the law. We have seen the Office for Environmental Protection launch an investigation into whether the Government and the water companies may have broken the law over sewage discharges, and we have seen mealy-mouthed statements and weak plans from a Conservative Government in denial. Labour is clear that the polluters should pay.

Earlier this year, we saw water companies asking for more money from customers to fix the problem. With a £111 increase for constituents in Yorkshire, it is no wonder that they faced such a backlash. If companies do not improve, the money should come from dividends going to shareholders, not from increasing people’s bills. Those bosses who continue to break the rules repeatedly should face professional and personal sanctions for their behaviour. The soft-touch approach has to end. To allow us to get the information we need about the sewage being pumped into our lakes and rivers, we need mandatory monitoring of all sewage outlets as well as proper resourcing for the Environment Agency so that the law can be enforced. We will solve this problem only with tougher action and by sticking to our commitments. I do not want my kids to think that the current state of our waterways is normal. We owe it to future generations to sort this out once and for all, which is why I urge Members to support Labour’s motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Yes, I absolutely will. I understand the proportionality required on this issue to protect nature and improve the lives and livelihoods of people living in protected landscapes.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. Wakefield suffers from the second and third most polluted rivers in England. I was really concerned by reports this week that the Environment Agency still does not have a full-time team dealing with this crisis. It is clear that the Government are all talk. This is not a part-time issue, so when will the Government finally give this crisis the dedicated attention that it desperately needs?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the quality of rivers. The Environment Agency is funded through its licensing in order to do the necessary inspections. The Government increased the amount of money available to the Environment Agency to undertake criminal investigations. He should be aware that there is a live criminal investigation right now into water companies and what is happening to sewage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

As my hon. Friend points out, two different schemes are proposed. We have consulted widely, in particular with industry, and that is why we have taken the decision not to include glass bottles. Glass bottles will remain in the consistent collections from the doorstep. From our consultation and stakeholder engagement, that is considered to be the best way to increase the amount of glass we recycle.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. The Government’s 25-year environment plan aims to deliver cleaner water for our communities. However, recent statistics show that the River Calder and the River Aire, which run through the Wakefield district, are the second and third most polluted waterways in England. The Office for Environmental Protection, the Government’s own regulator, has said that progress has fallen far short. After 13 years in power, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to clean up the waterways for the people of Wakefield?

[Dr Coffey]

We are picking up after the inaction of the previous Labour Government—that takes time. That is why we will continue to do the work. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we work on a catchment-based approach, which is the approach that is being taken. It is important that we focus in on those rivers, which is why I am asking Natural England to make progress with assessments of sites of special scientific interest around the country, thinking particularly of rivers. It is important that we continue to work together with the people who have the rights and responsibilities of owning those waterways at a local level to make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s rivers are cleaner than ever before.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 17 November 2022.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of a reduction in the Environment Agency’s budget on its enforcement work.

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

I feel a bit like a jack-in-the-box this morning, Mr Speaker.

Environment Agency enforcement is at a record high, and its funding is closely monitored to ensure that it can continue to hold polluters to account. Last year, record fines were handed to water companies, making it clear that polluters will pay. The EA’s total budget this year is £1,650 million. I am always bad at reading out numbers and putting them into words. That is nearly 20% of DEFRA’s entire budget, including new ringfenced money for special enforcement activities, such as 4,000 more farm inspections and 5,000 more sewage treatment works inspections.

[Official Report, 17 November 2022, Vol. 722, c. 809.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow):

An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood).

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

We have already had a conversation on that and I am really happy to follow it up. We need water infrastructure in the right place, but we do need new water infrastructure, because we have to increase our water supply. We also need to tackle leakage and water efficiency. DEFRA is working hard on a combination of measures to make sure that people have the water that they need. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that proposal.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of a reduction in the Environment Agency’s budget on its enforcement work.

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

I feel a bit like a jack-in-the-box this morning, Mr Speaker.

Environment Agency enforcement is at a record high, and its funding is closely monitored to ensure that it can continue to hold polluters to account. Last year, record fines were handed to water companies, making it clear that polluters will pay. The EA’s total budget this year is £1,650 million. I am always bad at reading out numbers and putting them into words. That is nearly 20% of DEFRA’s entire budget, including new ringfenced money for special enforcement activities, such as 4,000 more farm inspections and 5,000 more sewage treatment works inspections.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have been dealing with an Environment Agency complaint from residents near a pig farm in rural Wakefield, which has been operating without the necessary licence for more than a year. However, I have seen delay after delay, with residents getting no anticipated timelines and no commitments to resolve the problem, leaving them none the clearer about when life can go back to normal. Can the Minister set out how she will ensure that the Environment Agency’s enforcement actions are fit for purpose so that it can protect our communities?

[Rebecca Pow]

I have already heard about that particular incident, but I do not have all the details. I would be very happy if the hon. Gentleman would like to meet me. It has been conveyed that the farm is operating illegally, that the EA is involved, and that he has already met the EA and will meet it again, but I am very happy to have the details.