Draft Wine (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 General Committees

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Wine (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

The regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 November, remove the requirement for wine imported to Great Britain to be accompanied by a VI-1 certificate. This statutory instrument is very good news; Members who arrived at the Committee early have heard that I am inordinately excited about it. It is part of the bonfire of Brexit red tape. It will help support an industry worth over £1 billion a year, and will help the UK to remain a global hub for the wine trade. If we agree to the SI, it is not only EU wine that will be allowed into the country without a VI-1 certificate; so will wine from the rest of world, including wine from Australia, Chile, New Zealand and the USA. These wines represent about half the wines on our shelves. This is a really positive step forward, and I thank the wine trade and Members of this House for working with us on this.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

The Minister is, in effect, proposing to reduce red tape. Should that not lower the price of wine?

[Victoria Prentis]

I was anticipating that question. That is probably something for the wine trade to think about internally. Although the wine trade will find the change beneficial, I suspect that the price of a bottle of wine will not change all that much—but we live in hope.

The SI will make changes to retained EU law to ensure that wines produced in GB are subject to appropriate supervision, inspection and authentication checks. It also introduces provisions to ensure that the lot code arrangements between GB and the EU for wines continue to operate. Lot codes are an important tool for tracing wine products prepared or packaged under the same conditions.

Finally, the regulations will implement article 5 of annex 15 to the trade and co-operation agreement, concerning transitional arrangements. There will be a two-year grace period from 1 May to allow wine stocks to be run down at producer and wholesale level; stores have until stock runs out to comply.

We have a flourishing wine and viticulture sector in this country. Through this instrument, the Government are making regulatory changes that support wine importers, bottling plants, and exporters across the country, from Accolade Wines in Avonmouth and Kingsland Drinks in Manchester to Greencroft Bottling in County Durham. We are removing a burdensome technical barrier to trade. The Department will continue to work with the industry and across Government to make sure that we have the best possible regulatory regime for wine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

It is a great pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Newport West, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, who is co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wine and spirits, which has been extremely helpful to us in formulating this policy. I share his liking for Welsh whisky; there is also Isle of Man whisky, which is really delicious. I have heard before the point that he raises about fizzy wine. I am not sure that that is entirely in scope of the regulations, and I will, if I may, write to him about that, because there are other Departments involved in that conversation.

The hon. Member for Newport West raised various issues, including the transitional period, which I dealt with earlier. The transitional period will apply until the bottle is sold or drunk, so there is no end to that period in terms of retail sales. The SI does not apply in Northern Ireland and will not result in any changes to certification of GB-produced wine sent to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will obviously continue to follow the rules for VI-1 certification set out in the protocol. Most movements of GB wine to NI have fallen within the scheme for temporary agri-food movements to Northern Ireland. Movements of GB wine to NI are very small; they may often fall below the 100 litre de minimis requirements for a VI-1 certificate set out in EU law.

I remind Members of the positive changes in the instrument. The regulatory changes that we are introducing enable us to meet our international obligations and implement annex 15 of the TCA. We have listened to the wine trade and Members of this House and removed the requirement for VI-1s for imports from not only the EU, but other nations from across the world that produce excellent wine.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

A number of people may not know what the VI-1 form is. If they put “VI-1 form” into a search engine, fortunately the first result that comes up is the Government site, which is up to date; but the third result, using the search engine that I use, is the Food Standards Agency, which might be encouraged to update its information, because it is a year old and does not take account of these welcome changes.

[Victoria Prentis]

When we have made these changes—we are possibly jumping the gun a little bit—I am sure that we can pass that on. I ask hon. Members to support the SI, and I hope that the wine trade will continue to flow well this Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.

Fisheries: Annual Negotiations

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Friday 10th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

At the time of writing, annual negotiations on fisheries are ongoing between: the UK, EU and Norway (the Trilateral); the UK and the EU; the UK and Norway; and the UK and the Faroes Islands.

As regards the Trilateral, which will determine catch limits for six jointly managed stocks in the North Sea (cod, haddock, saithe, whiting, plaice, herring), discussions have been fruitful and we expect agreement between the three parties to be reached later this afternoon (Friday 10 December).

Bilateral negotiations between the UK and the EU on 2022 fishing opportunities on jointly managed stocks are ongoing. Discussions have been constructive so far and there is opportunity to intensify talks before 20 December if necessary.

We are continuing to discuss possible exchanges of fishing opportunities with Norway and the Faroes. If there are agreements to be reached, of which we remain optimistic, we hope to conclude them in the next few weeks.

We have also concluded a number of other negotiations this year, including in Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and on catch limits for three straddling species (mackerel, Atlanto-scandian herring, and blue whiting) with coastal State partners in the North East Atlantic.

[HCWS466]

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to help farmers increase productivity.

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

There is great potential for farmers to continue to increase productivity in an environmentally sustainable way. Last month we launched the farming investment fund, which will encourage that through, for instance, investment in new technology, new equipment and small infrastructure projects.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s answer, and also for the time that she took to visit farmers in my constituency last month. How will the investment fund support agri-tech innovation, which is surely a pathway to prosperity and profitability for Buckinghamshire farmers?

[Victoria Prentis]

The fund is broad, and we are willing to look at all sorts of programmes within it. Some great solutions could include new livestock feeds that might reduce methane emissions, robotics in horticulture—I have seen some very good examples around the country—and bio-fertilisers, which we are particularly interested in developing at the moment.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Far from helping farmers to increase productivity, this Government are demonstrating their keen ability to get in the way of productivity. We have a crisis in pig exports to China and seed exports to Northern Ireland and the EU, there are export health certificates for Scottish goods going to the EU but none for the EU’s goods coming to Scotland, there are the tariffs on jute sacks, and there is also the gross shortage and obscurity of the availability of labour. Would the Minister like to apologise to farmers in Scotland and say how she intends to improve this dynamic?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am indeed concerned about farmers in Scotland, but that is because they are not benefiting from the revolution in agricultural support that we are undertaking in this country, and I am afraid that the Scottish Government are holding them back.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to promote tree planting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to tackle dog theft.

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

The Government launched the pet theft taskforce earlier this year, and it published its recommendations in September, including the development of a new offence. I am pleased to say this is now included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which has passed its Committee stage. I look forward to its Report stage in the new year.

[Scott Benton]

I welcome the Government’s taking animal cruelty seriously by introducing a specific dog abduction offence to crack down on dog theft. Cat owners have recently been more likely to purchase high-value pedigree cats and, heartbreakingly, criminals are now exploiting these cats and their owners, with cat theft rising more than threefold in the last six years. What measures are the Government taking to protect cats and to ensure there is no place for animal cruelty in our society?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point. The offence, as currently drafted, includes the power to extend it to other species. We are also taking other measures to protect cats, including compulsory microchipping, which was announced last week.

[Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to support food and drink exporters.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to help agrifood businesses export their goods.

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the news that the US market is reopening its doors to UK lamb after two decades of restrictions. We want people at home and abroad to line up to buy British. We are establishing an export council and expanding our network of agrifood attachés.

[Mark Eastwood]

New Zealand currently exports £4.8 billion-worth of meat per annum, including £1.8 billion-worth to the Muslim world via a national scheme. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the Minister for Exports, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), to discuss setting up a similar UK-wide scheme that could potentially open up millions of pounds’ worth of exports for our farming industry?

[Victoria Prentis]

I would, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, as I have in the past. He is a great trade envoy to Pakistan. We work very closely on this with Ministers in the Department for International Trade, and we see significant opportunities for British agriculture in markets across the world, including the US, Japan, India and the middle east. We will be well represented at the Gulfood exhibition in February.

[Martin Vickers]

Exporting agrifood is fairly straightforward if it is wholly produced in the UK. Where part of it is imported from the EU or elsewhere, there are complicated rules of origin. What is the Minister doing to improve the situation so that exporting becomes much easier?

[Victoria Prentis]

There is no doubt that the rules of origin are complicated. We regularly meet our colleagues in the EU to discuss issues raised by our exporters, and we work collaboratively to resolve them where we can. We have also set up a new export support service to help businesses navigate the EU’s requirements. I would be delighted to meet any hon. Member who has a constituent with a specific problem.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Free trade agreements like the one with New Zealand are the biggest contributor to British farmers needing to improve productivity. What recent discussions has the Minister had with colleagues across Government on protecting farmers’ interests in future agreements? As I said, we work very closely with colleagues, particularly in the Department for International Trade, and I am confident they understand the issues raised by our farmers.

Food and Drink: UK Economy

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) not just on bringing the debate but on introducing it in a very informative way. I will not repeat the good points he made about the success of the sector. It has been a remarkably wide-ranging debate, from tenanted pubs, to Strangford, to whisky in Scotland—and who could forget the invitation to Angus, which I am sure we will all be taking up?

It has been a remarkable achievement of the sector to maintain the reliable availability of food and drink at prices that most can afford 24/7, 365 days a year. There is much to be proud of, but it has been a tough time. I am grateful to many in the supply chain who speak to me regularly, particularly the Food and Drink Federation in the context of today, but the story over the last 18 months is a mixed bag. I want to particularly focus my comments on those who work in the sector and pick up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra).

At the retail end, the violence and abuse that shopworkers face has been highlighted by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Sadly, I see it in my own city. I pay tribute to the Co-op stores in my city and particularly to PC Matthews—or EJ, as she is known—because they have made a huge difference in cracking down on some of this abuse. People should not face abuse when they are at work.

It is not just the retail sector; as we go down the chain, there is the processing sector. Far too many people are working on contract and too many are on poor wages in shared accommodation—frankly, there is a real covid risk there. Sadly, I am told by the GMB that some employers that introduced more flexible approaches during the pandemic have been pulling back from some of those. That is really dangerous for all of us. We cannot have people going to work because they cannot afford to isolate. With omicron upon us, may I ask the Minister what plans she and her colleagues have to tackle the sick pay issue once and for all? Some employers have behaved well, but others have not and we need the Government to act on that.

I am also grateful to the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union for highlighting the sad issue of low pay in the sector, which means that some are not able to afford the very products that they produce, because of their low wages. In a survey, it found that 40% had reported not being able to afford food on some occasions, which is shocking.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has been highlighting this scandal through the Right to Food campaign. The campaign has launched a study to look at the impact of food poverty within the food sector, and I commend my hon. Friend for that, but what are the Government doing? Can the Minister tell me what she is doing to tackle low pay and insecurity within the sector? What analysis has her Department done?

That leads me to the point made by a number of hon. Members about labour shortages in the sector. We all know the problems, but I ask the Minister on behalf of many: when are we going to have some clarity on the seasonal worker pilot scheme for next year? Producers really need to know. One operator told me recently that in some farms up to 35% of edible crops were wasted last year, as a direct result of these shortages. These points were raised effectively earlier in the debate.

What about ornamentals? Does the Minister really want almost 300 million daffodils wasted again next year? There are also the points made about the pig sector. The figures that I heard, yesterday, were an on-farm cull of 16,000, but we know that actually the figure is sadly likely to be much higher. How many of the pork butchers that were promised have arrived? How much has gone into private storage so far? I fear that the answer may well be none and none.

We also need to look at the wider supply chain issues. Lots of points have been made about the resilience of our food supply. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer present, made a point about shorter supply chains being necessary. We know that under the Agriculture Act 2020, the Government are bound to produce a report on food security by the end of the Session. That is within two weeks.

[Victoria Prentis]

indicated assent.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I see the Minister nodding. I wonder whether she could tip us off about when we might expect that.

We also need fairness within the supply chain. We have heard about the power of the retailers, and the imbalance of power. What we are seeing at the moment, I fear, is that although consumers may be benefiting from the price competition between retailers, they are just pushing the pressure down the supply chain harder and harder, which is not sustainable. Perhaps she could tell us something about where the Government have got to on those supply chain contracts, and on dairy contracts, the consultation on which was, of course, a while ago. She may need the opportunity to once again comment on competition laws, and suspension and relaxation, which has happened a number of times.

In the interest of time, I will not make any further points on farming and environmental land management, but we are hoping for some more information soon. Finally, I praise and thank all those in the British food and drink sector. We are fortunate to have a sector that can produce food to such good standards and to such excellent quality, and we cherish it. That is why we want a plan from the Government. We have repeatedly called on the Government to produce a plan for the sector: a plan for food, a plan to get to net zero and a plan to buy British. If the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings were here now, I would tell him, “There is a party that will do that!”, if he is dissatisfied with his own side. We want to get to a situation where people can buy our food with confidence as part of that strategy, but that strategy must also improve conditions for the workers throughout the sector who have given so much. There is plenty to celebrate, but much to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

Thank you very much, Mr Davies. I am sorry you have had to cope with so many interruptions for votes during the debate. I join everyone in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for organising such a fantastic opportunity to talk about food and drink, which is obviously my favourite subject. I will now refer to him as the hon. Member for custard creams, which is how I will forever think of him. He made a thoughtful and serious contribution, and I will do my best to answer as many of his points as I can.

We have had a bit of a pub crawl around the nation, and I look forward to being bought a drink in The Two Tubs. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) also made some serious points about the consumption of British fish, which is something we are working very hard on with Seafish. I will definitely discuss that matter with him outside this debate, because it is something I feel passionately about.

From Stockport, we heard more about beer, but also a serious point about the unsocial hours and sometimes difficult conditions in which hospitality workers, in particular, have to work—a useful contribution from the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). We heard from Shetland, where we can get our chaser of whisky and gin, and where there are many small artisan producers. I have enjoyed working with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on some of the difficulties that we have been able to overcome, by and large, for his fish exporters; we will continue to do so. We also had a culinary experience of Strangford, which was an extension of the experience of the fish of Strangford that we had yesterday—although very little can beat a smokie from Angus.

The food and drink sector is a vital part of our economy; it is our largest manufacturing sector, and I certainly think about it many more than three times a day. This is a very exciting time for food. We are preparing for the publication of the Government’s food strategy early next year. However, in the meantime, before the end of this Session—on or before 16 December—we will publish our analysis of statistical data. That may not sound exciting, but it is a large and serious piece of work that will be used to inform the Government’s food strategy going forward. There is a plan and it is being developed; I will not pretend in any way that the strategy we publish next year will be the end of the plan, but it will include many of the solutions that we need for this important sector.

I pay tribute to Ian Wright, whose retirement do is later tonight, for all the Food and Drink Federation’s superb collaborative work with Government. Ian took the helm of the Food and Drink Federation in 2015; he has represented the industry with knowledge, passion and enthusiasm through Brexit and covid. He has also overseen a major overhaul of that organisation, and I salute him.

Many Members have commented on food supply chains. We have all thought a great deal about food supply chains in the last 18 months. We know that the most effective response to food supply disruption is industry led, but I firmly believe that Government also need to provide appropriate support and relaxation of rules, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) mentioned, when appropriate. One of the most helpful things we did early on during the pandemic was to relax drivers’ hours and extend supermarket delivery hours.

We all know that labour is a major challenge across the industry as we have a very tight labour market. We are working closely with the Home Office to introduce temporary visa solutions: for example, for poultry workers before Christmas, ensuring that turkeys will be on the table; and for butchers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) alluded to. Other mitigations for the pig sector include the slaughter incentive payment scheme and the private storage aid scheme.

On dairy, yes, we consulted, and one of my first acts when I joined DEFRA was to ensure that we did that work on the dairy supply chain. That is coming to fruition, and I thank all dairy farmers involved in that work. It has been a difficult and sensitive piece of work. I hope that we will be in a position to regulate next year, and pigs are definitely next on the list in terms of supply chains. Sir David Lewis has been mentioned, and I thank him for his work on the new supply chain advisory group and the new industry taskforce, which will look to pre-empt future issues. There will be clarity on the seasonal agricultural workers scheme very shortly.

Tackling obesity is a priority for the Government. Some 64% of adults are classed as obese and for children in year 6, the figure is 40%. The strategy was set out in July by the Department of Health and Social Care. We have ensured that some of the more stringent requirements do not apply to smaller retailers, and it is important that we continue to bring industry with us when making these changes—some useful points were made on that.

Every area of the UK has drawn on the local ingredients they produce, often because of a particular place, climatic conditions or type of ground, to make distinctive drinks and dishes. We are working hard to expand abroad. We aim to secure free trade agreements with countries, covering 80% of our trade within the next three years. We are very ambitious for this sector. We have heard figures of £23.6 billion in 2019. We have taken some recent action, including setting up the food export council and the new agri-food councillors. There were announcements on that yesterday, and I had a meeting with the Paymaster General at lunch today to discuss the issue with people in the industry. It is very exciting.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned Government procurement. I agree that it is very important. We have not refreshed the Government buying standards on food since 2014; now is definitely the time to do so. We are consulting on that at the moment. I hope that I can repay his faith in me as his willing PPS for doing this. We will definitely place a greater emphasis on local, seasonal and sustainable produce in the new procurement rules.

On extended producer responsibility, our proposals are trying to shift the payment for excess packaging waste from local taxpayers to businesses. The analysis indicates that that will not push up consumer prices, but I accept that further work needs to be done to ensure that that really is the case, and it is important that we continue to work on this issue as we prepare the statutory instruments.

In short, the Government are totally committed to maximising real opportunities for our vital food and drink sector across all parts of our nations. And I don’t know about you, Mr Davies, but I am getting hungry.

UK-EU Fisheries Allocations

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for making a rather lyrical speech on the current situation in Northern Ireland. I think it is fair to say that the Northern Irish industry is extremely well represented at all levels. Alan McCulla and Harry Wick are in frequent contact with us, I spoke to Edwin Poots last night, and I enjoy working closely with the hon. Members for Strangford, for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on all these issues, which are important to the industry.

I also join others in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I agree that it is very decent of him to turn up this morning, and I know that nothing would keep him away from a fisheries debate. We in DEFRA—I speak for the whole team—have enjoyed his time on the Front Bench and enjoyed working with him constructively. I know that fishing matters to him and that his work on safety issues will be viewed as some of his most important work on the Front Bench. I noted what he said about Clive Palfrey and Dave Milford, or Milf, whose nickname I look forward to learning about—I fear that I know it. I also note what right hon. and hon. Members of different parties said about the RNLI and other heroes in yellow wellies, which I thought was a very good way to describe them. They do so much to help with the safety of our fishermen, and in very dangerous conditions that exist right now.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who is a great champion of his fishing industry and who is doing exciting new work on aquaculture, which I look forward to being part of. I am glad to hear of the success of Brixham this year. I have visited it, and it is truly impressive. The domestic sales from Brixham market are an achievement that people should be very proud of.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is a regular correspondent and interlocutor on fisheries matters too. I ask him to hold on for the joint fisheries statement, which is coming very early in the new year. I am working on a draft at the moment, and in that will be the plan and a list of potential fisheries management plans. I am also looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who represents the REAF initiative, which is very much the forerunner of some of this work. I look forward to working with both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend on these issues very early in the new year.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I will make progress, if I may, because I have an awful lot of questions to answer and I want to leave time for the hon. Member for Strangford to sum up.

As all the experts in the House know, the annual fishing opportunities negotiations are under way, and I hope that they will come to a happy conclusion in the next few weeks. Our aim, which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) asked about, is to secure a package of fishing opportunities and access arrangements for 2022 for fisheries that are consistent with our fisheries objectives, as set out in the Fisheries Act 2020, and that are informed by the best available scientific evidence. We are currently working very hard to deliver this through negotiations with the EU, with Norway and with the Faroese. We are determined to be a pragmatic negotiating partner.

We are pleased that the high-level negotiations with the coastal states have recently concluded and there has been successful agreement on the setting of global total allowable catches for 2022 mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring, in line with the advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

UK-EU bilateral negotiations began on 11 November. So far, they have covered a range of topics including TAC allocations and special conditions, sea bass and non-quota stocks. Really good progress is being made. We intend to conclude these negotiations by the end of next week, in time for the EU to go through its internal processes, as was envisaged in the TCA.

We are also currently in the midst of trilateral negotiations with the EU and Norway, and bilateral negotiations with Norway and the Faroe Islands. They have been positive and constructive so far, and last Friday I had a useful meeting with new Norwegian Minister of Fisheries, as Odd Emil Ingebrigtsen is no longer in post. We are cautiously optimistic that we will reach agreements that will support the long-term sustainability of North sea stocks, as well as maximising opportunities for UK industry. Arctic stocks are one of a number stocks we are considering in our bilateral negotiations with Norway. I know how important they are.

On the apportionment of the additional quota we received in the TCA between the UK Administrations, there is no consensus in industry or between the fisheries administrations about how to use this additional quota. There is always a high demand for more quota but sharing out quota is a zero-sum game. More for one Administration of course means less for another.

This year, following extensive consultation, we went for a blend of 90% track record and 10% zonal attachment. Our approach was welcomed by many but some, including some members of the industry in Northern Ireland, felt we should have taken a different approach. We have been reviewing how this new method for allocation between the fisheries administrations worked this year and will be launching a public consultation soon to help us develop methods for the future. I look forward to hearing from all right hon. and hon. Members here about how that should be done. We have been working closely with all the devolved Administrations on this; it is not easy.

The first part of the £100 million seafood fund, mentioned by many and announced on 11 September, is to provide a £24 million science and innovation pillar. This will support the industry to work jointly with scientists to gather new data to help us manage our fish stocks more sustainably. It will also help us gather new data on gear selectivity and improve understanding of the ecosystem benefits and impacts of aquaculture. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said about net zero, and it will also help with our path towards that. It will help fund projects which develop innovative ideas and technologies, such as new biodegradable packaging for seafood in order to reduce single-use plastics.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend and others that further details on the future pillars are expected next week. I expect to hear from many of the Members currently here about their views and ideas for spending that money. The infrastructure pillar will invest in ports, processing and aquaculture facilities for the fishing industry.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the Minister agree that the Whitby Lobster Hatchery will be just the sort of scheme that this might fit?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am absolutely not going to agree on my feet at this point who should be getting that money, but I fully expect all hon. Members in this Chamber to be putting in their bids with enthusiasm. It is a generous scheme, and I am hopeful that those who put in decent bids will be suitably rewarded.

The third pillar—skills and training—will be aimed at attracting new entrants into the fishing industry and encouraging employment opportunities. That will help in the longer term with the labour shortages that several hon. Members mentioned. I am pleased to hear that the MAC report helped with including deckhands—although I heard what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said—who were added following the last recommendations. The MAC is being reviewed again next year, and it is important that we from the fishing industry look closely at the shortage occupation list.

[Mr Carmichael]

Before we look forward to the pathway still to come, can we look at the administration of the compensation scheme, particularly in relation to my constituent, who is £30,000 out? Will the Minister meet me to discuss his case?

[Victoria Prentis]

I would be delighted. We have discussed the case in the past, but I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it again.

Moving on to exports, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport alluded to, while we had a difficult start to the year, the sector is showing real signs of improvement. August seafood export values were similar to pre-pandemic levels. Some EU and indeed non-EU exports are still down, but UK salmon exports are up significantly, by 25% on pre-pandemic levels. As hon. Members understand, there is a complicated combination of difficulties, very much related to the closure of hospitality across Europe, which have made exports really challenging this year.

We continue to support exporters through our seafood industry forum on trade and to engage as closely as we can with industry. One particularly useful taskforce was set up by the new fisheries envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). We will continue to work with the sector, particularly through the Scottish seafood industry action group, to overcome future export challenges.

A number of hon. Members asked about licensing; for specific numbers, I refer them to the written ministerial statement that I laid a couple of weeks ago. Under the terms of the TCA, almost 1,700 EU vessels have now been licensed to fish in our waters. We have granted 98% of EU applications for fishing licences, 123 of them for the six to 12 nautical mile zone.

We are taking a reasonable and evidence-based approach to licensing that is compliant with the TCA. We have been extremely flexible about the evidence we will accept, even accepting survey data, for which we paid, when no other information is available. We have engaged in extensive discussions with the European Commission and French authorities—I last met the commissioner on Friday. Where the evidence provided has been satisfactory, licences have been issued. Where it has not, the door remains open to looking at more evidence.

We continue to work with the Commission and the French authorities on an approach to direct replacement vessels, and we are working very hard on that at the moment. The arrangements for the Crown dependencies under the TCA are slightly different from those for the UK. Both Jersey and Guernsey are taking a reasonable and evidenced-based approach to licensing and we are supporting them wherever necessary.

In conclusion, it is clear that we are making progress since leaving the EU. We are in the middle of annual negotiations, where we think we will be able to secure the fishing opportunities we need. I look forward to sharing the outcomes of those opportunities with the House.

[Carla Lockhart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I will not, because the hon. Member for Strangford is about to close the debate.

The additional quota uplift provided for in the TCA has been apportioned among nations using a blend of track record and zonal attachment, and we will look at how we review that work for future years. I admire the industry for its resilience and feel confident that the £100 million will provide the support the sector needs. Under the terms of the TCA, we have granted 98% of EU applications and are working well on the outstanding issues. There is still work to be done and I look forward to working with all Members to ensure that our fisheries are managed in a sustainable way that protects our marine environment.

Draft Eggs (England) Regulations 2021

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Eggs (England) Regulations 2021.

The draft regulations were laid—that is the end of my jokes—before this House on 19 October.

This draft statutory instrument has been laid to allow marketing standards checks on class A eggs imported from third countries to continue to be conducted at the locations where they already take place. That is in accordance with current practice and, indeed, practice over the past 30 years or so. The instrument is needed because, without amendment, the retained regulation on egg marketing standards will require those checks to be relocated, causing disruption to the inspection process and requiring considerable additional resources, with no material benefit to anyone, frankly. The instrument will have effect only in England. Both the Scottish and Welsh Governments will make the same amendment to their own domestic legislation.

Marketing standards are intended to ensure that the market is supplied with products of satisfactory quality to meet consumer expectations. They are in addition to, and completely separate from, safety—or sanitary—standards. Sanitary standards will continue to be checked at the border, as they are at the moment. The amendment to be made by this draft instrument is not a change of policy and simply continues the existing arrangements for the marketing standards checks.

Through the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol, regulation 589/2008 on egg marketing standards —which Great Britain has retained—will continue to apply to Northern Ireland, as it has effect in the EU. Therefore, the current checking arrangements for the movement of third-country class A eggs into Northern Ireland will not change.

For class A eggs to be imported into GB from a third country, the Secretary of State must determine whether the third country has equivalent egg marketing standards. Only European Union member states are currently recognised as producing eggs to that equivalent standard. I should add that we do not export or import a vast number of eggs—that accounts for about 10% of the egg market in England.

In the future, however, should things change and should we wish to import eggs from any third countries other than those in the EU, the Secretary of State must first make a similar determination of equivalence. Until then, class A eggs may not be imported into GB from non-EU countries. I reassure the Committee that that is really not an issue at the moment, because we do not import eggs from non-EU countries. We will continue to uphold the high standards expected by UK consumers.

The change contained in this draft SI been discussed with British egg industry stakeholders, and we held a joint consultation with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I ask the Committee to approve the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I am very happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points. However, I do not currently know the exact number of eggs that are shipped to Northern Ireland, so I am happy to write to him on that specific point. The key issue, for the purposes of the draft SI, is that the current checking arrangements for Northern Ireland will continue to apply; there will be no change, at all, to the way that that works.

As I said earlier, compared with the entire industry, the number of eggs we import is relatively small, at about 10%; we also export a certain number. The numbers fluctuate a bit but, as the hon. Gentleman said, British consumers prefer to eat locally produced eggs—I suspect that consumers across the rest of the world do, too.

In the consultation, the reason why the stakeholders initially objected to the change was that, of course, the British egg industry is very ambitious and wants to produce more eggs, so that we do not import any at all. That was very much the tenor of the conversation that the Department had with industry. I am glad to say that the roundtable, which was held to talk through concerns raised, went very well, and my officials were able to allay industry’s concerns. In summary, the read-out from the roundtable was that, while domestic producers felt that eggs should be checked at the border, egg marketing inspectors from APHA were able to explain that additional resources would be needed to do this, which might necessarily divert resources from other functions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear what the Minister says and I am reassured. However, from conversations with people in the egg industry my sense is that they are deeply concerned about the threat of lower-cost producers being able to undercut them. I am told that there is something like a 16% cost advantage from other egg producers in Europe. Should we not be concerned about that?

[Victoria Prentis]

No, we certainly should not. If we pass this SI, APHA will continue to undertake risk assessment checks, both on domestic and imported goods. Other checks happen already, such as the sanitary checks—the safety checks—that happen at the border, as I mentioned earlier. The Food Standards Agency is also able to make checks on safety at the retail or processing end—that is normally where those checks take place. British consumers, and the British egg industry, should be under no illusion at all that imported and domestic eggs will not continue to be properly checked to ensure that they come up to our rightly high standards.

During the course of the roundtable, we also explained that imported eggs will be subject to exactly the same checks as domestic eggs, and that we will not import eggs from third countries until a full assessment has been made. Truthfully, we do not feel that is likely to be necessary or, indeed, to happen.

I hope that hon. Members fully understand the need for this statutory instrument, which ensures that marketing standard checks on class A eggs continue to happen in the locations where they take place today. This SI should avoid any disruption to the level of checks that currently take place and will allow egg marketing inspectors to continue to uphold our high standards. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

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

New Clause 19 would require that the Secretary of State conducts a review of the keeping of exotic pets in England, including examining the need for prohibition, licencing or registration for certain exotic animals. Such a review cannot come quickly enough. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reports that it is treating an increasing number of exotic pets each year. In 2020 alone it received 6,119 reports relating to exotic pets, which in total involved 22,865 animals. Because there is a lack of licencing or registration requirements for exotic animals, we do not have an accurate estimate of how many are present in the UK. However, given these lax regulations, their increased prevalence in the UK is a cause for concern.

Exotic animals are not cats or dogs; they are wild animals with often highly complex natural history and incompletely understood welfare needs. Caring for these animals requires a high level of expertise, which, sadly, is not possessed by all exotic pet owners. As a result, exotic animals kept in domestic settings too often experience pain and suffering. Many species have not evolved to survive in the UK and so require artificial light and heat to keep them healthy, but the necessary information and equipment is often variable in quality or unavailable to domestic owners. Diets are often poorly understood, with animals fed the wrong types of food, leading to malnutrition. Enclosures can be too small and do not allow animals to move around and explore, or express other normal behaviours. Some species need to be kept on their own, or with others of their own kind, but, again, this does not always happen, leading to behavioural problems.

The collection of live animals from the wild for the exotic pet trade has led to serious, and in some cases catastrophic, population declines in some species, in addition to the suffering that animals are put through. We feel it is a missed opportunity not to get the ball rolling with the Bill on a set of reforms that would significantly reduce the suffering of thousands of kept animals across the UK. I suspect the Minister will say that there are already provisions to regulate the keeping of exotic animals as pets in the Bill, in the form of the primate licensing system, as hinted at earlier in the discussion, and that there are measures that will allow the system to be expanded to other exotic animals at a later date. We have already touched on this in earlier debates.

New clause 19 would complement that approach, and I commend it to the Minister. It would allow a sensible and reasonable debate about which exotic pets could reasonably by kept with a licence, unlike primates, and which should not be kept as pets at all. We have helpfully added a list that could be considered, based on conversations with the organisations that have to deal with these dilemmas on a daily basis. It is not right that when we have the opportunity to do so, we leave welfare organisations to deal with the problems and dodge our responsibilities. The Government should grasp the nettle.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The welfare of exotic pets held in private residences is already protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a kept animal or to fail to provide for its needs. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is currently undertaking a review of exotic pets, and it published an interim report in September this year. The RSPCA and the Born Free Foundation have also recently published a report on this topic.

The Government would be interested in considering a review of exotic pets, but we do not want to duplicate the work that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is doing at the moment. We have had its interim report and we want to wait for the full report. We will look thoroughly at that work when deciding what further assessments are needed. We already have the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and, as the hon. Member for Cambridge alluded to, the provisions in this Bill, so we will have the appropriate regulatory framework when the review concludes. Any future review will take into account all of the evidence, and further regulation might be needed. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which was pretty much as I anticipated. I do not understand why we always have to go so slowly on everything. I know she thinks she is going at pace—that is the current term—but it seems to us that we could go more quickly. However, I have heard what she says, which confirms what I said earlier in the debate: basically, a general licensing system is being developed. I think we have it the wrong way round, but we will not pursue it any further today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

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

I am both a lover of dogs and a firm believer in science-driven policy. Unfortunately, it is hard to see any credible scientific evidence to support the breed-specific legislation and breed-specific approach taken in the 1991 Act. We have to learn how we go on these issues, but it is clear now that the legislation has failed to deliver what it was designed to do. It has not reduced hospital admissions due to dog bites, has not improved public safety, and not reduced the types of breeds it legislates against.

Between March 2005 and February 2015, the number of hospital admissions in England due to dog bites increased by 76%, from 4,110 to 7,227. The figure rose yet again in 2016 to 7,719. The legislation has led to the euthanising of thousands of healthy dogs. The law does not currently permit prohibited dog types for new owners, regardless of the individual dog’s behaviour, so the only option permitted is euthanasia.

The new clause is in line with the findings of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s 2018 inquiry, which showed that the current dangerous dogs legislation fails to protect safety and can harm animal welfare. The EFRA report recommended instead

“a comprehensive review of existing dog control legislation and policy,”

and spoke of the need for an alternative dog control model

“that focuses on prevention though education, early intervention, and consistently robust sanctions for offenders”.

I am therefore proposing that the Bill be adapted to ask the Secretary of State to undertake a review into the future of this canine policy, so that we might move on from breed-specific legislation to breed-neutral legislation, and have policies that improve public safety and reduce some dog bite incidents.

[Victoria Prentis]

I agree that we would benefit from improved data collection on dog attack incidents, and I can confirm that we are already discussing with the police how this can best be achieved. We also recognise that more could be done to support responsible dog ownership, which is why we commissioned a review by Middlesex University to look at responsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog. The Middlesex University research will be published very shortly, in December—in just a couple of weeks’ time—and will provide the basis for the consideration of further reforms in this area, alongside the EFRA Committee’s 2018 recommendations.

Turning to the breed-specific elements of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, since around 2005, about one in six fatal dog attacks have been by pit bull terriers, despite the prohibitions we have in place, which have significantly limited the number of pit bull terriers in the community. We saw the devastating consequences of a dog attack only last week, with the tragic death of 10-year-old Jack Lis in Caerphilly. We are still waiting for the police to confirm the breed of dog involved in this awful incident and, whatever the upshot of that conclusion, we firmly believe that these restrictions play an important part in our overall approach towards tackling dangerous dogs.

I understand the sincerity with which Members across the House have spoken many times, both privately and in debate, about this difficult issue. We take the issue very seriously. The Middlesex University report will move us further and, in those circumstances, I respectfully ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

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

New clause 21 deals with microchipping of cats. We heard about cattism earlier in the debate. We tabled the new clause because microchipping is the safe and permanent way to identify an owned cat. Cats Protection’s “Cats and their Stats” report in 2021 found that there are 2.8 million owned cats without a microchip across the UK, which is more than a quarter of all owned cats.

We know there are a multitude of benefits to increasing the number of microchipped cats: it helps reunite more lost cats with their owners; it ensures owners are informed and able to be involved in decisions about their cat’s veterinary care—for example, if they were hit by a car and taken to a vet by a member of the public, which sadly occurs often—it informs more owners and provides closure in the sad event that their cat is fatally injured and scanned for a microchip; it provides easier detection of cats in the event of theft; and it allows for better traceability of individual owned cats should there be a significant disease outbreak such as rabies.

The new clause would help ensure that more of the UK’s cats are microchipped, registered and traceable in the event of an emergency. We have talked a lot about microchipping different animals, and I do not see why the situation with cats should be different from that with dogs.

[Victoria Prentis]

We absolutely share the hon. Lady’s desire for all cats to be microchipped. My own cat, a former Purr Minister, is himself microchipped. The Government committed in our manifesto, and reaffirmed in our action plan for animal welfare, our intention to introduce compulsory cat microchipping. Around 75% of cats are microchipped, compared with around 90% of dogs.

Our consultation on microchipping ended earlier this year and we received 33,000 responses, which we have been analysing. We will be publishing a summary of the consultation responses and our response to the consultation, by which I mean our plans for the future, within the next couple of weeks—certainly by the end of the year. I am very pleased to confirm that there was overwhelming support for the principle of compulsory cat microchipping.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Given that we all agree, and that this is a consultation where it is overwhelmingly clear what people want, why do the Government not just do it?

[Victoria Prentis]

Well, may I carry on? Colleagues may be aware that we have also carried out a post-implementation review of the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015, which we also intend to publish before the end of the year. The review highlights key difficulties—I think Members across the House are aware of them—with the current microchipping regime, including the current operation of the databases, where improvements can definitely be made. We propose to take a little bit longer to get this right, to ensure that the problems that have beset the multiple databases for dogs do not reoccur.

Our intention is to make a new set of regulations next year that incorporate both compulsory cat microchipping and changes to the current problems in the dog microchipping regimes. These regulations will of course be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so it will be possible for Parliament to be involved. In these circumstances and with those assurances, I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Olivia Blake]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn. 

New Clause 22

Review of cat breeding licencing

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the appropriate licencing arrangements for cat breeders.

(2) In conducting this review the secretary of state must—

(a) consider the appropriate licencing arrangements for cat breeders;

(b) consider the maximum permitted litters per cat in a 12-month period;

(c) consider the maximum permitted litters per cat across a cat’s lifetime;

(d) consider restrictions on keeping cats for breeding, when it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype, conformation, behaviour or state of health, that breeding from a cat could have a detrimental effect on its health or welfare or the health or welfare of its offspring; and

(e) consult the public and such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on the licencing of cat breeding.

(3) The Secretary of State must bring forward legislation based on the findings of the review within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(4) For the purposes of this section ‘cat breeders’ are individuals who have bred 2 or more litters of cats in a 12 month period.”—(Olivia Blake.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the appropriate licencing arrangements for cats.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olivia Blake]

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

We probably will not press this new clause to a vote, but I think it is important enough to discuss it in Committee. Despite regulations being in place for dog breeding, there are currently none governing cat breeding. That is not the case across the country; regulations on cat breeding came into force in Scotland in September 2021. It is inconsistent in terms of cat welfare for cats to be protected in that way in one part of the UK but not another. The Bill presents an opportunity to have alignment and to ensure that good breeding welfare is in place for cats and kittens in England.

Cats Protection has raised valid concerns that cats are being bred with conformations that could affect their health and welfare and that of their offspring. In cats such as the Scottish Fold and Munchkin, an inherited disorder is specifically bred for, with the breed’s characteristics being produced by a gene mutation. The inherited disorder is detrimental to the cat and negatively affects its quality of life. Other breeds rely on this too, such as flat-faced Persian cats and other brachycephalic cats, which often experience breathing difficulties, as we have discussed for dogs, as well as eye problems, skin infections and difficulty eating as a result of their skull conformation.

Reviewing the licensing arrangements for cat breeders, and bringing forward legislation to license cat breeding, is the only way we can ensure better enforcement of the welfare of cats across the UK from birth. To be clear, we will not push this new clause to a vote.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on this important issue and for confirming that she will not push the new clause to a vote. That is sensible. There are significant issues that we need to look at, which I intend to do in our review of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. We will review and report on those issues fully before 1 October 2023. We are already collecting evidence to inform that review. I encourage the hon. Lady and others, if they have evidence, to please send it to us. We are proactively working with partners, including local authorities. The scope of this exercise very much includes cat breeding. We will consider the case for extending the breeding regulations more widely during the review. We will then be in a position to assess the case for introducing new legislation.

[Olivia Blake]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23

Local abattoir networks

“The Secretary of State must ensure a network of local abattoirs exists to provide the services required to support the UK’s diverse livestock farming sector and to deliver livestock welfare benefits through minimising distance to slaughter.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I support the thrust of the new clause from the hon. Member for Cambridge, and I very much hope the Government will listen to him and to the EFRA Committee’s recommendations. I would welcome it if the Minister could give us some assurances that the Government will look at this issue to support and bolster the abattoir network. As the hon. Member mentioned, the situation is becoming acute, and I mentioned the pig situation in the Chamber. We need to make sure that the abattoir system is functioning, both for our food security and for animal welfare. That includes both veterinary and butcher capacity. This is a chance for the Government to give us some assurances and specifics on how they will look at this moving forward.

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government acknowledge the importance of local abattoirs to improving animal welfare through shorter journey times. We are committed to working with the industry to ensure that the UK maintains its high-quality slaughtering facilities. We need to find innovative solutions to address funding issues for small abattoirs.

I am pleased to report that the rural development programme is supporting a mobile abattoir project. The project is currently being trialled at two sites. One is at Fir Farm in Gloucestershire, which I had the pleasure of visiting with the chairman of the EFRA Committee and Lord Benyon earlier this summer; the other is at M.C. Kelly Farm in Devon. It was a very interesting pilot and I would be happy to discuss it with Members outside the Committee; it has thrown up issues that we will have to work through and resolve—that is the purpose of a pilot of course. We really do believe that this project will act as a model for future mobile abattoir sites.

We at DEFRA also chair the small abattoirs working group, which brings together industry representatives. We have initiated a series of smaller sub-groups to go into detailed discussions on how to reduce the regulatory burdens on smaller abattoirs. So far issues discussed include the new livestock information programme, the potential for streamlining the administrative and regulatory burden on small abattoirs and ways of ensuring greater co-ordination across Government agencies and abattoirs. I am looking at how a new group—for which I have two excellent chairs in mind—can oversee all this work and drive through the changes that we need in this area. I will continue to update Members as we progress through this work. Given those circumstances, I would ask that we do not vote on new clause 23.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I think we are on the same page on this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Rearing of non-native game birds: review and consultation

“(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) undertake a review of the welfare impacts of the rearing and keeping of non-native gamebirds,

(b) examine the use of cages in the rearing and keeping of non-native gamebirds, and

(c) consult on regulation of rearing and keeping of non-native gamebirds.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of responses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b).

(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months from the day on which the consultation under subsection (2) closes, publish a statement of future policy on the rearing and keeping of non-native game birds.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the welfare impacts of the rearing and keeping of non-native gamebirds.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

You will be glad to hear, Mr Davies, that this is our final new clause. I return to an issue that has long been a focus of Labour’s work on animal welfare as part of ending the cage age. New clause 27 seeks to establish a review of the rearing of non-native game birds, with a particular focus on the welfare of the birds and the use of cages.

I am advised that around 50 million pheasants and partridges are mass produced in the UK every year to be used for sporting purposes. I am grateful to the Labour Animal Welfare Society for commissioning its recent report from Professor Stephen Harris—it makes for fairly grim reading. Animal Aid estimates that tens of thousands of partridges and pheasants are confined in cages in England. It argues that the birds inside these cages suffer from feather loss, scalping and injuries inflicted by their stressed cage mates. It also reports that birds may have masks and other devices fitted to try to stop them inflicting injuries, and that large numbers of breeding birds are confined for most of their lives in so-called raised laying cages, which are left outside and exposed to the elements.

Such practices clearly pose significant welfare concerns for the game birds involved. The current code of practice for the welfare of game birds reared for sporting purposes is not legally binding. I am told that the code was due to be reviewed in 2016, but apparently that did not take place. The Minister has indicated in responses to parliamentary questions, however, that the Government are examining the use of cages for the breeding of partridges and pheasants—a lot of examining is going on in the Department. I am in no doubt that every member of the Committee wants to ensure that we end the suffering of kept animals. It really is time to end the cage age.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is true that a lot of examining of evidence is going on, but that cannot be portrayed as a bad thing. I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for science-led policy making. We want action as well. That is why I said slightly tongue in cheek earlier that we get criticised when the hon. Member for Cambridge feels we are going too quickly, but then we get criticised when he feels we are going too slowly.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister should hand over to us.

[Victoria Prentis]

Well, I believe in democracy—I do not know about you.

[The Chair]

I do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I know you do, Mr Davies. You are quite right—I do not know about the hon. Member for Cambridge.

As we are coming to the end of these proceedings—I hope, pleasurable though they have been—it is right that we accept that, yes, there is a lot to do in the area of animal welfare, but, yes, a lot is being done. We should take this opportunity to step back and to think of the poor people working in the animal welfare team in DEFRA, who are doing all this work, as well as those in the Public Gallery from the Bill team and those offline who drafted the Bill. Yes, animal welfare legislation is difficult. It requires evidence and it requires us to work out what would help and where, and what can be done in other ways through guidance or whatever.

Turning to the new clause, we are already reviewing how to improve game bird welfare, including examining the evidence on the use of cages for breeding pheasants and partridges. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, we have a statutory code, in section 6 of which are set out the standards, including that enriched cages are a minimum. Breaches of the code may be used in a prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is right that we review the situation periodically, and the plan is to do just that. We already have the power to make regulations in this area when we have the scientific evidence to inform future policy. I therefore ask that the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister, and delighted to get her cross at last—it is hard to make her cross. I hear what she said but, equally, I hope she heard what I said. We are moving to a different age, a different world, and while I absolutely want it to be evidence-based, there is a feeling in many parts of this country that we ought to move more quickly on these issues. In the interests of getting this done, we will not press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 82, title, line 2, at end insert “; and for connected purposes.”

The amendment updates the long title of the Bill.

I thank you, Mr Davies, all Members who have taken part in the Committee, and the Clerks’ team and others who have worked so hard to get us to this stage of this important legislation.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On a point of order, Mr Davies. I echo those thanks. I also thank Government and Opposition Members. It has been a constructive and helpful discussion, conducted in good spirits. I, too, thank the Clerks, who often have the impossible task of translating our ideas into appropriate and acceptable parliamentary language. I thank all the organisations we have heard from, the witnesses and my team—particularly George Williams, who has had to do all this pretty much on his own.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 84, in schedule 5, page 44, line 12, leave out from “to” to “education” and insert

“a broad range of conservation activities (including species recovery work both in situ and ex situ,”.

This amendment aims to ensure that any conservation measures laid out in the new standards will include the conservation work, such as species recovery work, undertaken within zoos, as well as externally.

Amendment 119, in schedule 5, page 44, line 14, leave out lines 15 and 16.

This amendment would remove a provision that would allow different standards to be applied to different descriptions of zoos.

Amendment 122, in schedule 5, page 44, line 15, at beginning insert—

“(1A) Standards relating to conservation may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require standards relating to conservation to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

Amendment 83, in schedule 5, page 44, line 16, at end insert—

“(3) In drawing up standards of modern zoo practice, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult the Zoos Expert Committee (ZEC), and

(b) issue a public consultation seeking the views of zoos, aquariums, and other interested parties,

and the Secretary of State must publish the responses to these consultations.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the standards of modern zoo practice before Parliament.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State’s standards for modern zoo practise are subject to full consultation and scrutiny, both when published and if any further changes are made, by Parliament, zoos and aquariums, other interested parties, and the Zoos Expert Committee.

Amendment 121, in schedule 5, page 44, line 16, at end insert—

“(3) The standards of modern zoo practice must define “conservation” for the purposes of the standards and, in drawing up that definition, the Secretary of State must consult the Zoos Expert Committee and publish its advice.”

Amendment 120, in schedule 5, page 45, line 15, leave out “a specialist” and insert “an expert”.

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a pleasure to be here again, Mr Davies. I am going to speak once on zoos, unless I need to answer anything specific: there is a lot to get through, and it is quite technical.

There are over 300 licensed zoos in England. A zoo is not just the classic setting that we might think of: it is an establishment where wild animals are kept for exhibition to the public for more than seven days a year. This can be a range of different settings, such as a traditional zoo, a park, a farm park, an aquarium, or a bird of prey centre. All zoos are subject to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Most of the licensing requirements are set out in the standards of modern zoo practice. As part of their licensing conditions, all zoos are required to carry out conservation, education and research. Some of our zoos do incredibly valuable work in those areas, but others, frankly, should do more. The changes set out in this Bill should help to deliver that.

The current conservation requirements in the Zoo Licensing Act were introduced in 2002, and have not been updated since. They have been criticised as being on the weak side. All other standards for the management of zoos and the animals within them are set via the standards created by section 9 of that Act. This Bill makes changes to move the conservation requirements out of the Act and into the zoo standards.

Turning now to the Zoos Expert Committee and amendments 83 and 121, I reassure the Committee that ZEC already plays a significant part in the drafting of the new zoo standards, and has been involved very much in the production of that new document. ZEC is an expert committee of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Governments. DEFRA and ZEC are currently in the process of updating the full package of zoo standards, which will be put out to consultation by the end of this year. That process has involved the full spectrum of zoo industry specialists. We therefore do not feel that amendments 83 and 121 take us any further.

When it comes to defining conservation, as is done in amendments 84 and 121, we feel that conservation should take its normal meaning, which of course will include both in situ and ex situ breeding programmes involving endangered species. One of the reasons why we have not defined conservation is that its meaning has changed over time, and we want any new zoo standards drafted by the ZECs of the future, with input from the zoo sector, to continue to reflect the latest best practice on consultation, so we are trying to future-proof this legislation.

We do not feel that the amendments dealing with ZEC transparency need to be in legislation. However, we have acknowledged the purpose behind some of these amendments, which is that the work of ZEC should be more transparent. In order to deal with that issue, we have recently provided ZEC with its own online presence on gov.uk, and that website is where we will put reports from ZEC and, where appropriate, responses from the Secretary of State. We believe that the process we have put in place—standards are drafted by the expert advisory committee, then put online to be transparent—means that the parliamentary scrutiny suggested would not add much in this area. We therefore do not believe that it is necessary.

The zoo standards are detailed technical standards that set out what is required of zoos. They are drafted by ZEC, which is made up of vets, inspectors, animal welfare experts and zoo operators, who all have detailed knowledge of the zoo sector. The same welfare standards will apply equally to all specimens of a species, regardless of the size of the zoo in which they are kept, so the provision for different standards for different types of zoos is aimed only at the new standards relating to conservation, education and research.

I understand the concerns—I will pre-empt them—about how the term “specialist” may have a separate meaning in the veterinary profession. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border was going to mention that, but we have heard him mention it before. However, we are satisfied that the term “specialist” will be commonly understood to mean a person trained in a particular branch of a subject.

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

rose—

[Dr Hudson]

I am eternally grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way, and I welcome her comments. We could add to the Bill the term “competence” or “experience” in the relevant species, in accordance with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ guidance. For any vet who deals with animals, there are separate guidelines within the Royal College guidance that talk about what they should be dealing with as a veterinarian. If we added Royal College guidance, that would help.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he feels very strongly about this issue, but I reassure him that we have tried to use the normally understood meaning of the word “specialist”.

Schedule 5 makes various amendments to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Some of the amendments are technical in nature—for example, including the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which for some reason was not included before. I really have no idea why that was the case. Schedule 5 also removes circuses, because that reference is now obsolete following the passing of other legislation, and increases the available penalties. Importantly, schedule 5 amends the 1981 Act to ensure that each zoo will have a condition on its licence that it must meet the standards specified under section 9 of the Act. Currently, local authorities must only “have regard to” the standards produced under section 9. We think this change will make the standards easier to follow and enforce. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge will not press his amendments to a Division.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

This is a short clause, but it is complicated, as the Minister said. I am grateful to her for her introduction, and she has clarified one or two points that I still want to pursue. I will start with amendments 121 and 122, which have been tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, but I also want to speak to amendments 83 and 84 and new clause 4, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), both of whom spoke on these issues on Second Reading. I am sure the Minister was listening closely, as she always does, to the Second Reading debate, in which considerable concern and interest, and some unease, was expressed by Members of different parties about some of the proposals.

Despite the Minister’s reassurances, our amendments seek to ensure that there is greater oversight of the Government’s zoo advisory body, the Zoo Expert Committee, and the process for setting future conservation standards. Amendment 83 would make a full consultation with appropriate stakeholders on any future standards changes not just a matter of best practice, but a requirement. We will probably labour this point a bit: it is not that we do not trust the Government, but who knows what future Governments will do? We think that is an important point, as others have expressed, and it should not be left to discretion; it should absolutely be a requirement.

As the Minister has set out, the Government are making promises, and although we have no reason to disbelieve them, we want the legislation strengthened. There is no statutory requirement on future Ministers to consult on further updates. The role of the Zoos Expert Committee is a dilemma, frankly, because we have had cause for concern in other areas when reports from expert committees have not necessarily always been published. That is why people are pressing for a stronger system. We think it important not only that there is a consultation, but that everything is done transparently. The Bill does not currently provide for a statutory requirement on future Ministers to involve the Zoos Expert Committee as part of any review of the conservation standards, or to formally respond to that committee’s guidance.

Amendment 83 would ensure that any advice provided by the Zoos Expert Committee, and the response by Ministers, is transparent and open to the public. I have heard what has been said about a website, but I am afraid we have seen examples of that not working—they are almost always controversial cases, quite frankly, and those are the ones that people are interested in. If that transparency is good enough for the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which is coming our way soon, it is good enough for this Bill, so we think that the amendment makes a reasonable demand. Amendment 121 puts it slightly differently but also requires the Secretary of State to consult the Zoos Expert Committee and to publish its advice.

Amendment 84 deals with the vexed issue of conservation. The Minister is right that the understanding of the term “conservation” has changed. I am grateful to both Chester Zoo and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums for their advice. Both have expressed concern about the need for the Bill to provide a clear definition of “conservation”, because they fear that future definitions may not fully capture the breadth of the work done by zoos. I am told that zoos globally contribute more than $350 million annually to species conservation programmes in the wild, making them the world’s third-largest funder of species conservation after the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Nature Conservancy.

I am also told that UK zoos contribute 10% of that global zoo total, so we are making a big contribution. Most of that funding comes from the large charitable zoos, which I am told receive no direct public subsidy, and generate the surpluses for conservation through visitor revenue. They support more than 800 projects in 105 countries, providing direct conservation action for 488 species of animals and plants. They believe it important that the Government’s definition of zoo conservation accurately reflects the wide range of work.

Amendment 84 would ensure that the Bill recognises

“a broad range of conservation activities”

and that, alongside education and research, it explicitly includes “species recovery work”, both in situ and ex situ. Although in situ species reintroduction and overseas field projects, for example, are vital to zoo conservation efforts, they alone do not fully capture the extent of the work that takes place or the impact that zoos have. To put it simply, that excellent work cannot be achieved without a lot of back-up within the zoos themselves., including the world-class care by keepers, the feed, the bedding, the veterinary attention, the facilities, the scientific development and the carefully planned and co-ordinated breeding plans. I perhaps got slightly confused by “ex situ” and “in situ”, but basically, the ex situ work is an essential component of a holistic planned approach to species recovery.

Amendment 84 would ensure a broad understanding of zoo conservation, and that the standards accurately reflect the different ways in which zoos achieve conservation impacts, helping to ensure the continuation of the vital work that zoos undertake in support of international conservation efforts. Put together, the amendments would ensure parliamentary scrutiny of future changes to conservation standards. We think that is important because, despite the Government’s decision to take the standards out of primary legislation, those standards are to become a core part of the zoo licensing and conservation requirements, so we believe that there should be democratic oversight of them.

I listened closely to what the Minister said about amendment 119 and I was reassured by what she said. It is a technical point and it depends how the draft Bill is read. We are concerned that different standards of animal welfare might be applied to “different descriptions of zoo.” The Minister made it clear that is not what is meant.

However, on page 44, paragraph 9 of schedule 5 of the Bill—I am glad to see Members are following carefully—it is not entirely clear to me to what draft subclause 2 in paragraph 9(4), which is about different standards, is intended to apply. It could be read as applying only to the standards set out in paragraph 9(3)(b), but I think the Minister confirmed that it applied to both paragraphs 9(3)(a) and 9(3)(b). In that case we are satisfied, which I will take as a victory.

[Victoria Prentis]

Oh good—please do.

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, please don’t, because obviously that would upset the Whip and then it would have to be changed.

Finally, we come to amendment 120, which I really hoped was going to be a final victory and was written with guidance from the British Veterinary Association. We have discussed the amendment and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border put things very well, although I wait to see whether his helpful suggestion about amending it further will be well received or not. The issue is around “specialist” and “expert”. We cannot see why the Government cannot just change that word, so, Mr Davies, we will press this amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The Minister is in listening mode and is going to respond now.

[Victoria Prentis]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth—and for Twycross zoo, if I may put it that way—for his intervention. I am thrilled about the recent grant from the levelling-up fund. I know that Twycross is going to do important work to study the four great apes and over a hundred endangered species in this new, purpose-built unit. As I said earlier, it is important that both in situ and ex situ are covered by the new standards, and I reassure the Committee that we will work with zoos to ensure that the new conservation standards are appropriate and achievable. All zoos will be consulted on the new standards, including the new conservation standards, and we will assess their likely impact before deciding how long zoos will have to bring in those standards. The new standards will also seek to reflect the size of the zoo, because larger zoos are likely to be expected to do more in the conservation space. As my hon. Friend said, there will be no difference in welfare.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendment proposed: 120, in schedule 5, page 45, line 15, leave out “a specialist” and insert “an expert”.—(Daniel Zeichner.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Meaning of “appropriate national authority” and “enactment”

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 48, page 31, line 6, leave out from “authority”” to end of line 15 and insert

“, in relation to a power to make provision, means—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the provision would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament;

(c) the Welsh Ministers, so far as the provision would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd.

(2A) But the Secretary of State may make regulations under section 43 or 46 only with—

(a) the consent of the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision that could be made under that section by the Scottish Ministers;

(b) the consent of the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision that could be made under that section by the Welsh Ministers.”

This amendment amends the definition of “appropriate national authority” to provide that the devolved authorities’ powers are limited by reference to devolved legislative competence.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 57, 61, 63, 64, 69 and 70.

Government new clause 2—Concurrent functions in Wales.

[Victoria Prentis]

The amendments in this group are technical and concerned with the way in which Scottish and Welsh Ministers may make regulations under the Bill. Amendment 54 amends clause 48 to ensure that the powers to make regulations under part 4 are consistent with devolution arrangements. Amendment 57 amends clause 50 and provides Scottish and Welsh Ministers with powers to amend other legislation where there are consequential changes.

Amendment 61 amends clause 51 and removes a reference to clause 49. Amendments 63 and 64 also amend clause 51 to provide for the commencement of new clause 2, which will come into force two months following Royal Assent. Amendments 69 and 70 amend clause 52 to confirm that the territorial extent on the amendments to the Government of Wales Act 2006 is the same as for that Act.

Amendment 54 agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Regulations under Part 3

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause is no longer necessary as it has been replaced by new clause 3, which brings all the regulation-making powers in the Bill into a single new clause. I ask the Committee to agree that clause 49 does not stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 disagreed to.

Clause 50

Power to make consequential provision

Amendments made: 56, in clause 50, page 32, line 8, leave out “made by statutory instrument”.

This amendment (together with Amendment 58) removes provision about regulations under this clause with a view to provision about regulations being made by a new clause.

Amendment 57, in clause 50, page 32, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision that is consequential on any provision of Part 3 as it extends to Scotland.

(1B) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision that is consequential on any provision of Part 1 or 3 as it applies in relation to Wales.

(1C) But—

(a) provision may be made under subsection (1A) only if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament;

(b) provision may be made under subsection (1B) only if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd.”

This amendment confers powers to make consequential provision on the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers.

Amendment 58, in clause 50, page 32, leave out lines 14 to 24.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment removes provision about regulations under this clause with a view to provision about regulations being made by a new clause.

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 50 provides a general power for the Secretary of State to make any necessary changes to legislation that are consequential on any provisions included in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Commencement

Amendments made: 59, in clause 51, page 32, line 29, at end insert—

“(A1) Part 1 comes into force—

(a) in relation to England, on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;

(b) in relation to Wales, on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint.”

This amendment, which is consequential on the amendments of Part 1 that result in that Part applying to Wales, confers on the Welsh Ministers the power to commence Part 1 in relation to Wales.

Amendment 60, in clause 51, page 32, line 30, leave out “Parts 1 and 2 come” and insert “Part 2 comes”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 59.

Amendment 61, in clause 51, page 32, line 35, leave out “, 48 and 49” and insert “and 48”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55.

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 51, page 32, line 36, at end insert—

“() section (Animal Welfare Act 2006: minor amendments) comes into force on such day as the appropriate national authority may by regulations appoint;”

This amendment provides for the new clause containing minor amendments of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to be commenced by regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 68.

Government new clause 1—Animal Welfare Act 2006: minor amendments.

[Victoria Prentis]

The amendments and the new clause ensure that the time limits for prosecuting offences set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 also apply to regulations that are made under the Act. Doubt was thrown on this position by a recent administrative court decision. It is important that we make the changes proposed, to enable prosecutors long enough to gather detailed evidence in animal welfare cases.

Amendment 62 agreed to.

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 51, page 32, line 36, at end insert—

“() sections (Taking of dog without lawful authority etc) and (Power to extend section (Taking of dog without lawful authority etc)) come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”

This amendment provides for NC5 and NC6 to be commenced by regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 86.

Government new clause 5—Taking of dog without lawful authority etc.

Government new clause 6—Power to extend section (Taking of dog without lawful authority etc).

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

The theft of a pet is devastating. We all know that pet sales increased during the pandemic, as we were all at home and felt that we would like to share our homes with various furry friends. As a consequence, the price of puppies and kittens rose, which is thought to have triggered a rise in the abhorrent crime of pet theft. In May this year, the Government launched the pet theft taskforce. It was asked to gather evidence and make representations, and I thank its members for their speedy work—they produced a report in September. I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) for chairing the taskforce and for his continued interest in this area.

In brief, the taskforce found that there is a growing feeling among the public that the current laws do not sufficiently recognise the difference between pets and inanimate objects. The taskforce therefore recommended the creation of a new offence of pet abduction, which acknowledges that pets form bonds with their owners and that their welfare can be adversely affected when they are removed from their primary carer. To start with, the new offence will apply to dogs—that is a recommendation from the taskforce. The reason is that seven of 10 animal thefts are thefts of dogs, and most of the evidence on the effect on animals is concentrated on dogs at the moment. However—you have heard me talk about cattism before, Mr Davies—we need to continue to gather evidence on other species, so we are taking a power to extend the offence to other common pet species in the future. The new offence has penalties that mirror those in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Well, here is a surprise: pet theft through the back door. We have been calling for it for ages, and we are absolutely supportive of it, but what a way to do it on such a significant issue. The amendment was tabled on Friday, after the evidence session, and there is no Library briefing. Of course, the amendment, as drafted, is not actually about pet theft; it is about dog theft. It may reasonably be asked why it does not apply to cats. I understand the additional power. The Minister denied cattism the other day, but I feel that the charge will continue to be levelled.

This is such last-minute stuff. I notice the Department managed to get its press briefing out, although it muddled pet theft and dog theft throughout. That is my gripe with the amendment: this is a really important issue that has been added to the Bill very late in the day, which means that we do not have the opportunity to scrutinise it in the way that we would have liked. We had relevant witnesses at the evidence session last week, and we did not ask them about it. I could not help noticing that, unusually, the Minister’s speech was handwritten. Goodness me! This is so typical of the Government at the moment. What a mess.

There is a problem with this. If we do it in a rush, we will get it wrong. We have seen it before with dogs, so can we repeat the same mistake again? There are a number of unanswered questions, particularly on the concept of lawful control and complicated questions of ownership. One can immediately see that the connected person test could easily be problematic. There are many multi-person households in this country, and there are millions of people living together who are not in civil partnerships. Many are reconstituted or blended families. Perhaps Government Members have not noticed what the modern world is like—or perhaps they have. In a domestic row, for example, one person goes off with the dog or cat—they consider it theirs—and the other gets the police involved for a claim of pet theft, which carries a five-year prison sentence. The connected person test really needs to be looked at properly, not just brought to a Bill Committee late in the day. I am sure that it will be subject to further scrutiny elsewhere, but this is no way to do it.

New clause 6 states that the Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (1) if there is evidence that

“removing an animal of that species from a person with whom it has formed a bond may adversely affect its wellbeing.”

How is that test to be assessed? Who is the judge? Does a snake get sad when it is parted from its keeper? I do not know, but we ought to find a way of finding out before we pass this legislation. Maybe this should have been done in the right sequence, starting with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. But, as ever with this Government, it is all about a rush to get a headline—it could have been drafted by the Prime Minister.

To be helpful, I direct the Minister’s attention to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, to which Labour tabled amendments last November to deal with pet theft. Again, amendments were tabled on Report, in July this year, and not just by the Labour Front Bench but by a cross-party group of esteemed parliamentarians, including many senior Government Members. The Government opposed all those amendments.

I find myself in some difficulty this morning, because although we absolutely want the legislation on the statute book, we do not want rushed legislation that leads to unintended consequences. I have some sympathy with the Minister, as I suspect that she is embarrassed about it, but that is the problem we have. We will not oppose the new clause, but we think that the provisions need to be looked at much more carefully. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the same kind of situation as with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I welcome Members making contributions, but could you use your leg muscles to indicate that you want to contribute—perhaps near the start of the debate, but you are free to stand whenever you like—so that I do not miss you out? I almost missed that last request to contribute.

[Victoria Prentis]

Well, we cannot seem to get it right, can we? We are either going to quickly or too slowly. [Interruption.] I am teasing. This is being done quickly; I am not apologising for that because I think the situation is one that we need to resolve quickly. The taskforce was a serious body that did important work, and it worked quickly—I refer Members to its work and recommendations. The Government then had to find the first appropriate piece of legislation for these recommendations to go in; the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill seemed too good an opportunity to pass up.

I have listened to and accept the comments about “connected persons”, “animals capable of forming bonds” and extending provisions beyond pets. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border mentioned livestock; sheep rustling is already covered under the Theft Act 1968. I will take these points away and continue to do work to make sure that the drafting of this clause is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North suggests, entirely suitable for the criminal courts.

I would be delighted to meet, as I am sure Lord Goldsmith would be, any Member of this House, or of the other place, to discuss the drafting of this clause. It is always important that we get the law right. It is important that we make sure the clause is as good as it can be; it is difficult when clauses are brought forward at a late stage of a Bill’s proceedings. However, I am not apologising for that; it is right that we should do this. We should make a new offence of pet abduction and this is an appropriate place to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

May I politely say that that was more of a mini-speech than an intervention?

[Victoria Prentis]

I reassure Members that we will look carefully at the drafting of this clause, following the remarks we have heard today. I am confident that this is an appropriate place to bring forward the offence of pet abduction, and I am pleased that we have been able to do so.

Amendment 85 agreed to.

Amendments made: 63, in clause 51, page 33, line 13, after “Part” insert

“(except section (Concurrent functions in Wales))”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64.

Amendment 64, in clause 51, page 33, line 13, at end insert

“; section (Concurrent functions in Wales)) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with that day.”

This amendment provides for the commencement of new clause (Concurrent functions in Wales).

Amendment 65, in clause 51, page 33, line 16, leave out from first “Ministers” to “may” in line 17.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 67.

Amendment 66, in clause 51, page 33, line 18, at end insert “in Scotland”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 67.

Amendment 67, in clause 51, page 33, line 18, at end insert—

‘(6A) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of Part 1 or 3 in relation to Wales.’—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment confers powers to make transitional or saving provision on the Welsh Ministers, in consequence of Part 1 applying to Wales (as well as Part 3).

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause sets out when provisions in the Bill will commence, following Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Extent

Amendments made: 68, in clause 52, page 33, line 32, at end insert—

“() section (Animal Welfare Act 2006: minor amendments) extends to England and Wales only;”.

This amendment provides for the new clause containing minor amendments of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to extend to (ie form part of the law of) England and Wales only.

Amendment 69, in clause 52, page 33, line 35, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (5),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 70.

Amendment 70, in clause 52, page 33, line 35, at end insert—

“(5) The amendments and repeals made by section (Concurrent functions in Wales) have the same extent as the enactments to which they relate.”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment provides for the amendments and repeals of Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006, made by a new clause, to have the same extent as that Schedule.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause sets out the territorial extent of provisions in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause is a standard provision that simply provides for the short title of the Bill once it becomes an Act at Royal Assent. The short title of this Bill will be the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Animal Welfare Act 2006: minor amendments

‘(1) The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 31(1) (time limits for prosecutions) after “under” insert “or by virtue of”.

(3) In section 51 (inspectors)—

(a) in subsection (5) after “under” insert “or by virtue of”;

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

“(7) In this section, a reference to the purposes of this Act includes the purposes of provision made under the Act.”’—(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006 so that section 31 (time limits for prosecutions) applies to offences under regulations under that Act (as well as to offences under that Act) and section 51 (inspectors) applies in relation to provisions of regulations under that Act (as well as in relation to provisions of that Act).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Concurrent functions in Wales

‘(1) Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 9(8)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to reserved authorities)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (vi);

(b) at the end of paragraph (vii) insert “; or the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.”

(i) the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.”

(3) In paragraph 11(6)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to Ministers of the Crown)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (vi);

(b) at the end of paragraph (vii) insert “; or the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.””

(i) the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Act 2021.”’—(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause amends Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 so as to disapply certain restrictions in that Schedule in relation to functions conferred by or under the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Regulations

“(1) This section applies to regulations under any provision of this Act except section 51.

(2) A power to make regulations includes power to make—

(a) different provision for different purposes;

(b) different provision for different areas;

(c) consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(3) Regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers are to be made by statutory instrument.

(4) For regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).

(5) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)—

(a) regulations under section 3(1) or (3)(b),

(b) regulations under section 22,

(c) regulations under Part 2,

(d) regulations under Part 3 other than regulations made by virtue of section 46(2A)(c) (power to prescribe fee for making application), or

(e) regulations under section 50 that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation,

unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) The following regulations made by the Scottish Ministers are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010)—

(a) regulations under Part 3 other than regulations made by virtue of section 46(2A)(c);

(b) regulations under section 50 that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation.

(8) Any other regulations made by the Scottish Ministers are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of that Act).

(9) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)—

(a) regulations under section 3(1) or (3)(b),

(b) regulations under section 22,

(c) regulations under Part 3 other than regulations made by virtue of section 46(2A)(c), or

(d) regulations under section 50 that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation,

unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.

(10) Any other statutory instrument made by the Welsh Ministers containing regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.

(11) In this section “primary legislation” has the meaning given by section 50.’—(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause makes provision about regulations under the Bill (except regulations under clause 51).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Taking of dog without lawful authority etc

“(1) A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the person takes or detains a dog in England—

(a) so as to remove it from the lawful control of any person, or

(b) so as to keep it from the lawful control of a person who is entitled to have lawful control of it.

(2) No offence is committed if the person taking or detaining the dog is connected with any of the following—

(a) any person entitled to have lawful control of it;

(b) where it is removed from the lawful control of a person, that person.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum summary term for either-way offences or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).

(4) In this section—

“connected person”: a person is connected with another person if—

(a) they are married to each other,

(b) they are civil partners of each other,

(c) one is the parent of the other, or

(d) they are siblings (whether of the full blood or the half blood);

“detaining”: references to a person detaining a dog include the person—

(a) inducing it to remain with the person or anyone else, or

(b) causing it to be detained;

“maximum summary term for either-way offences”, with reference to imprisonment for an offence, means—

(a) if the offence is committed before the time when paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 comes into force, 6 months;

(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 12 months;

“taking”: references to a person taking a dog include the person—

(a) causing or inducing it to accompany the person or anyone else, or

(b) causing it to be taken.” —(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause, which will be added to Part 3, creates an offence, committed by taking or detaining a dog in certain circumstances. The offence applies in England.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Power to extend section (Taking of dog without lawful authority etc)

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section (Taking of dog without lawful authority etc) so that it applies not only to dogs but also to one or more other species of animal.

(2) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in respect of a species only if the Secretary of State considers—

(a) that animals of that species are commonly kept as pets, and

(b) that there is evidence that—

(i) animals of that species are capable of forming bonds with people who keep them, and

(ii) removing an animal of that species from a person with whom it has formed a bond may adversely affect its wellbeing.

(3) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” —(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause, which will be added to Part 3, confers a power to extend the new offence relating to the taking or detaining of a dog so as to apply in relation to other species.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Prohibition of Sow farrowing stalls

“In Schedule 8 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 omit sub-paragraph 6(2).”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would the end the use of sow farrowing crates.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

We move on to what could be called the second half of the Committee—Labour’s animal welfare Bill. I suspect that there will be a division on new clause 7, which is about pigs. Schedule 8 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 allows female pigs to be kept in small metal crates for the period beginning seven days before the predicted day of their farrowing and ending when the weaning of the pigs is complete—a process that lasts around four weeks. This clause would put an end to the use of those sow farrowing crates.

Compassion in World Farming tells us that every year, over 200,000 sows are subjected to this procedure, the purpose of which is to try to reduce the risk of the sow lying on and crushing her new-born piglets. We acknowledge that that is clearly a problem for farmers. However, as a result of their seeking to achieve that aim, sows are forced to spend weeks in stalls, unable to turn around. Alongside the crate in the pen is a creep area for the sow’s piglets. The piglets are able to reach the sow to suckle, but she is unable to clean and interact with them.

Farrowing crates are also a major concern because they prevent sows from building their nests. Even if nest-building material is provided—sadly, that does not always happen—sows do not have room to build them. Not allowing sows to behave naturally can make them frustrated and stressed, and the sow is more likely to savage the piglets in farrowing crate systems. I do not think there is much dispute anywhere about the desire to find a way forward on this issue.

Alternatives to farrowing crates, many of them designed by British farmers and engineers, are already commercially available in the UK. We should support British ingenuity and pig welfare by requiring the use of these higher-welfare systems. Labour has long been committed to ending the cage age and banning sow farrowing crates, and many others from across the political spectrum are committed to the cause—including, it would seem, the Prime Minister, who claimed in the Chamber that as a result of Brexit, we would be now able to introduce such a ban. The issue was very close to the heart of Sir David Amess, who earlier this year brought forward a private Member’s Bill, the Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill, that sought to ban the use of farrowing crates.

However, I am also mindful of the challenges facing pig producers, particularly at the moment. I have spoken about this frequently in recent months, and have urged the Government to give swifter assistance. As we speak, the culling of healthy pigs continues on farms, because despite the welcome announcements a few weeks ago, neither the temporary visa scheme nor the private storage scheme has yet come into effect. Sadly, it may be mid-December before the 800 skilled pork butchers arrive, and in reality, help may not come before the new year, so the situation remains very serious.

We will press the new clause to a vote, and are signalling our intention to bring in a ban when in government, but I reassure the industry that we will work closely with it to make sure that a ban is introduced in a way that does not damage the industry. We all want higher standards. This goes to the heart of the trade debate. There is no point imposing higher animal welfare standards here if the suffering, and the industry, is merely exported elsewhere. The Government have repeatedly told us that we should trust them on not allowing lower-standard food products to be imported. Frankly, we do not, but if we take them at their word, the amendment should not create a problem. I suspect many Government Back Benchers are not entirely persuaded either.

I note that the Government’s action plan for animal welfare says they

“are currently considering the case for introducing further reforms, on areas such as the use of farrowing crates for pigs”.

Here is their opportunity. It is time to move on and end the suffering caused by farrowing crates.

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman, with whom I remember discussing this issue at some length during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, will know that we are very much of one mind on this issue. My difficulty is that the new clause would cause an immediate ban.

The Government’s action plan on animal welfare said that we are considering the case for further reforms in this area. Our stated aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary. We want any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets, but an immediate ban on the use of farrowing crates for sows without full consideration of the implications for animal welfare and the pig sector would have a significant impact on the industry. We spoke to Dr Zoe Davies, chief executive of the National Pig Association, earlier this week. She said:

“To suggest an immediate ban”,

as the hon. Gentleman suggests,

“on the use of farrowing crates would be the final straw for the majority of indoor producers and would trigger a mass exodus from the pig sector, thus exporting production to countries with lower welfare standards. Far better to work with the sector on a longer term transition, which we have already begun.”

Some 60% of UK sows are kept indoors and use farrowing crates, so moving overnight entirely to free-farrowing systems would require a fundamental change for pig producers, and significant investment. I am keen to ensure we have a realistic phasing-out period that is sustainable for the industry, so that we can achieve the welfare goals shared by Members from across the House. I do not consider this Bill to be the appropriate delivery mechanism, so I cannot support the new clause, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister is absolutely right: we sat here two years ago and had exactly the same conversation. The question is: when? That is the problem. I do not disagree with Zoe. I will speak to her about this in a few days’ time. I have made it absolutely clear that we would not make this change without working with the industry to ensure that the dangers the Minister mentioned, of which we are all aware, do not come to pass. This animal welfare Bill is an opportunity to take a stand. That is why we will put the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a second time

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

This new clause returns us to part 2 of the Bill, on dogs attacking and worrying livestock. As I said on Tuesday, we want to address the issue of compensation for farmers who are victims of livestock worrying. As we noted then, livestock worrying has a significant financial impact: in 2020, the total costs were around £1.3 million, while data from NFU Mutual indicates that in the first quarter of this year, the cost of dog attacks on livestock rose by more than 50%. That insurer said that its total claims for January to March of this year were estimated at £686,000—up from £453,000 for the same period last year.

As we discussed on Tuesday, contributing factors may well be increased dog ownership and, since the first coronavirus lockdown, more people accessing the countryside with a lack of understanding of how to behave there. That is why organisations including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Farmers Union and the Countryside Alliance supported the requirement for dogs to be on leads when around livestock. We have had that debate, and the Committee chose not to go down that route, but that does not mean that we cannot use our deliberations as an opportunity to look at whether there are ways to offer support to livestock owners. I listened closely to the moving words from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the appropriate measures to compensate livestock owners for cases of livestock worrying. It would also require the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation based on the findings of the review within 12 months of the date of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

This is not a simple issue, but given that there are rights of way, and that we all want more people to enjoy access to the countryside, it is reasonable, when those various rights collide, to at least consider the consequences for those who live in the countryside and whose living is made by raising livestock. Is there a public responsibility to help in those situations? The need to find the right balance calls for a proper review.

[Victoria Prentis]

We absolutely understand how distressing and financially damaging livestock worrying can be for farmers. The legislation makes reforms to provide police with more powers to tackle dog attacks on livestock, so that we can identify and, we hope, prevent repeat offences. That should, in turn, lead to fewer instances of livestock worrying, but we will monitor that closely.

However, we appreciate the importance of not leaving farmers out of pocket when they fall victim to livestock worrying attacks. We agree that suitable and effective compensation mechanisms are key. There are various ways that farmers can recoup their losses, including through out-of-court settlements, civil compensation claims and insurance claims. Insurance is often claimed via the NFU, which is, as we know, the UK’s leading rural insurer. The NFU estimates that the cost of dog attacks on farm animals was around £1.3 million in 2020, and the average value of an NFU claim in this area was £1,329. Most livestock worrying incidents are resolved in out-of-court settlements through the community resolution process. That is the police’s preferred route; it allows the victim to be compensated swiftly without escalation, and relies on an agreement between the victim and the suspect.

We are happy to consider how well existing mechanisms—other than insurance via the NFU and other providers—work. We will work closely with the industry and the police to ensure that that happens. By modernising the legislation and improving the enforcement mechanisms, we aim to reduce livestock attacks in the future. We hope that, through improved awareness, with dogs being kept away from livestock and on leads where appropriate, there will be less need for compensation. I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

In the light of the Minister’s response, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Regulation of the keeping of hunting dogs

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make regulations providing for licensing of the keeping of one or more dogs used for the purposes of hunting.

(2) It shall be an offence to keep a dog which is used for hunting without a licence.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “hunting” includes, but is not limited to—

(a) hunting any animal; and

(b) trail hunting or other hunt simulation.”.—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations for licensing of the keeping of one or more dogs used for the purposes of hunting.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

You might not like this one so much, Mr Davies—or some might not. New clauses 10, 11 and 12 are about the welfare of hunting dogs. I am grateful to the League Against Cruel Sports for its advice on the new clauses.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations within 12 months of the passing of the Bill that would require individuals who keep one or more hunting dogs to obtain a licence, and it would make it an offence to be in possession of hunting dogs without a licence. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the welfare of dogs used for hunting. At the core of these issues is a concern about the welfare of hunting dogs and that the absence of a robust licencing system has resulted in some hounds experiencing poor welfare conditions.

Unlike dog boarding kennels, which are commercial and therefore licensed, hunt kennels are not licensed and are regulated by the code of practice for the welfare of hounds in hunt kennels. The code sets out that euthanasia is not an offence so long as it is done in an “appropriate and humane manner”. It says that, for adult hounds over the age of 10 weeks, a humane killer should be used, and that hounds of all ages may be put down by a veterinary surgeon with an overdose of Euthatal. The issue is that hunt kennels are not independently inspected, and so there is no independent monitoring of hound welfare and the euthanasia of hounds. As a result, hound welfare concerns are unlikely to come to light, and when they do, reports of how the dogs are treated sometimes fall well below expected standards.

Last month, ITV published an exposé of the killing of hounds by the Beaufort hunt, which included videos of hounds being dragged outside and shot, including one hound that was shot twice, minutes apart, before it died. It is believed that the shooter was not a trained veterinary professional. This clearly does not constitute appropriate and humane euthanasia. I watched the footage, and I suggest others do so, although it is upsetting. A number of those commenting in the ITV piece, including a Conservative MP, urged regulation. That is what we propose.

In 2015, the Daily Mirror published a report on the treatment of hunting dogs, including the testimony of a former hunter who said that the whipping of dogs was commonplace and that hounds are disposed of when they are perceived to have failed in any way. In the past, when the debate over the future of hunting was raging, I visited the West Norfolk Foxhounds to speak to people directly. My strongest memory of that visit was of the hounds themselves—big, strong dogs, totally unsuitable for rehoming. When I asked what became of them, the answer was honest and clear: “We shoot them.” Some will say that that is just the way of it; that is a reality of rural life. I do not think that is good enough in 2021, and my sense is that most people living in rural areas do not think so either.

It is our view that such weak regulations and the lack of monitoring of hunting kennels leave hounds open to poor welfare conditions. Given that we license dog boarding kennels, I do not see why the same approach is not taken to hunt kennels. Are we saying that somehow the welfare of hunting dogs is not important?

I would like to make it clear that I am not saying that all hunts necessarily treat hounds in that way, but the lack of monitoring makes it difficult to know how they are treated. Given that the Bill is an animal welfare measure, I believe that we should be seriously concerned about the limited understanding of how hounds are treated and the lack of a licensing system to protect their welfare. New clauses 10 and 11 would rectify that.

New clause 12 would ban what is known in the hunting world as terrier work. That terminology describes a hunting activity whereby terriers are introduced into a hole in the ground to flush out or force a wild mammal to escape. If the wild mammal does not escape from the hole immediately, those in charge of the dog will dig down to access it—a process that can take hours, I am told. If the wild mammal—usually a fox, but sometimes a badger—does not subsequently bolt from the hole, there can be an underground battle. That is not only cruel to the wild animal being flushed out, but to the dogs, who risk being forced into a dangerous confrontation, which can result in severe injuries or death.

I am afraid that there is also, in our view, the real risk that the practice is used as a cover for illegal hunting with dogs. Although hunting with dogs is illegal, we are told that those who work with terriers still sometimes accompany hunts under the guise of trail hunting. There is of course little reason for that since no live wild mammals should be being hunted and there should be no need for support to flush out a wild mammal. Recently, in a notorious, high-profile case, Mark Hankinson of the Masters of Foxhounds Association was found guilty of encouraging and assisting people to evade the ban on foxhunting. The prosecution was the result of leaked footage of webinars hosted by the Hunting Office in August 2020, during which, among other incriminating comments, Mr Hankinson said that terrier work is “our soft underbelly”.

The League Against Cruel Sports reports that, in addition to its role in foxhunting, terrier work continues to occur as a stand-alone recreational pastime for individuals and gangs of people across the country who enjoy using their terriers to attack foxes and badgers. It stated that evidence it has gathered suggests that putting dogs underground to chase and fight foxes can lead to some of the worst cruelty cases associated with hunting. Given the harm that terrier work can cause to dogs, the new clause banning the practice is long overdue.

New clause 13 would remove the exemption for hunting dogs from section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, under which local authorities may specify “designated” roads where dogs must be kept on leads. Sadly, every season there are incidents of hounds causing chaos by running across roads when trail hunting. During the March 2019-20 hunting seasons, the League Against Cruel Sports received 128 reports of hunts causing havoc on roads. Eight involved foxes being chased across roads by hounds that were supposedly trail hunting. The league also received reports of 10 hounds involved in road traffic collisions. Five of them were killed.

Removing the exemption would mean that a hunt had to abide by the same rules as any other dog owners on designated roads. Again, that should not pose a challenge to legal hunts. If trail hunts are operated properly, they can be organised in a manner whereby there is no possibility of hounds ending up on the road. The route of any trails laid should be properly planned, well away from such hazards. In cases of exempt hunting, hunts should have sufficient control over hounds to prevent them from unexpectedly marauding across and along roads. It should be added that not all roads are designated, so hunts will still be allowed to cross certain roads if the council allows it.

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government are committed to improving the welfare of all dogs. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 puts obligations on all animal keepers to meet the full range of welfare needs. It is backed up by the statutory code of practice, to which we referred extensively on Tuesday, for the welfare of dogs.

The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 raised the maximum penalty for cruelty to five years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Local authorities have powers under the 2006 Act to act where a dog is suspected to be suffering. The local authority can enter the land and take control of the animals. As we know, local authorities often work very closely with the RSPCA.

The Committee will remember that dog licensing was abolished in 1988. I remember buying a licence for our springer spaniel at the post office as a child—it cost 37p —but apparently only half of all owners bought one. We did not find that dog licensing ensured the welfare of dogs or restricted who was able to keep them. We would need sufficient evidence of welfare concerns to treat one type of dog differently from another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

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

The new clause would ban the sale of dogs with cropped ears, although obviously not if they have been rehomed by official rescue organisations. We have been over the issue during our debates, but this new clause is about the sale of such dogs, rather than their transportation into the country. Let us see what the Minister has to say.

[Victoria Prentis]

The mutilation of dogs’ ears has been banned in the UK for some time, but there is currently no ban on imports, so as we heard in evidence, sadly the numbers continue to rise. The Bill includes an enabling power that will allow us to restrict such imports on welfare grounds via secondary legislation. We recently consulted widely on the issue and received 14,000 responses, of which we will publish a summary early next year. We are also working closely with the devolved Administrations on the matter.

In summary, we already have the powers to take action, and we are working through the process of doing so. I therefore ask for the new clause to be withdrawn.

[Olivia Blake]

As I said earlier, this practice has increased by 621%, which is obviously concerning. I hear what the Ministers says, and although a ban on sales would be welcome, we will not push the new clause to a vote.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Snare traps

“Snare traps may not be used in England in areas where there is a possibility that kept animals may become intentionally or unintentionally ensnared.”—(Olivia Blake.)

This new clause would prohibit the use of snare traps in the England where there is a possibility that they might ensnare kept animals. Snare traps are thin wire nooses that are used to catch foxes, rabbits and stoats but can also catch other animals such as cats.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olivia Blake]

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

Under new clause 16, we propose a ban on the use of snare traps in England in areas where there is a possibility that kept animals might be ensnared, whether intentionally or not. Snares are imperfect, indiscriminate traps that regularly cause unnecessary suffering and harm to kept animals as a result of incorrect usage and inadequate legislation. Although snares can legally be used only to trap certain species, in reality it is impossible to limit the species or type of animal that gets trapped in a snare. As a result, non-target species are often caught and suffer through exposure and injury.

The current legislation, which was introduced in 2005, is failing to protect animals from harm. It proposed a code of practice on snares, setting out best practice on their use and guidance on where and how to set them. Unfortunately, compliance with the code is voluntary, which severely negates its effectiveness. A 2012 report by DEFRA found that although awareness of the code was high, levels of compliance with best practice were, sadly, exceedingly low.

The same report found that 1.7 million animals were caught in snares each year. Of those, 33% were hares, 26% were badgers, 25% were foxes and 14% were other animals. In 2015 alone, the RSPCA reported 717 calls from members of the public about animals caught in snares, including 157 cats, 58 dogs, 10 equines and 307 wild mammals. The reality is that without more controls over the placement of snares, there is no way to prevent more kept animals from being snared and injured, whether intentionally or not.

[Victoria Prentis]

I absolutely recognise that snares can be used improperly, and that non-target species, such as livestock, and particularly cats, can get trapped in them, sometimes fatally. The code of practice to which the hon. Lady referred was set out in 2016, and tries to ensure that snares are not set near domestic dwellings, where pets may be trapped.

We continue to work on the issue. In our action plan for animal welfare, we have committed to opening a call for evidence on the use of snares, which we hope to publish shortly. We encourage Members across the House, and indeed members of the public, to make their views known when we open the consultation. In those circumstances, I ask that the motion be withdrawn.

[Olivia Blake]

I understand what the Minister says about more consultation, but the Opposition feel that the matter is clearcut and we wish to press new clause 16 to a vote. A lot of time has passed since the code of practice came in; as I say, it is sad to hear that it has been ineffective in resolving some of the issues.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

Thank you, Mr Davies—I will be quick. I am sure that everyone knows about the “justice for Reggie” campaign, which has been working tirelessly better to regulate online sales of animals following a tragic experience. Reggie was a 12-week-old Labrador who was sold online through a reputable website that advertises thousands of puppies for sale, but he was sold without proper care from a breeder and with insufficient checks to safeguard his welfare and wellbeing. Within 12 hours of Reggie arriving home with his new owners, he fell gravely ill. He spent the next three days receiving care at a vets before dying of parvovirus. His death was painful and horrific, and his owners were understandably still traumatised because of their ordeal. Following Reggie’s death, it was discovered that false documentation had been provided, and in fact Reggie was unwell at the time of the sale.

The new clause proposes further regulation of online animal sales to prevent situations such as Reggie’s happening again. It would require all websites that sell animals to verify the identity of all sellers. It further proposes that all prospective sellers who wish to sell a cat or dog aged one year or less must post a photograph of the animal with one of its parents. Putting such checks on a legal footing would help strengthen the use of online sales—unfortunately, I do not think we can end them—and is essential to prevent animals being sold with falsified or no documentation. We could therefore ensure that all animals sold come from reputable, trustworthy breeders.

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government take this issue seriously and have recently taken several steps to strengthen pet breeding and selling regulations, including banning the third-party sale of kittens and puppies. We are also encouraging the responsible sourcing of pets via the national “petfished” campaign.

The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 introduced a wide range of real welfare improvements for pet breeding and pet sales. The object of the regulations was to update and improve the existing welfare standards. They also provided a template for adding further activities in future, when necessary. The regulations make numerous requirements of pet sellers and dog breeders who are licensed relating to the keeping of records and advertising. Any licensed pet seller or dog breeder advertising animals for sale will need to include their licence number in the advert and specify the local authority that issued the licence. Additional requirements relating to adverts include a requirement for the age of the animal to be displayed alongside a recognisable photo. That said, we are always looking to make improvements where possible. We will review the regulations before October 2023.

Our regulations aim to ensure that sellers and breeders become responsible, but I understand that the hon. Member’s concerns are about online platforms used by sellers; that is what the new clause covers. It may be helpful to outline the work that the Government are doing. We support the work of the pet advertising advisory group—PAAG—created in 2001, which aims to combat concerns regarding the irresponsible advertising of pets for sale, rehoming and exchange. It comprises various animal welfare organisations, trade associations and vet bodies. It has been engaging with online marketplaces in the UK to help them to distinguish appropriate adverts and take down those that are not.

DEFRA has backed a set of minimum standards developed by PAAG. Encouragingly, several of the UK’s largest classified websites have now agreed to meet those standards. I look forward to working closely with PAAG. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to move the new clause.

[Olivia Blake]

I thank the Minister for the response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mrs Wheeler.)

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Third sitting)

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from “primate” to second “under”.

This amendment would prohibit the keeping of primates as pets in England.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and to be back in Committee Room 10 discussing these issues, which some of us have spent many a happy hour doing. I look forward to an excellent debate over the next few days. I think we all enjoyed the excellent witness sessions last week, from which we learned a great deal, and there is much common ground. Both parties promised this Bill in their election manifestos, and I am delighted that the Government have put Members on the Committee who have expertise and interest in it. I strongly encourage them to speak, intervene and vote with their hearts when the moment comes. I am looking at the Government Whip; I know that she will encourage them to do that.

On one level, the Bill is quite dry, and it is a mixture of things, but it sits within the wider framework of the Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which was published some months ago, and was well received by Members on both sides of the House. It covers a lot of ground. When rereading it, I could not help noticing that, as in many documents from Governments of all colours, there is a kind of year zero, as if nothing happened before 2010 and all the good things have happened since. Indeed, in his introductory speech on Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred to 1822 and then jumped to 2010. Of course, Labour is quite proud of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which was significant. Much that we will discuss comes on the back of that groundbreaking legislation, but we will let that pass in a spirit of generosity, as we work together.

There is a slight problem with understanding how all the legislation fits together. That starts with the amendment and clause 1. When the animal welfare action plan refers to the Bill, it talks about

“ending the low-welfare practice of keeping primates as pets”.

I immediately wonder what that means. There is not a ban, as far as I can see. I will return to that point later. The plan starts with sentience, which is quite logical, although of course, as so often in this place, we have not started with that. Debate on that started in the other place, and doubtless we will talk about it in the months, or possibly weeks, ahead.

The plan goes on to cover animals abroad. I will perhaps gently press the Minister occasionally during these discussions on where that measure has got to. There seems to be some speculation that it may have got lost temporarily. We would be interested to hear more, as some of the issues that we would have liked to raise in the Bill may well have been in that measure.

Overall, there is a slight sense of an out-of-control shopping trolley veering along the aisles of animal welfare goodies, seeking to find the odd crowd-pleaser along the way. That is not how we would have done things, but here we are. There is a rather odd mix of things in the Bill, and perhaps to everyone’s slight surprise, we begin the journey of tackling all the issues around animal welfare with primates. Amendment 91 to clause 1 deals with that. It is a simple amendment, because it merely translates what is in the Bill to what was promised in the Conservative manifesto.

I admit to being slightly unkind, but I took another look at the manifesto—during elections, we all rush around and try to find time to read manifestos—and was delighted to find a happy picture of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. I know we are not supposed to wave things around when we are speaking, but I have a copy with me: it is a very nice picture. Next to him is a list of all the animal welfare things that are going to be done, including this statement:

“We will ban keeping primates as pets.”

The manifesto does not say that the Conservatives would ban the keeping of primates as pets unless someone has a licence. That is rather different, but that is what the Bill says. It goes into great detail on how a licensing system will be set up, and we will spend a lot of time discussing that this morning. However, that is not banning the keeping of primates as pets. Despite my attempt to make this amendment, I suspect that we will go on to discuss many of those issues. There are a range of other things in the manifesto, including an ivory ban, which I have referenced, so I commend the Conservative manifesto to Conservative Members, and we will hold them to account on it.

During the evidence sessions, we heard excellent evidence from witnesses on this issue. It is clear that the number of primates in this country that are not in zoos or research institutions is hard to estimate. We really do not know the number, which makes this quite difficult. However, I understood from the evidence that there are very few people who can provide the zoo-equivalent conditions in which, the Government argue, primates can reasonably be kept. The number may be hundreds, although I am sceptical that it is as many as that. We heard from many organisations, both in oral and written evidence. Interestingly, we also heard from Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading who believe, as Labour does, that primates should not be kept as pets, whether licensed or not. That is because primates are intelligent and socially complex creatures. Their physical, behavioural and environmental needs mean that they cannot be kept properly in a household environment. However well-intentioned the keeper, their suffering is all but inevitable. I will press the Minister on what a good environment might look like. We heard what a bad environment looks like—the awful cases of people keeping primates in parrot cages—but what conditions are good enough? I do not think that that is set out in the Bill.

Primates kept in domestic settings are liable to experience a host of welfare issues that can result in profound physical and psychological harm. For good welfare, both physical and psychological health must be ensured. Primates need to be kept in social groups, in complex, specially designed indoor and outdoor facilities, as I have just said. Generally, when kept as pets, primates do not have access to such facilities, and sadly, all too often, owners lack knowledge and understanding of the species they own, with inevitably serious welfare implications. That is why we all want this to stop.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the consultation on the Bill have exposed some awful stories of primates being kept in the kind of cages that I have described. They are also given unsuitable diets and can become sick as a result of not being exposed to proper light and heat levels. The evidence against keeping primates as pets is so strong that it has resulted in broad consensus among all those concerned with animal welfare that it should stop.

The danger of a licensing system, I am afraid, is that it will potentially allow the private owning, breeding and selling of pets to continue in perpetuity. This is not a ban; it is a licence. The RSPCA, Blue Cross and Wildlife and Countryside Link have all expressed their grave disappointment that the Government have opted for a licensing system rather than a ban. The British Veterinary Association has also raised concerns about the system.

We have identified a further inconsistency. Schedule 5, which the Committee will debate on Thursday when we come on to zoos, sets out the underlying principle of the Secretary of State’s zoo standards and licensing system: that as a society we do not approve of the keeping and breeding of animals in captivity unless there is a conservational and educational remit. Zoos are not allowed to keep animals for entertainment or hobby purposes only.

If privately owned primates are to be kept and traded under licence to the zoo welfare standard, frankly we think that the accompanying principles should be the same. It is widely recognised elsewhere in Europe that personal gain or hobby is not a sufficient justification for welfare compromises on the captivity of a wild animal. We believe that there is a need for a licensing system for genuine rescue and sanctuary, but that is different, and it would require clear definition and criteria.

Let us examine a further objection. The Government argue that the Bill will ban keeping primates as pets but will allow individuals who can keep primates to zoo quality standards to maintain ownership. A recent conversation with the RSPCA reconfirmed what is palpably obvious: whether an animal is deemed a pet is based on the purpose of keeping it, not on the standard of care. That position is backed up by the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018.

An animal kept in a domestic environment, however fancy and well equipped, is a pet. I know of several cats in Cambridge that live in the lap of luxury—not mine, sadly—with a quality of life high enough to please even the wealthiest of individuals, but it would be ludicrous to say that they are not pets.

The licensing system proposed in the Bill categorically fails to live up to the promises of the manifesto on which the Government were elected, which is why we have tabled amendment 91. I am afraid that it is for the Minister to explain why she does not think that the manifesto promise should be honoured.

Our amendment would put an end to keeping primates as pets. It would avoid the inevitable failures that I fear will result from the Government’s proposed licensing system—not least because, beyond allowing the practice of keeping pets as primates to continue, licensing will effectively create a sanctioned system for breeding and selling primates, as the RSPCA noted in oral evidence. That will do nothing to reduce the primate population; it could allow it to grow and could allow people to continue to profit from the domestic ownership of primates.

In the evidence session, we also heard the likely consequences of the Government’s expectation that local authorities with no extra resources will have to pick up the pieces of what we think is a flawed system. As we all know, the past 11 years have left local authorities struggling, to put it mildly. Most are struggling, and when it comes to animal welfare duties, I fear that many lack the experience and skills to carry out the task—a point to which we will return. Now it seems that the Government are proposing that primates whose keepers fail to meet the requirements of the licence should become the responsibility of the local council.

In our discussion of the Bill’s various clauses and amendments, there is an issue that I think the Committee should address. It is not clear what will happen to the potentially thousands of pet primates that will be taken from their owners as a result of measures introduced in the Bill. Whether there is a complete ban or a licensing system, that question really has to be addressed.

Beyond the care of primates whose keepers are unable to obtain a licence, there is also the question of enforcement. I fear that the system will put extra strain on councils. They will need to oversee licensing and conduct premise inspections, which are quite likely to have to be carried out by people who are not primate experts. Potentially, the system will also leave primates at the whim of a postcode lottery: their standard of care will vary significantly, depending on which council has responsibility for them.

Then there is the licensing. Despite the claims that the Bill will dramatically improve the welfare of primates, I am afraid that the Government are at risk of presiding over a situation in which animal welfare organisations are expected to give an opinion on licensing standards that they have not seen, and we in turn are expected to vote on licensing standards that we have not seen. This is an important decision, so we will press the amendment to a vote. There is a clear choice: a ban or a licensing system. The amendment will give many Committee members the opportunity to fulfil one of their election manifesto commitments if they come with us and ban the keeping of primates as pets.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As I said at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, this House has been passing animal welfare legislation since 1635. I very much view the Bill as being on that continuum. We try to deal with all creatures great and small, but we cannot do that in every single Bill. I view the Bill as part of the ongoing journey since 1635. I see it not as a wobbly supermarket trolley, but as being on a trajectory towards better animal welfare. I will focus my remarks on the Bill, when I can; we will deal with many amendments that seek to go broader.

“Primates are long-lived, intelligent, socially-complex animals. They engage in imaginative problem-solving, form intricate social relationships, and display complex patterns of behaviour. Being social is a striking feature of primates, and perhaps the most important in terms of meeting their needs. With few exceptions, they live in complex societies that can comprise tens of individual animals.”

That statement is found in our “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates”. It is always worth remembering that we are all, of course, primates in the wider sense. That code sets important parameters within which primates thrive.

The amendment seeks an outright ban with no exemptions. We need to focus on the welfare of the primate. We propose a licensing scheme for primates who are kept outside zoos, but to very high zoo standards. The fear is that if we have an outright ban, as the amendment suggests, we would trigger a rehoming crisis, which might lead to primates being euthanised. It is possible that there are up to 5,000 primates being kept privately in the UK, and if a ban comes in overnight, they would overwhelm rehoming capacity.

We heard powerful evidence last week from Dr Jo Judge of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums and Dr Alison Cronin of Monkey World, who both supported our approach. Dr Judge said:

“there are a number of responsible, registered—with BIAZA—keepers who keep their animals to…the highest level. We are very much in favour of banning

primates

“as pets but allowing a licensing system for responsible keepers.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 24, Q32.]

Dr Cronin said:

“somebody’s back garden might have higher standards than…Monkey World”,––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 29, Q41.]

which is her own organisation.

Some of these private keepers help zoos manage excess primate stock, including primates who, for temperamental reasons, are not suited to a zoo environment. In our public consultation on this issue, only 19 respondents out of 4,500 opposed our licensing scheme.

I reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge that as part of the new standards for keeping primates, the code of practice will be backed up with secondary legislation that will be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House, so we will have many more opportunities to consider the way in which they are kept, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister gives it a good try, and I do not dispute her good intentions, but I think there is a fundamental problem. A number of responsible keepers could mean anything from zero to 5,000, and we heard in evidence that numbers are relatively low. My worry is that the crisis that she talks about will happen regardless. That is the problem, and the Bill presents no solution to it, so far as I can see.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 1

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “anywhere in England”.

This amendment results in Part 1 of the Bill applying to Wales. There follow a number of other amendments in the name of the Minister which enable Part 1 to operate in relation to Wales. Functions under Part 1 that in England are conferred on the Secretary of State will, in Wales, be conferred on the Welsh Ministers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 71 to 78, 5 to 9, 79 to 81, 15 to 17, 19 to 25, 27 and 28, 30 to 35, 59 and 60, and 65 to 67.

[Victoria Prentis]

We have worked closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that the protections that this Bill provides to primates in England can be extended to Wales.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am not going to make a longer speech. I am very pleased to see that the Welsh Government have come forward on this Bill. I am sure they would share many of the Opposition’s objections, but we are not going to go through amendment by amendment and query it. Clearly there are a lot of technical changes that have been made, and it would be in the interest of the Committee to get them through.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause, as amended, will prohibit the keeping of primates in England and Wales without a primate licence unless the primates are being kept under another licensing regime, for example, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Anyone keeping a primate without a licence, or without being subject to an exemption, will be committing an offence and will be subject to the maximum penalty of an unlimited fine on conviction. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that primates are not kept in unsuitable welfare conditions that are bad for their health. Primates are wild animals with complex needs. Where keepers have sufficient knowledge, time and resources it is possible to meet a primate’s needs in private ownership, as it is in a zoo or rescue centre. I therefore move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are obviously disappointed that we are on to these amendments, because we hoped the strength of our arguments would see the overwhelming weight of the Government machine defeated. We are where we are, but I say to Conservative Members, the Government are not that scary—though perhaps they are scary actually, as I am terrified.

Labour will continue to work in collaboration with animal welfare groups, zoos and primate experts in pushing for a full ban. That will remain one of our key animal welfare policies, and it may well become an issue at any future election. However, if the Government are determined to steam ahead with—as we call it—this manifesto-breaking primate-licensing system, it is important that we get as good a system as we can, so we will begin to go through the proposals in detail.

I have one observation, which I will probably come back to: given the numbers of people to whom this licensing system might apply, we will spend a lot of time and effort on a very complicated system. Furthermore, I notice that, under a clause later in the Bill, the system could be modified for use for other creatures. Is this something of a Trojan horse? The Minister looks entirely innocent, of course.

We might need to think about the system in those terms, however, because a system that is suitable for primates might not necessarily be suitable for other creatures. Given how this place works, such changes can be made through regulations and, even though we euphemistically say that that is subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, we know full well that for anything in regulations to be overturned is rare—it is hard to do—so we are thinking about the measure in wider terms than just primates. I cast that as a warning.

Our amendments 115 and 114 seek to improve the welfare of primates by altering the language of the Bill to ensure that, during the transition period proposed by the Bill and during suspension periods, keepers are obliged to ensure that primates’ welfare meets the standards required by the Animal Welfare Act, to which I have referred. The Act sets out a broad set of principles that will be useful in the Bill, to apply to any licensing system such as this one. I hope the Government do not have a problem with our proposal. The wording in the Bill seems a touch meagre, because it requires keepers to fulfil only the

“basic welfare needs of the primate”.

The amendments strengthen the schedule

I hope that the Minister will explain the thinking behind the temporary, transitional registration approach. I found the extra level slightly hard to follow. I understand the concerns about a possible sudden rush, and about how we do not wish to create a welfare crisis, but if the system only lasts for a year, the real danger is that we just postpone the point at which that rush and the problem begin to happen.

I might have misunderstood the nature of the proposal, which may not be there just for a year, in which case it becomes a permanent transition—[Interruption.] The Minister is shaking her head, so I possibly have understood it correctly. In the evidence sessions, the Committee did not explore that as closely as we perhaps should have done, because we will have a licensing system and a transitional registration system.

We will not press our amendment to a vote. This is a genuine attempt to understand what the Government propose. I continue to fear that it has not been thought through fully, in part because the problem is so difficult. I will welcome the Minister’s comments.

[Victoria Prentis]

Amendment 114 states that primates kept under direction must have their welfare needs met as laid out under the Animal Welfare Act, as the hon. Gentleman said. We all agree, of course—but we disagree with the need to restate it. Requirements under the Animal Welfare Act are not negated by the Bill; they simply do not need to be repeated by the Bill.

Amendment 115 requires keepers to adhere to the Animal Welfare Act—of course—and to the code of practice for primates, which I made reference to earlier. Primate keepers are already required to do both those things. The code explains what keepers must do to meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Again, that does not need restating. I would, however, like to take the opportunity to allay some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the transitional period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear that, and I am grateful for the clarification that it effectively adds up to two years. However, I still do not understand where the Government think these creatures are going to go.

[Victoria Prentis]

Part of the issue, as we heard in evidence, is that we are not clear on how many primates are in private ownership. That is why we thought very carefully about the new licensing system. As people will initially have to register their primates, we will then know the extent of the problem. We are working extremely closely with rehoming centres and zoo centres to make sure that within that two-year period there will be places for all the primates that need to be rehomed. The system will give local authorities time to determine the scale of ownership, and rehoming centres willing and able to take on new primates will have time to prepare to do this once we know the scale of the problem in each area.

That is why, instead of an outright ban as suggested in previous amendments, we have selected this licensing system as the most humane way to go, and the way that we hope will lead to healthy primates not needing to be euthanised. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This has been a useful exchange, although it also shows some flaws in the way we do things in this House, in the sense that we are having to divine the Government’s thinking through pulling apart legislation. It would be helpful to have an overview of what is trying to be achieved. I have genuine sympathy, as this is a very difficult problem. However, I remain unconvinced. In the evidence session, I asked a witness—I believe it was the RSPCA, right at the beginning—that if I were to wander around my constituency, would I randomly come across people who keep primates? To my astonishment, the answer was yes, although I will not be breaking into people’s gardens to look.

However, I am sceptical about the likelihood of the kind of people who behave like that coming forward to register in a timely manner to allow the local authority to respond in a rational way. I fear it is far more likely, as is often the case with new legislation, that a few law-abiding, sensible people will come forward, but the vast majority will not. Therefore, we will end up—at the halfway point or at two years—with the exact same problem we had at the beginning. I do not think we will have come any further forward. I do not have a clear solution to this problem, but I am sceptical as to whether the Government have a solution to it either.

We will not push this amendment to a vote, but I do think we have learned something. I suspect that as we continue this process, there will be more discussion, more thought, and maybe some suggestions as to how we can resolve it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 72, in schedule 1, page 34, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Amendment 73, in schedule 1, page 34, line 23, leave out from “who” to “may” in line 24 and insert,

“meets the application condition in relation to a primate”.

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales (see the explanatory statement to Amendment 3), and provides that an application for registration under the Schedule may be made if the application condition (see Amendment 76) is met.

Amendment 74, in schedule 1, page 34, line 25, after “regulations” insert,

“made by the appropriate national authority”.

This amendment provides that regulations under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 are to be made by the appropriate national authority.

Amendment 75, in schedule 1, page 34, line 26, after “premises” insert,

“in which the primate is kept”.

This amendment provides that applications under this Schedule are to be made to the local authority in whose area the primate is kept.

Amendment 76, in schedule 1, page 34, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) “The application condition”, in relation to a primate, means—

(a) in the case of an application to a local authority in England, that the individual kept the primate in premises in England or Wales immediately before the date specified under paragraph 1(1)(a) in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(b) in the case of an application to a local authority in Wales, that the individual kept the primate in premises in England or Wales immediately before the date specified under paragraph 1(1)(a) in regulations made by the Welsh Ministers.”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment sets out the condition that must be satisfied for an application under paragraph 3(1) of the Schedule to be made.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The schedule introduces the transitional registration scheme that we were just talking about, for those who keep primates before the prohibition in clause 1 comes into force. The schedule will cease to have effect one year after the prohibition of keeping a primate under clause 1 comes into force.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I do not have much to add, other than that I am not sure the general discussion has fully appreciated the role that this schedule plays in the transitional process. As I have already suggested, I have some worries as to how successful it is likely to be. I suspect the numbers will be low. I hope I am wrong. I am not sure how the Government plan to promote this, or how people who should register will know about it or how they will be prompted. A range of questions comes to mind. I can see what the Government are trying to do with this measure, but I am sceptical about its chances of success. Let us hope it helps us find a way out of this tricky situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2

Offences relating to primates: fixed penalty notices

Amendments made: 77, in schedule 2, page 38, line 30, at end insert

“in the case of local authorities in England, or the Welsh Consolidated Fund in the case of local authorities in Wales.”

This amendment and Amendment 78, taken together, provide for sums received by local authorities in Wales under Schedule 2 to be paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund, subject to deduction of investigation costs.

Amendment 78, in schedule 2, page 38, line 31, after “Fund” insert “or Welsh Consolidated Fund”—(Victoria Prentis.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 77.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The schedule allows a local authority to issue fixed penalty notices where it is satisfied that the person has committed an offence relating to the keeping, breeding or transferring of primates. Fixed penalty notices will allow local authorities greater flexibility in their enforcement of the offences outlined in part 1, and will alleviate some of the burden on them associated with pursuing prosecutions through the courts, which can take time and money. It also allows a more proportionate response to lower-level offending and will enable us to act quickly to ensure that primates are kept in appropriate conditions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Again, there is not a great deal to be said, other than, as with my earlier observation, that we are setting up a complicated system—understandably, if one assumes that the licensing system is likely to work. I wonder how many cases we will actually see processed through this system.

There is one point I do worry about: as I read it, if someone pays the fixed penalty notice within the relevant period of 14 days, it is a bit like a parking ticket, in that there is a 50% reduction, and there will be a fine of only £2,500. Given the costs and the scale at which some who keep primates might be operating, I wonder whether that is a sufficient deterrent. To some extent that touches on another piece of legislation in the Government’s animal welfare action plan, which is the private Member’s Bill on fixed penalty notices, which I believe will soon be going to Committee. In the Second Reading debate on that Bill, I raised the concern that although I understand the benefit to enforcement agencies of having an extra, more flexible tool in the box, there is a potential risk that one could end up diminishing the severity of the penalty for the more serious offences. I feel that that is beginning to creep in here. I do not want a situation in which people for whom £2,500 is not a great deal of money just feel that this fine is like a parking ticket—they do not really bother about it and can carry on doing what they are doing. That is cause for concern, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

[Victoria Prentis]

I will be brief. The fixed penalty notice as a tool in the toolbox is a very good description. I remind the Committee that, of course, if the ultimate offence, which we have just created and which is to keep a primate without a licence, is committed, the fine is unlimited.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

Primate licences

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, after “species” insert “at such premises”.

This amendment spells out that a primate licence must specify the premises to which it relates.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 10 to 14 and 18.

[Victoria Prentis]

The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the functions of local authorities under the new licensing regime. Amendment 4 will ensure that the premises where the primate is kept are stated on the licence. Amendments 10 and 14 allow local authorities to take into account any previous failure of the applicant to meet licensing standards, and any other conduct of the applicant that is deemed relevant, when deciding whether to grant or renew a licence.

Amendment 12 allows local authorities to decide whether to grant an application to vary the licence of an applicant who wishes to reduce the number of primates specified on their licence. That may not always be appropriate, as primates are social animals and a minimum social grouping size may well be needed to ensure that they thrive.

Amendment 11 makes it clear that licence holders may apply to vary the specified premises on their licence only when the new premises are located in the same local authority area. Amendment 13 provides that where the licence holder moves the primate to new premises, the local authority will be required to arrange an inspection before granting the application. Amendment 18 ensures that any guidance issued to local authorities on the implementation of the primate licensing regime is made publicly available.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out “six” and insert “two”.

This amendment would reduce the length of a licence from six years to two.

You will be delighted to know, Ms McVey, that this is not a complicated amendment. This is basically the question of how long the licence exists for. We think that six years is too long. I think that evidence was given by some of the witnesses that agreed with us on that. We think that two years might be a more appropriate period. I suspect that, under other amendments, we will come to the issue of who is really suited to do these kinds of checks. My suspicion is that the average local authority, because it is a district local authority, is going to struggle to have this expertise. To some extent, it could be argued that if it were going to struggle every six years, it would struggle even more every two years, but we think that this is a flawed system and that six years is just too long. We would rather the checks be more frequent, although overall, as I have said before, we would rather the provision not be needed at all.

[Victoria Prentis]

We believe that six years is the right length for a primate licence. The length of the licence and the number of inspections, which I will detail in a minute, is in line with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Before a licence is granted in the first place, the primate will be assessed by a veterinary surgeon. The six-year licensing period then involves at least two more inspections by an inspector appointed by the local authority. We anticipate that those inspections will be spaced relatively evenly over the six-year period.

We are also looking very carefully at, and working with expert groups on, what we can put in the regulations about the care of primates. For example, we might look at making an annual vet visit a requirement. I therefore ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Is the licensing scheme aimed at encouraging people to no longer keep primates as pets? Perhaps six years gives the impression that this is an okay practice to continue in perpetuity, while two years would perhaps accelerate the process of people no longer wanting to keep primates as pets.

[Victoria Prentis]

For the reasons we set out in earlier debates, the aim of this legislation is to ensure that primates are kept to very high—at least zoo-level—welfare standards and that those who keep them comply with those conditions. It is for that reason that we put in the six-year period, in line with other zoo and dangerous wild animal licensing regimes. We very much view this provision as part of that package. There will be regular inspections throughout that period, and the main thing is to ensure that the primate is properly kept.

[Olivia Blake]

I assume that the licensing will provide some financial benefit to local authorities so they are able to undertake this work. Will the pricing of the six-year licence guarantee that they are able to provide the necessary services? Would a two-year licence not provide more income for local authorities so that they can do the work asked of them?

[Victoria Prentis]

That is a fair question. Local authorities will be able to charge fees, both for any initial licence application and for registration under the transition scheme that we talked about. They will also be able to charge fees in respect of any inspections carried out under the licensing regime. The fees will enable the local authority to recover any costs that it incurs as a result of carrying out these activities. We hope that the ability to charge fees will minimise the burden placed on them in implementing the legislation, although I accept that they will have to do additional work.

We are very much co-developing the guidance on the implementation of these primate measures with local authorities. That work has already started and the group is discussing issues such as the appropriate level for fees to be set at, what sort of help local authorities will need and what training inspectors might need to enable them to comply with the provisions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is interesting listening to the Minister, because there is a fundamental difference of opinion here. Of course, the welfare of the primate is paramount, but I took her to say that we are talking about having high enough standards for primates to be allowed to be kept under a licensing system—that goes back to the opening debate. However, there is a fundamental difference of opinion here: we do not think that primates should be kept—full stop. In zoos, and in some research establishments sadly, we still need them—in zoos, they are for specific conservation and educational purposes. However, I do not see the case for this licensing system. There is a clear divide here.

Six years is far too long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, it is an encouragement. Essentially, it says, “It’s okay. If you have the money and you can afford to do it, it is okay.” Well, it is not okay, and we do not think that it should be happening, so we will press this amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

As we have heard, the clause specifies the number and type of primate that licence holders are permitted to keep. It will ensure that licence holders keep neither more primates than they are capable of caring for nor species that they do not have the facilities or expertise to keep.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Licensing standards and other requirements

Amendment made: 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

The code I referred to earlier, which I would be delighted to share with the hon. Gentleman, already applies. It goes into some detail about the importance of social interaction for primates and the way in which they should be kept. As I said, the regulations will develop the specifics and we are actively working on them with experts in the field. I would be delighted to share with the hon. Gentleman the details of that process as it continues.

We intend to introduce microchipping for licensed primates, but not where that is harmful, which it may be in a few exceptional cases. Microchipping primates is a significant procedure. It can require anaesthetic and carries a degree of risk to more vulnerable primates. There will be cases where exemptions to microchipping are needed—for example, if a primate is elderly or in ill health. As the hon. Gentleman said, primates are closely related to us and I sympathise with that position. Microchipping will be set out in the regulations, however, and we need to work slowly and carefully with the sector to come up with the right set of exemptions.

We also think that licence holders should provide key information to local authorities, including on primate births, deaths or transfers. That can be set out in secondary legislation, after we have worked with relevant experts. As we develop our standards, we are consulting widely. We want to set the bar high and aim for zoo-equivalent standards, and we need to ensure that the standards include species-specific requirements. Some of these are set out in the code, but learning has developed since the code was written, and it is important that we have the most up-to-date advice.

We need to work in a collaborative and expert-led way. I do not want to presuppose exactly what the standards should be now, so we will introduce our licensing standards via regulations made under the affirmative procedure and Parliament will be able to scrutinise their detail. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Olivia Blake]

I want to talk a little more about social groupings. We do not need to be experts in the field to know that this is an important standard that should be met under any licensing conditions. It is incredibly important that it is on the face of the Bill and I would be pleased if the Government thought again.

On the issue of microchipping, I accept that there might be some stress for certain animals, but “may” is too weak a word. If we are asked for exemptions, and as long as the exemptions are clear, “must” is entirely acceptable.

Although microchipping can help us trace animals, I am concerned that there is no standard way in which it is done across local authorities. As we know from other types of microchipping, there has been confusion about different systems. Given the nature of primates, without a microchipping system or some other relevant form of identification, I am concerned about how people would know if the primates they are looking at today are the same primates they looked at five years ago,.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Yes. We will all do exactly as we are told.

I understand the Minister’s arguments, so we will not press this amendment to a vote, but I hope she heard our points. There are challenges involved in dealing with creatures that are so close to us. We want to make sure they are treated properly and respectfully. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.

This amendment relates to the application of part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to amendment 3.

Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.

This amendment relates to the application of part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to amendment 3.

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment relates to the application of part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to amendment 3.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause sets out that the Secretary of State will provide licensing standards via regulations for the care and management of primates kept under the licence. They will be developed in close collaboration with experts on primate welfare. The licensing standards will be introduced via regulations made via the affirmative procedure and we will have the chance to scrutinise them.

[Daniel Zeichner]

To reprise the debate: as ever, the danger with licences that may include things is that they may not. While we have no reason to not trust the Government on that, we would much rather it were stronger. We see no reason it could not have been strengthened in the Bill and although we will not push to a vote, we continue to worry that far too much has been left to regulation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Applications

Amendment made: 9, in clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out ‘in England’.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to amendment 3.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The Bill provides for the creation of a primate licensing scheme that exempts licence holders from the prohibition on keeping primates in England and Wales. Clause 4 outlines who is eligible to apply for a primate licence and the steps involved in the application process. The clause is necessary for establishing a common set of application principles.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have little to add, other than to say, yet again, that we worry about the licensing system. I was quite struck by clause 4(4)(a), in which the application was to state the “name and sex” of the primate. That brings home to us that this is different from many other animal regulations, although we all ascribe names to our pets. This is almost like the registration of a birth or a death and it reflects the different way in which we treat primates compared with other creatures. I find it both moving and slightly chilling, because we are saying that a creature has a name that is recorded that we are allowing, under licence, to be imprisoned or kept as a pet. That does not feel right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

DETERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expertise. When I looked through the amendments last night, I sighed, realising that he was very likely to make exactly the point he has just made.

I hope the Minister has heard the broad gist of what has been said. We do not know the numbers who will come forward through the licensing system, but even if it were the upper limit of 5,000, there are, I am told, 10.8 million cats in the UK. That gives one a sense of how likely it is for any individual vet to be asked to provide an opinion on these cases and it offers a comparison with what they do in their normal daily work.

Amendment 110 is as drafted on the amendment paper, but there may be scope down the line to revisit the issue. It is important that we get this right. We can help local authorities by making sure that the Government sort out a list of people who have the necessary skills. As I have already hinted, I worry that the average district council will consider the issue and wonder how it will cope with the provisions in the Bill. Clearly there are parts of the country where zoos and rescue centres have the necessary experience, but there will be other parts where they do not. If they came up against an application, they would struggle and it would make it far simpler if the Government did what we are suggesting and compiled a list of the names of competent veterinary surgeons and zoo inspectors who have the skills to carry out the work.

Despite the suggestions from the hon. Gentleman, we think the issue is sufficiently important for us to push it to a vote. We know what the outcome will be, but we want to put it on the record that the Government should take another look at the issue. When the Bill is passed, we hope it will have been improved in this regard.

[Victoria Prentis]

We all agree that those carrying out inspections should be competent to do so. With his depth of knowledge, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border reminded us that vets have established competency standards. It is important that the regulations use the right terminology—competency, experience and expertise—as they are developed.

We have provided flexibility in the Bill about who can undertake inspections. The aim of that was to avoid creating delays to licence processing, which could be bad for primates awaiting inspection. We are looking to support training for vets and inspectors so that they have the right knowledge to carry out inspections. We hope that the training will increase the pool of people local authorities can call upon. I say once again that primates vary enormously: someone with expertise in one type of primate may well not be competent to deal with another.

We will certainly include material on the selection of inspectors as part of our guidance for local authorities—the list that the hon. Member for Cambridge wanted—and we intend to ensure that local authorities are given details of suitably qualified inspectors, including specialist vets and vets who have undergone primate training.

Local authorities already undertake a lot of that work for us in the space of zoo inspection and dangerous wild animal inspection. They can already request information on competent zoo inspectors from the Animal and Plant Health Agency. We do not need to include that in the Bill, but I will look carefully, having heard the debate, at the language that we use in regulation. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This has been a helpful discussion—hopefully, we will come to a sensible resolution. I hear what the Minister says about the advice and guidance. My reflection, having been some years ago a district councillor in a rural area that had some areas that needed to be licensed, is that we struggled with expertise.

Much of the discussion in the end is not so much about primates but about licensing, and how we go about it. Having spent a number of years trying to get the taxi licensing system improved, I am beginning to draw on my conversations with the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers; I remember some of the complexities that can be brought up. None of this is simple or easy. We need expert advice, and the right people. If we do not have them, we will not get a very good outcome. We think that amendment 112 is sufficiently important to vote on, but I will withdraw the others.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 10, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) a local authority may take into account—

(a) any previous failure by the applicant to meet the licensing standards, and

(b) any other conduct of the applicant that is relevant.”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment allows a local authority to take previous breaches of the licensing standards, and other relevant conduct, into account when making determinations under clause 5(2) and (3).

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause outlines the steps that local authorities will take when determining an application for a primate licence. The clause ensures that a licence is granted to those who have demonstrated that they are able to keep primates to the required standards, while ensuring that local authorities have the flexibility to make allowances for those who are very close to those standards but have not yet quite met them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Decisions relating to primates: representations and appeals

Amendments made: 79, in schedule 3, page 39, line 32, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal or court”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 80 and 81, secures that appeals under Schedule 3 in Wales are made to a magistrates’ court.

Amendment 80, in schedule 3, page 39, line 34, at end insert—

“(2) In this paragraph and paragraph 9, ‘appropriate tribunal or court’ means—

(a) in relation to an appeal relating to the decision of a local authority in England, the First-tier Tribunal;

(b) in relation to an appeal relating to the decision of a local authority in Wales, a magistrates’ court.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 79.

Amendment 81, in schedule 3, page 39, line 35, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal or court”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 79.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The schedule clearly sets out the circumstances in which a person may appeal a local authority’s decision. That includes decisions on applications for a primate licence or registration, rectification notices issued under a primate licence or registration, and the revoking or amending of a licence to keep primates.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6

Conditions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause places the requirement on licence holders to meet certain conditions in order to fulfil their obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Variation and surrender

Amendments made: 11, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—

“to other premises in the area of the same local authority”.

This amendment clarifies that a local authority can only vary the premises to which a licence relates if the new premises are in its area.

Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out—

“reduce the number of primates or”.

This amendment has the effect that a local authority is not required to grant an application to reduce the number of primates to which a licence applies.

Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 4, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert—

“(a) may request further information from the licence-holder;

(b) in the case of an application under subsection (1)(a) or (b), may arrange for the premises specified in the licence to be inspected by a veterinary surgeon;

(c) in the case of an application under subsection (1)(c), must arrange for the proposed new premises to be so inspected.”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment requires a local authority, where an application is made to vary the premises to which a licence relates, to inspect the new premises before determining the application.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause provides licence holders with the ability to apply to local authorities to vary their licence to account for changes in their circumstances. It is needed to ensure that the licensing process is dynamic and can respond to changes in the circumstances of both the licence holders and the primate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Renewal

Amendment made: 14, in clause 8, page 5, line 24, at end insert—

“(7A) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) a local authority may take into account—

(a) any previous failure by the applicant to meet the licensing standards, and

(b) any other conduct of the applicant that is relevant.”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment allows a local authority to take previous breaches of the licensing standards, and other relevant conduct, into account when making determinations under clause 8(5) and (6).

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Under this clause, a primate licence lasts for six years, as long as the licence holder meets the conditions of their licence.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are seeing exactly what I predicted earlier: a rolling process of permanent licensing. The Bill absolutely does not stop primates from being kept as pets, and I regret that. We have had the discussion about six years and two years—we do not need to go back over it—but this shows that the process is a constant and ongoing one, which will allow primates to remain being kept as pets.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Death of licence-holder

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause sets out the steps to be taken in the unfortunate event of the death of a primate licence holder. It is necessary to allow the deceased licence holder’s personal representative—who, obviously, will often be family members—time to make arrangements for the primate in their care. Primates might otherwise be subjected to unnecessary stress from being moved to other premises without sufficient time for preparations to be made.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The dialogue around this issue is becoming interesting. The clause further shows the potential problem: not only are primates being kept as pets, but they are being kept in perpetuity, rolling forward, when the licence holder dies. I quite understand the necessity of setting up a licensing system, but this is where it leads—it quite clearly leads to these creatures being kept in perpetuity, and we do not think that should be happening.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause gives the local authority the power to arrange for an inspection of the premises specified in the licence as a means of assuring that the licence holder is meeting the requisite standards and any rectification conditions that they have received.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Fees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause gives the local authority the ability to charge fees for the processing of applications and for conducting inspections relating to a primate licence. It will ensure that the administration of the licensing scheme is not a significant cost to the taxpayer. It will also ensure that local authorities have the resources to implement the scheme effectively.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As I have already reflected on, this has become a discussion around how to license. Once again, as ever, I defer to the legal expertise of the Minister. I am sure that she knows full well from other legislation how that is done, and I imagine that it will be done in the same way here. However, the clause raises slightly difficult questions about the other criteria that the local authority will use to determine what is an appropriate fee—how many, how often, to what standard and by whom. It is a bit of a moveable feast, and I confess that I do not understand how a local authority might arrive at a reasonable judgment and whether the Government will give guidance. I seek some clarification on that point.

[Victoria Prentis]

Of course. We cannot specify at this point, for the reasons given, what a typical fee for this licence may be. The fees will reflect local authority costs for administration of the licensing regime, and therefore will be dependent on the costs associated with the licensing scheme in the area. However, we will most certainly be providing guidance to local authorities on the range of fees that should be applicable and we would expect all fees to fall within this range, unless there is good reason why not. We would expect fees to be similar across different local authorities, although there will be some variations.

We are working closely with local authorities and we have a working group dealing with this at the moment. The Welsh Government will be providing guidance in relation to Wales, and again we are working closely with the devolved Administrations on this matter.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I understand the difficulty the Minister has trying to license something of which we have very little knowledge. That goes back to my basic point that this is a slightly flawed process. What we are hearing is that we have no idea how much the fees might be, which is a problem for anyone applying. Do we not have any sense at all of what an appropriate fee might be for this kind of inspection?

[Victoria Prentis]

The work is going on at the moment, and I would be delighted to keep the hon. Gentleman in the loop as it continues. Licence holders will have the choice as to whether they wish to apply for a licence and continue to keep their primates. It is right that the financial burden should rest with them. Under existing legislation, zoo licence holders and dangerous wild animals licence holders are also expected to pay a fee to their local authorities, so there is some precedent for this.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause makes it an offence for a licence holder under this part to fail to meet the general licence condition attached to their licence. The penalty for this offence is set at a fine of up to £2,500, although, as I said earlier, the penalty for not having a licence is unlimited. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Rectification Notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 13 authorises the local authority to serve a rectification notice on a licence holder if they fail to meet any of the licensing standards. This will provide licence holders the opportunity to take any remedial action to provide better for the welfare and management of their primates before further enforcement action is taken. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Revocation etc. of licence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause sets out the circumstances in which a local authority is obligated, or has the option, to revoke or vary a primate licence unilaterally. These powers should enable local authorities to act to prevent people who have acted in contravention of this Bill, or the Animal Welfare Act 2006 more generally, from keeping primates. This will help ensure primates are protected from any potential future harm. I move that this clause stands part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Directions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause will enable the local authority to monitor the welfare of any unlicensed primates, and ensure their basic welfare needs are met while they remain in the care of their keeper. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Determination of applications

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 16, page 9, line 15, leave out ‘put down’ and insert ‘humanely euthanised’.

This amendment would bring the language in the Bill in line with existing animal welfare legislation.

This is not a complicated change; it is self-explanatory. In my correspondence with animal welfare organisations, they expressed their misgivings about the use of the term “put down” in the Bill. I am told that currently the wording used in the majority of animal welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, is “humanely destroyed”. However, I have had conversations with the RSPCA, and it suggests the most suitable language would be “humanely euthanised”, as that, I am reliably informed, is the correct veterinary term. This is a fairly technical amendment, and I hope that if colleagues want to ensure the accuracy and suitability of the technical language in the Bill, the amendment might be fairly uncontroversial. I have never had a successful amendment in Committee, so I am hoping this may finally be it.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am so sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. It is already the case that when an animal is euthanised—this is an awful subject to be discussing—it must be done humanely. Under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is already an offence to cause an animal unnecessary suffering, and that includes the method of the animal’s death. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify that primates must be euthanised humanely, though, of course, all of us here feel they should. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His expertise is extremely helpful to the Committee and shows how complicated this is. Clause 16(2)(c) is just too aggressive in this context. While I accept the Minister’s explanation of the legal situation, I cannot see why that cannot be put in a different way, given the kind of creatures we are dealing with. I suspect the Minister agrees, but she has to do what she has to do. We are not going to push this to a vote to embarrass people—there is no point—but if there is an opportunity, perhaps it could be amended at some further point in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause will help to ensure compliance with the new licensing system, and provide local authorities with a better ability to enforce higher standards of animal welfare. I urge that it stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Selling primates to unlicensed persons

Amendment made: 15, in clause 17, page 10, line 6, leave out “in England”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause will prohibit anyone from selling, gifting or transferring a primate to a person who does not hold a relevant licence, with the knowledge or with reasonable grounds to suspect that that person does not hold such a licence. This provision will cover both private traders and third-party sellers and prevent them from selling primates to individuals who cannot care for their needs adequately. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Breeding primates

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause sets out that a person who does not hold a relevant licence commits an offence if they take steps to breed a primate under their care with another primate, or where they keep two or more primates together in conditions in which they are able to breed. It should prevent unscrupulous breeders from continuing to fuel a market for pet primates kept in low-welfare conditions. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I need say no more than that we totally agree. This is a very strong and important provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Powers of entry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause, together with schedule 4, gives power of entry to a person authorised by the local authority; it is to be used in relation to one of the offences that we have already discussed. The power of entry will enable local authorities to investigate whether an offence is being, or has been, committed at the premises, and should allow them to enforce for the offences and penalise those responsible. This will in turn ensure that primates are not being kept, bred or sold in contravention of the Bill. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Powers of entry relating to primates

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The schedule provides local authorities with a power to support investigation and enforcement in respect of offences in the Bill relating to the keeping, breeding and sale or transfer of primates. The powers in the schedule are necessary to ensure that the offences introduced in the Bill can be effectively enforced against. The powers will allow local authorities to investigate those who keep, breed and sell primates illegally, which in turn should help to ensure the high welfare of all primates kept in England and Wales. I urge the Committee to agree to the schedule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 20, page 11, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to local authorities.

This is the familiar “may” or “must” argument, and I suspect that we will go over old ground yet again with it, but it does allow me to speculate on what happens if the Secretary of State is tardy in providing guidance to local authorities. This takes us back to the equally long-standing issue of support for local authorities, or lack thereof. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill and in the evidence and submissions that we have had from various organisations—we have talked about this at some length this morning already—real concern has been expressed about the capacity of local authorities to enact the system that we are talking about. We all look forward to a time when we can talk about local authorities without adding such adjectives as “underfunded”, “cut” and “on the brink of collapse”. We all know the circumstances in which local authorities find themselves. What strikes me is that the Government continue to load extra obligations on to local authorities without necessarily giving them the help that they need to take on yet more responsibilities.

I have already summed up the Kafkaesque picture of the monkey dumped in the reception of the guildhall in Cambridge. Quite what the monkey or the council officer is supposed to do in those circumstances I am not sure, and it may superficially seem quite amusing, but my partner used to work for a local authority, and quite often they are the last resort, particularly with animals and where people have mental health issues and so on. It is the poor old social worker who ends up at 6 o’clock on a Friday evening trying to find a home for the primate who has been dumped in the lobby.

We need clear guidance. In the evidence session, I asked Dr Girling, chair of the Zoos Expert Committee of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what happens to animals when zoos or others fail to meet licensing standards. The answer was:

“They become the responsibility of the local authority in the first instance”.––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 28, Q40.]

Well, good luck to the local authority. The guidance ought to be there. It should not be a “may”; it has to be a “must”. I very much hope that that will be done in a timely manner. Were we to transfer this provision to “must” rather than “may” we would be insisting upon it.

[Victoria Prentis]

As I have said several times, we certainly intend to develop guidance on the implementation of these primate measures, and in doing so we will continue to engage closely with local authorities, vets and specialist primate keepers. Local authorities do much good work, included in which is their work with dangerous wild animals and other licensing. I have already referenced how they will be able to charge fees to enable them to carry out that work.

I very much hope that the Kafkaesque situation that the hon. Gentleman envisages never comes to pass, and that we are able, because we have brought into play a sensible and proportionate licensing system, to have transitional arrangements that mean that a suitable space in a zoo or rehoming centre where appropriate can be found for primates that need to be rehomed. Government amendment 18 will ensure that any guidance developed for local authorities will be published so that it is fully transparent and available to all. In those circumstances, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Heather Wheeler.)

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good afternoon. I remind Members that they are expected to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail].

Clause 20

Guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. The clause indicates the intention that the Secretary of State will give guidance to local authorities in respect of their functions under this part of the Bill. With that guidance, local authorities will be better able to fulfil their functions in a consistent way. Where keepers are unable to provide for primates’ welfare needs, local authorities can be confident that Government guidance can advise them how best to improve the situation for primates in their area.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I may have inadvertently given my speech on this clause before lunch. I feel no need to test anyone on whether they noticed, nor any need to repeat it, other than to say that we feel that the Government really ought to do provide this guidance, and it ought to be a “must” rather than a “may”.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Information

Amendments made: 20, in clause 21, page 11, line 16, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Amendment 21, in clause 21, page 11, line 17, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Amendment 22, in clause 21, page 11, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Amendment 23, in clause 21, page 11, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Amendment 24, in clause 21, page 11, line 27, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The information required under the clause will enable the Government to build a national view of how different local authorities use their powers under the Bill. It will also provide information on the number of primates being kept under licence. It will help to ensure that the legislation is implemented and enforced effectively and consistently.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Power to extend Part 1

Amendment made: 25, in clause 22, page 11, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 22, page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to second “provision” in line 2 and insert

“The consequential, supplementary, or incidental provision that may be made under this section includes”.

This amendment is a drafting change that is consequential on the new clause about regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 23 stand part.

Clause 38 stand part.

Clause 49 stand part.

Government amendments 56 and 58.

Government new clause 3—Regulations.

[Victoria Prentis]

New clause 3  brings provisions relating to the parliamentary procedures that must be used when making regulations under parts 1, 2 and 3 into one clause that will be inserted into part 4.  At the appropriate times, I will move that clauses 23, 38 and 49 should not stand part of the Bill. Amendment 26 makes minor changes, all of which are consequential on the removal of clauses 23, 38 and 49 and the introduction of new clause 3.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I find this set of amendments baffling. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why it was necessary to bring forward these amendments to the Government’s own Bill and what that means, not least because clause 22 seems to give the Government permission to extend the licensing system to any other kind of wild animal. I am not sure why they want that power. It is important that that is explained. As I argued earlier, the fact that everything will be done by regulation leads us to wonder what is planned and how it might be challenged in future. An explanation would be welcome.

Members of the Committee may have read the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It is quite helpful on this Bill. I am struck by the fact that these amendments are subsequent to that memorandum. Is there a revised memorandum, and when might we see it?

[Victoria Prentis]

I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that he may have got ahead of himself again in talking about clause 22. With your permission, Mr Davies, I will deal with clause 22 stand part later. New clause 3 and amendment 26 merely bring the Bill into line with itself, as amended. Clauses 23, 38 and 49 will be removed, so we have made insertions to make that operable. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the power to introduce regulations to regulate the keeping of other wild animals. Is that right?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister is correct.

[Victoria Prentis]

On the clauses that we are now discussing, we have carefully considered the parliamentary procedures. All powers to make regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee are happy with that.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. This clause provides the Secretary of State with a power to introduce regulations to amend part 1 of the Bill to regulate the keeping of other wild animals. The power will allow the provisions to be extended to other kinds of wild animals that are not normally domesticated in Great Britain. The use of this power would be dependent on our gathering significant evidence in support of extending the primate provisions to another type of kept wild animal. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State is required to consult appropriate persons before making regulations.  

The Government do not have any immediate plans to extend the measures in the Bill to other wild animals, and the power will be used only when there is evidence to show that Government intervention is necessary to ensure that the complex welfare needs of an animal are met. It is in the Bill that the Secretary of State will consult relevant experts before using the power, which ensures that we can prevent other wild species from suffering as pets and being kept in inappropriate conditions. We can ensure that any further regimes are in line with the primates licensing regime. Environmental non-governmental organisations have expressed considerable support for the extension of this regime to other kept wild animals, should the need arise.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. To go back to points I made earlier, we seem to be designing a licensing system for a relatively small number of cases and then, at the end of the discussion, saying, “Ah, yes. This can also be used in wider circumstances.” That seems to be the wrong way round, and I think we will have the same discussion a bit further down the line on the extensive changes to the regulations applying to dogs. Although I do not necessarily have any objection to that, it is a curious way of proceeding. To some extent, it would have altered the discussion on Second Reading or more widely if people had known that the Government were setting up a new system, which is fine, but this started off being about primates.

Although we will not oppose the clause, I observe that it seems, from my conversations with organisations in the world outside, that they are not entirely clear what the provision is about. As one always says in these circumstances, I have no doubt that Ministers are well intentioned, but not all their successors may be. There is a considerable power to set up a new system for a whole range of animals well beyond primates.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 23 disagreed to.

Clause 24

Meaning of “keep”

Amendment made: 30, in clause 24, page 12, line 28, after “England” insert “and Wales”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause defines the meaning of the word “keep” in part 1. It is necessary to ensure that the provisions apply to the right people. A person does not “keep” a primate if they are in temporary possession of a primate in order to prevent it from causing damage, in order to transport it on behalf of somebody else, or when providing it with vet treatment. The clause also confirms that a person who ceases to be in possession of a primate while it is in England or Wales will continue to be treated as the keeper until another person takes possession of the primate.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I repeat what I said earlier: we do not think that people should be passing, keeping or transferring these creatures. We just think they should not be kept.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 25

General interpretation

Amendments made: 31, in clause 25, page 12, line 31, at end insert—

““appropriate national authority” means—

(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;”.

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Amendment 32, in clause 25, page 13, line 1, after “authority”” insert “, in relation to England,”.

This amendment limits the existing definition of “local authority” to England, in consequence of the application of Part 1 to Wales by Amendment 3.

Amendment 33, in clause 25, page 13, line 3, after “council” insert “in England”,

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.

Amendment 34, in clause 25, page 13, line 7, at end insert—

““local authority”, in relation to Wales, means a county council or county borough council in Wales;”.

This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales and provides for a definition of “local authority” for Wales.

Amendment 35, in clause 25, page 13, line 21, at end insert—

“(2) Where any premises are partly in the area of one local authority and partly in the area of another local authority, the premises are treated for the purposes of this Part as being in the area of the local authority in which the major part of the premises is situated.”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment provides that where premises are partly in one local authority’s area and partly in another one’s, they are treated as being in the area of the local authority where the major part of the premises is situated.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. 

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause provides definitions of the terms used in the primate provisions in the Bill. It confirms that “primate” means an animal of any species other than man that belongs to the order of primates.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 25, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 26

Offence where dog attacks or worries livestock

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause provides that a person who owns or is in charge of a dog will be guilty of an offence if the dog attacks or worries livestock on any agricultural land or a road, path or verge thereof. The clause explains under what circumstances a person does not commit an offence even if a dog attacks or worries livestock. An owner will not commit an offence if they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person without their consent—for example, if the dog had been stolen. The penalty for the offence is a fine up to level 3 on the standard scale.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have moved beyond primates. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Exactly. We are into a new part of this curious Bill. I start by welcoming the Government’s decision to update the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which I had the pleasure of reading over lunch. It is extraordinary how much more succinct the legislation was in those days. It did it all in three pages—and, apparently, for thruppence. The Act has been on the statute book for a long time, and although it has been updated periodically, it clearly needs bringing into the modern period. We are all aware of the horrific impact that livestock worrying can have and the concern it creates for livestock owners across England and Wales.

Equally, we all welcome the increased access to the countryside that there has been in recent years and that many of our citizens have made good use of, particularly in the past couple of years. We also recognise the economic impact that those people bring to the rural economy. That is a positive. However, if more people are coming into such areas and walking in the countryside with their dogs, and if they are not well informed about the need to behave responsibly—and, sadly, some do behave irresponsibly—there is always the risk that the owners will fail to take good care of their dogs when they are close to livestock. This has clearly had an harmful impact on a number of communities. When the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare looked into livestock worrying, I am told that it estimated that about 15,000 sheep had been killed by dogs in 2016. In 2019, NFU Mutual stated that livestock worrying cost the sector £1.2 million. The National Sheep Association’s annual survey on livestock worrying in 2020 found that 95% of its respondents had experienced livestock worrying on their farm, with the average cost being more than £1,000. As you would expect me to observe, Mr Davies, at a time when farmers are open to being undercut through the trade deals being cut by the Government, every single penny counts.

Livestock worrying also leaves dogs open to harm. SheepWatch UK has told us that in 2016 at least 49 dogs were shot and killed for chasing or killing sheep. These are complicated issues, and we know just how much distress can be caused to a huge range of people—the owners of the livestock, those who witness such events, and the emergency services who have to turn up and deal with the problems. It causes great pain and distress and, sadly, often death to the attacked animals. It also puts the life and health of the dog and the owner in danger, as horses and cattle, for example, are quite capable of causing harm not only to a dog that is attacking them, but to the people with them. I am sure that we will discuss that later.

I welcome the Government’s decision to take action in this area, but we believe that there is scope to improve the measures, and we have a number of amendments, which we will come to this afternoon, that would do that. A final point on this introductory clause to part 2: we are slightly disappointed that there no mechanism for compensating victims of livestock worrying. A later amendment of ours may address that issue. On that basis, I am quite happy with the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Seizure and detention of dogs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause targets reoffending—cases where either the same dogs are found attacking livestock repeatedly, or where an owner has several dogs that worry livestock. It is important to bear in mind that about two thirds of livestock worrying incidents happen when an owner is not with their dog, and it has escaped or run away from them. Under the clause, the dog can be detained until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses. The police will be able to seize and detain a dog if they have reasonable grounds to believe that it has attacked or worried livestock, or may make further attacks on livestock.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have come to a series of clauses that get into the detail of how we address this issue in the new world. We have no objection to much of the detail, but as I said earlier, we seem to be designing new systems for dealing with dogs—and their owners, in some cases; we will look at that further in other clauses. I wonder a bit about how the measures will work and overlap with existing legislation. There are frequent debates in Parliament about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, for instance. I worry that we are designing a new system that starts from livestock worrying, but that could cover many other aspects of how dogs behave, and we could be duplicating measures, or creating a system that will be extrapolated from to cover other circumstances. Obviously, livestock worrying is an important issue in itself, but a whole range of things follow from it that it may be relevant to discuss and consider in the round in another way. However, when it comes to how one might deal with livestock worrying, there is nothing in the clause that we object to, and we are happy to proceed with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Collection of samples and impressions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause introduces powers to improve the ability of the police to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock. In creating the Bill, we worked closely with the police, and the provisions have very much been co-designed with them, so that they have the tools that they need in the modern world to enforce the legislation. This clause enables a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog, livestock, or, sadly, the body of a livestock animal if it might be evidence of an offence committed under clause 26. The police say that that is a very welcome development that will really assist in prosecuting this offence.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am afraid I will be making the same point consistently on these clauses. I am glad to hear that the measures were developed in consultation with the police, but I suspect that the powers could also be used in other circumstances. That is my ongoing concern about the way we are proceeding, although as far as we can see these are sensible proposals.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 29 enables a justice of the peace to authorise the police—again, this has been asked for—to enter and search premises in connection with offences where a dog is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. That includes the power to take a sample or impression from the dog.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Control order upon conviction under section 26

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 30 enables the courts to make control orders after conviction of an offence under clause 26, if the dog was found not to have been under proper control at the time of the offence. The control order must specify one or more measures that the offender or the owner of the dog, or both, must take to ensure that the dog is kept under proper control in the future. The owner of the dog, as well as the offender, may appeal against a control order to the Crown court. It is an offence to breach a control order; the penalty is a fine not exceeding level 3.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Destruction order upon conviction under section 26

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 31 introduces a power for the court to order that a dog be destroyed after a person has been convicted of an offence under clause 26, if the court is satisfied that there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again. The offender and the owner, if different, have the right to appeal against a destruction order to the Crown court.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are working here with a series of proposals to deal with these very difficult cases. No one wants to see a dog destroyed.

My question is about whether any work has been done to consider how many control orders the Government anticipate being used under these proposals and how many destruction orders might follow. When we come to discuss the orders in future debates, in Westminster Hall or wherever, people may be rightly concerned that the orders have led to too many dogs being destroyed unnecessarily. Possibly it will be the other way round: perhaps the orders will not have been used strongly enough to deter people from behaving irresponsibly—if that is the purpose of this legislation, which I hope it is.

[Victoria Prentis]

Destruction orders are, of course, already available to the courts in relation to dogs that are dangerous and not kept under proper control, including in some cases—through other legislation that is already enforced—when a dog has worried livestock. It is important to remember that we are designing these changes with proportionality very much in mind. The ancillary orders being brought under this legislation would be available to a court only post-conviction. The courts will of course need to consider proportionality when making any control, disqualification or destruction orders.

The Bill gives additional powers to the police—particularly in the collection of samples or DNA, for example. That will help them prosecute these serious crimes.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I apologise for my lack of detailed knowledge about the complex interrelationship between existing laws and the new proposals. I suppose what I am trying to get at is the problem that the Government are seeking to solve through this new legislation given that, from my limited understanding, there is already legislation that could be used to achieve something that looks broadly similar.

[Victoria Prentis]

As the hon. Gentleman has said, legislation has been in place since 1953. It was amended substantially in 1981 and is operable at this point. The new legislation, following our close work with the police, works on ways to make things easier and on modern tools and technologies, such as DNA sampling, to ensure that the police can prosecute the offences. As we have seen, the police will have that power, having had the authorisation of a JP to enter and search a premises in order to take a sample from or, where necessary, seize a dog.

This part of the Bill is designed to make existing powers more operable—easier and better to prosecute, giving the police extra tools to use in the prosecution of their duties. Yes, that is true of many of the powers, including the power to destroy a dog where necessary, although rehoming is also very much on the cards in many cases. Destruction, where that is decided to be necessary, however, is already an option. Such options remain in place, but this part of the Bill will help the police go about the course of their duties.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a helpful explanation, but only up to a point. I am left concluding that the Government seem not to be taking away the existing legislation and necessarily improving it, but adding additional legislation, which creates potential confusion. I understand the need to collect samples or use new technologies—absolutely right—but I am not clear why the destruction orders in particular need to be added to with this extra legislation in the Bill. I am not objecting; please do not—

[Victoria Prentis]

I might be able to help. I am trying to find the right clause, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that one of the clauses repeals the 1953 Act. Much of the wording is the same, but the Bill will replace the 1953 Act. The legislation has been put into this Bill. I hope that is clear. While I am on my feet, the other thing I should have said earlier is that we have extended the meaning of “livestock” in the Bill to include species that were not kept routinely in 1953, but now are, such as alpacas.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful. It was clause 41—I am sure we are not expected to commit these things to memory. I was aware of that, but I am still not entirely clear whether all the existing legislation stems from the 1953 Act. In this case, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to pass judgment on that, but I suspect that it may not be, so my continuing concern is that when we look at other things, such as the Dangerous Dogs Acts 1989 and 1991, we will find overlapping and duplication that it might have been a good idea to sort out in general. As a general proposition, the clause provides a framework for dealing with livestock worrying, and we support that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Disqualification order upon conviction under section 26 or breach of control order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause allows the courts to make a disqualification order if a person is convicted of an offence of a dog attacking or worrying livestock, or of breaching a control order imposed by the courts under clause 30. A disqualification order may disqualify the offender from owning dogs, keeping dogs, or both. A person that breaches such an order commits an offence.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is becoming a fascinating exchange. What is being done here is the putting in place of a range of measures, whether that is control orders, disqualification orders or destruction orders. A structure—though not necessarily a new one—is being created to deal with that set of issues. Again, I can see nothing wrong with the structure, but how it will interact with others bothers me.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause makes provision for the seizure and disposal—we hope by rehoming, where possible—of dogs in connection with disqualification orders introduced in clause 32. The clause also clarifies the right of appeal in relation to orders made in respect of dogs kept by a person to whom a disqualification order applies, whether or not that person is the owner.

When a court makes a disqualification order, if the person to whom the order applies owns or keeps a dog, the court may order that the dog can be taken away from them. If the owner is not the offender, they may appeal to the Crown court against the order made for the disposal of their dog.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Termination of disqualification order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause provides further detail on how the disqualification orders introduced in clause 32 will be put into practice. The clause sets out the rights of the offender to apply for the order to be terminated and explains the rights and responsibilities of the applicant and the court.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Sections 31 and 33: supplementary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause provides further detail on how the disqualification and destruction orders will work. A person who fails to comply with the requirement to deliver up a dog as imposed under a disqualification order or a destruction order commits an offence and is liable upon conviction to pay a fine not exceeding level 3. Directions given by the court may specify how a dog is to be disposed of or delegate the decision about this to a person appointed under the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Control, destruction and disqualification orders: appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause ensures that control, destruction and disqualification orders are not acted upon until the offender or dog owner has had the opportunity to appeal and had that appeal determined. The clause lists possible arrangements that the court can authorise, including directions for the dog to be taken into possession. It is an offence not to deliver up a dog subject to arrangements made by the court. Any expenses incurred in relation to the care of the dog can be recovered as a civil debt.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Crown application

[Victoria Prentis]

This is an interesting clause—

[The Chair]

Wake up! [Laughter.]

[Victoria Prentis]

If the Committee wants to know a fun fact, the Crown is not bound by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Corgis are not dangerous—well, certainly not under that Act, anyway.

[The Chair]

They are Welsh.

[Victoria Prentis]

And they are Welsh—yes, indeed. From Pembrokeshire, not from the Gower.

The clause sets out how part 2 binds the Crown. The Crown should be bound by clauses 26 to 41 on livestock worrying in due respect for the duty to keep dogs under proper control and to mitigate the risk of harming the welfare of livestock. In the interests of national security, powers of entry in this part may be restricted in relation to Crown premises and are restricted in relation to Her Majesty’s private estates.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I found the clause slightly puzzling. I am not entirely sure what it means, as usual. Maybe the Minister will be able to elucidate. I am not sure whether it is referring to land owned by the Crown, although of course Crown premises apply to extraordinary places—I believe some Cambridge colleges are considered to be Crown premises. I am not sure—I could get myself in trouble here, couldn’t I?

[Victoria Prentis]

Crown premises are defined as

“premises held, or used, by or on behalf of the Crown.”

[Daniel Zeichner]

Yes, that helps hugely.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thought it might.

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is a serious point here, which is that there seem to be some exceptions being made that relate to certain land, possibly even to certain animals. I am not entirely sure why that is in place. Can the Minister explain?

[The Chair]

There are two types of corgi. I know one in Pembrokeshire and one in Carmarthenshire.

[Victoria Prentis]

You are of course right, Mr Davies.

This part of the Bill is trying to bind the Crown—to ensure the Bill applies to the Crown. As I said in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way, the Crown is not bound by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but this Bill will apply to the Crown, as set out, with the exemption of national security, which I highlighted earlier. I hope that assists the hon. Gentleman.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister. That is reassuring. I am thinking about my old college, King’s, and the cows grazing outside it. I certainly would not want to see them being troubled by dogs. Our understanding is that this clause is fine.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

I ask that clause 38 does not stand part of the Bill. New clause 3, in my name, will bring the parliamentary procedures for all regulation-making powers in the Bill into one place.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 38 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 39

Meaning of “worrying livestock”

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 39, page 23, line 9, leave out

“or a pack of hounds”.

This amendment would remove the exemption for working packs of hounds from provisions covering livestock worrying.

We now move on to some of the definitions. As we have already heard, some of the wording has been lifted from the 1953 Act. There are probably some in the Government who wish we were still living in 1953. Looking at the events of last night, some of them still are living in 1953 in my view, but the world has moved on and our amendment reflects that fact.

I know that hunting with dogs is a controversial issue. It is something that I and colleagues on the Opposition Benches have sought to stop over many years. We are pleased that many on the Government Benches have come to that conclusion too. The Conservative manifesto in 2019 was quite clear:

“We will make no changes to the Hunting Act.”

“Good,” we say, but we would like to see that strengthened and the wordings, which have come from legislation from a different era, should reflect the new realities we now live in. The inclusion of hunting dogs in the list in clause 39 is part of that reference back to a different world.

With trail hunting, which is clearly now the only form of acceptable hunting, there is absolutely no need for the trail to be taken close to livestock. If that is happening, we have to ask ourselves why. It should not be happening, so we do not think this exemption is necessary and we would like the phrase taken out. We will press this amendment to a vote.

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have carried over the existing language from the 1953 Act relating to assistance and working dogs. I listened to what he and colleagues said on Second Reading about the wording of this section generally, and I am certainly prepared to look at it. I think we need to look again at the language. It might, for example, be simpler to make a general exemption for working dogs while they are being worked, which is the situation in the Scottish legislation that was passed relatively recently. I also believe that “assistance dogs” is the modern terminology for guide dogs, although I would need to look at that further. Of course, assistance dogs, when they are being used, are usually—although perhaps not always—on the lead in any event. I feel that further work needs to be done on the wording, and I am happy to consider that before Third Reading. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Diolch yn fawr.

[Victoria Prentis]

Diolch yn fawr. The debate has been useful and thoughtful, and I thank the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Ceredigion for their contributions. I am afraid that we will not accept the amendment, but I have no doubt that the debate will continue in order to find the way to get the balance right.

To avoid committing the “at large” offence, a dog walker would need to be aware of their dog’s actions and ensure it stays in sight. The person must be confident that their dog will come back promptly on command. It is not enough for the dog walker to merely think that their dog will come back when called. There are dogs who come back when called—not ones that have ever been members of my family, but I do know of such dogs—but for the rest of us, I would refer us very firmly to the recently refreshed countryside code. That document, which advises dog owners on how to walk their dogs responsibly, is worth a google when Members are out of Committee.

That document is supported by a public awareness campaign, which we tried to ramp up during lockdown because we found that there were many new dog owners who needed to be told very firmly that unless their dog was really under control, it needed to be on a lead. In the majority of cases, of course, if a person’s dog is not under control, they would be caught under the chasing offences in the Bill that we have just discussed, so it is very rare that this particular “at large” offence will be needed. I also remind the Committee once more that two thirds of livestock worrying attacks are by unaccompanied dogs, who are clearly not on leads because they do not have an owner with them. Their owners would be caught by the “at large” offence, but we do not think it is sensible and proportionate to catch responsible dog owners whose dogs are not on a lead and are not at risk of worrying livestock.

We will continue to work to raise public awareness. The countryside code is quite clear that owners should keep their dog under effective control,

“always keep your dog on a lead or in sight”,

“be confident your dog will return on command”,

and, on open access land and at the coast, owners must put their dog on a lead during periods of the year that are effectively lambing season. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I thought that the evidence we were given was pretty overwhelming. I think the concern that a number of people have expressed to us about the potential danger with cattle has been dealt with by the Government themselves in their definition of relevant livestock. I was grateful for the hon. Member for Ceredigion’s expertise and knowledge, and his point about the signage—which was strongly made in the evidence session—was well made.

I suggest to the Minister that people of my generation, and possibly hers, grew up with many of the promotions about the countryside code and so on. It was drummed into people, but I am not convinced that younger generations have got that message in quite the same way. Sometimes, when I see accounts of some offences by younger people, I am struck by the fact that what would seem obvious to me does not seem obvious to them. One of the most difficult things for a person to do is to put themselves in other people’s shoes. Particularly during lockdown, people went out with dogs for the first time, and we know that on a whole range of issues—not just livestock worrying—people behaved in ways that were challenging to many of the authorities.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Listening to his comments, I realise that I am in danger of stigmatising younger people. I do not think it is their fault at all. It is partly because we have moved away from some of the public health and public information campaigns that we used to have.

[Victoria Prentis]

I absolutely understand the tenor of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Precisely for that reason, I refer him to the new and refreshed countryside code that was put out by Natural England during the last pandemic period. It is genuinely done in a way that is accessible and fresh for a new audience, so I politely suggest that members of the Committee have a good look at it and promote it wherever possible.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I gently reflect that, in the modern information age, that is sometimes more challenging for those of us who grew up on a diet of three channels on black and white TV. I am sorry to give away my age. However, you could not get away from a lot of the public information messages. In the modern world, there is far more. It is just my sense that there are a lot of people who have come into the countryside—and that is good; we want people to come and understand—but they do not necessarily understand. The message has to be simple and very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who set out well why we think the amendment is necessary. I want to pick up on something the Minister said. The confidence people have around being in control of their dogs is interesting and has definitely taken hold of some internet memes. Dare I say the word “Fenton”? I wanted to have more understanding of that element. I take the point that two thirds of dogs are unattended. However, the amendment is important because in that third of cases in which they are with their owner, should we not push for as much control as possible over an animal in the presence of the relevant livestock?

[Victoria Prentis]

I remind the hon. Lady that it is not enough for the dog walker merely to think their dog will come back when called. The dog must actually come back when called.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause defines exactly what constitutes worrying livestock and sets out the exemptions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Without re-rehearsing the previous discussion, we would have liked the clause to be strengthened, but our amendment has been rejected, so let us go forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

General interpretation

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 40, page 23, line 32, at end insert—

“‘enclosed deer’ means any deer so long as they are being kept for business purposes on land enclosed by a barrier intended to prevent their escape;”

This amendment and related Amendment 42 are drafting changes.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 38 to 42, and 44 and 45

Amendment 88, in clause 42, page 25, line 17, at end insert—

“(f) adult poultry.”

This amendment would add adult poultry to the list of livestock species that may not be exported for slaughter.

Amendment 87, in clause 42, page 25, line 17, at end insert—

“(7A) An appropriate national authority may by regulations extend the definition of ‘relevant livestock’ in subsection (7).”

This amendment would enable an appropriate national authority to extend the list of the livestock species that may not be exported for slaughter.

[Victoria Prentis]

Government amendments 37 to 42 make minor and technical drafting changes to the definition of “livestock” that applies in part 2 of the Bill. The definition is intended to cover the types of animals that are kept in agricultural settings and may be vulnerable to attacks from dogs.

I do not believe that amendments 87 and 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, are necessary. The definition of “relevant livestock” in clause 42 is drafted to cover all species that might be exported for slaughter or fattening. I have tabled Government amendments 40 and 41 to clarify that definition further.

We carried out a wide-ranging consultation on banning live exports and received no evidence at all that a ban on poultry was necessary. There are no exports of poultry for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU. Poultry exports are either for breeding or other purposes not covered by the ban, such as exhibition. There have been no such exports of poultry for several years.

There are significant exports from Great Britain to the EU of day-old chicks, however, which are transported for breeding. Those movements do not generate major welfare concerns. The chicks are transported in high-welfare conditions, with a yolk sac or the equivalent gel for them to receive nourishment during the course of their journey. We have looked at this matter extensively and do not have welfare worries about the transportation of day-old chicks.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear what the Minister says, and we appreciate that there are no exports at the moment, but we do not quite see why the Government would not want to cover the export of adult poultry or give themselves the potential to change things in the future, which amendment 88 would allow them to do.

Looking back at our discussions on previous clauses, it is quite clear that the Government want—sensibly, in my view—to future-proof the legislation and give themselves and future Governments the opportunity to amend legislation. In fact, the delegated powers memorandum repeatedly makes the point that one of the problems with past legislation is that it has not been able to keep up with changing circumstances. In the modern world, given the uncertainties around our trading relationships, it is really hard to know how trading patterns will develop.

It is curious that we would not want to include adult poultry, which are just as capable as other animals of suffering poor health and welfare caused by long-distance transportation. I have been advised that a 2017 paper by Wageningen University & Research studied the transportation of live poultry for slaughter. It found that:

“During the transport, birds with broken bones suffer from pain, are not able to stand up and reach water supply, are stepped upon by other birds, and are prone to die”.

Clearly, that is the transport of adult poultry rather than export, but we cannot necessarily conclude that there will be no such trade in future. We have tabled amendment 88 because we cannot see why the Government would not want to include adult poultry. The Minister says that is not needed, but I cannot see why we would not include it when we have the opportunity.

In the future, science may well develop in such a way to show that a number of other species suffer from these problems in transport. Amendment 87 would give the Government the opportunity to future-proof legislation in a way I have suggested. However, these are essentially probing amendments and we will not push them to a vote.

[Victoria Prentis]

I think I have made my point, which is that there are, in fact, no poultry exports. In many ways it would be lovely if the Government could take all powers on to themselves for evermore, but I fear when we overreach in legislation. The fact that there have been no poultry exports for several years makes me feel that we should not take powers when we do not need them.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

Amendments made: 38, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—

““enclosed wild boar” means any wild boar so long as they are being kept on land enclosed by a barrier intended to prevent their escape;”

This amendment and Amendment 41 provide that paragraph (g) of the definition of “livestock” covers only wild boar that are enclosed.

Amendment 39, in clause 40, page 23, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) cattle and other bovine animals,”

This amendment simplifies paragraph (a) of the definition of “livestock”, and ensures that it includes steers.

Amendment 40, in clause 40, page 23, line 40, leave out from “horses” to end of line and insert “and other equine animals”

This amendment simplifies paragraph (b) of the definition of “livestock”.

Amendment 41, in clause 40, page 24, line 5, after “or” insert “enclosed”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Amendment 42, in clause 40, page 24, line 8, leave out paragraph (j) and insert—

“(j) enclosed deer;”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment and related Amendment 37 are drafting changes.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause sets out the definitions for terms used in part 2. They include definitions for agricultural land and livestock. The clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend, through regulations, the definition of livestock for part 2 where that might be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Repeal of the 1953 Act in England and Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

This clause repeals the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 in respect of England and Wales. The 1953 Act is replaced by clauses 26 to 40. Much of that Act, as we heard earlier, has been copied over into the new clauses where appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Prohibition of export of livestock for slaughter etc

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 42, page 25, line 7, leave out “3 months” and insert “6 months”

This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment for an offence under this clause committed in Scotland from 3 months to 6 months.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 46 and 53.

[Victoria Prentis]

These are minor and technical amendments to clauses 42, 43 and 46, which relate to the prohibition on the export of relevant livestock for slaughter and the power relating to the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets.

Amendment 43 increases the maximum term of imprisonment in Scotland for a contravention of the prohibition on live exports from three months to six months. This change was requested by the Scottish Government and will bring the penalties in line with the penalty that will be available in England and Wales.

Amendments 46 and 53 clarify the regulation-making powers in clauses 43 and 46. They will allow regulations enforcing the prohibition on the export of livestock for slaughter, and regulations prohibiting or restricting the importation of dogs, cats or ferrets on welfare grounds, to provide that summary sheriffs as well as sheriffs and justices of the peace in Scotland can issue warrants to authorise entry into private dwellings.

Amendment 43 agreed to.

Amendments made: 44, in clause 42, page 25, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) cattle and other bovine animals,”

This amendment simplifies paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant livestock”, and ensures that it includes steers.

Amendment 45, in clause 42, page 25, line 14, leave out from “horses” to end of line and insert “and other equine animals,”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment simplifies paragraph (b) of the definition of “relevant livestock”.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. 

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 42 is essential for ending unnecessary journeys of livestock and horses for slaughter and fattening, and for improving the welfare of those animals. The clause also removes provisions from the Animal Health Act 1981 in relation to the export of horses. The provisions were originally intended to prevent the export from Great Britain of low-value horses and ponies for slaughter on the continent.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think we all welcome the end of exports of livestock for slaughter and fattening for slaughter. It has clearly rightly exercised many of our fellow citizens over many years. The numbers have of course declined, but there are still too many. This is an excellent opportunity to do something and we strongly support this part of the Bill. Excessive journey times in the shipment of live animals cause significant welfare harms, including the deprivation of food and water, lack of rest, extremes of temperature and humidity, handling by humans, exposure to novel environments, overcrowding, insufficient headroom and noise. There is still sadly the danger of animals being exported to countries where they are slaughtered in situations with standards that are significantly lower than the standards that apply in the UK. Consequently, the Government’s decision to bring this provision forward is welcome.

We thought that there should have been some additional provisions, and we have already had that discussion. There is more to be done and we are slightly worried— this has been pointed out by the British Veterinary Association—that the focus on exports has perhaps missed the point that the real issue is the length of the journey. I know that the Government are bringing forward measures for consultation to look at that, but that gives me the opportunity to point out—I suspect the Government would strongly agree—that there is a dearth of local abattoirs in this country. Animals are regularly required to travel longer distances to slaughter than many of us would like. That can cause significant harm.

We very much hope that the Minister will look at how best we can tackle that problem by re-establishing a local network of slaughterhouses in this country. On my summer tour around the country, which I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for helping me to secure, I was struck by the number of times that this point was raised. Many farmers across the country would like to find a way of returning to mixed farming, but the lack of a local abattoir is a major disincentive to that. I had exactly this conversation with a former colleague of the hon. Member for Keighley who made the point strongly to me. I suspect that many others have had exactly the same conversation. It is not an easy problem to solve, but it is pretty clear that it will need some sort of Government intervention. We would certainly do that, and I encourage the Government to do so in the meantime.

On that basis, we are delighted to support the prohibition of the export of livestock for slaughter.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 43

Power to make provision in connection with the enforcement of section 42

Amendment made: 46, in clause 43, page 27, line 6, leave out “or a” and insert “, summary sheriff or”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment adds a reference to a summary sheriff, in relation to warrants issued in Scotland.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 43 provides us with the ability to introduce regulations to implement and enforce the ban on the export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. Powers of entry, inspection, search, seizure and/or detention will enable us fully to investigate any potential breaches.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

 Powers to amend or revoke retained direct EU legislation

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 44, page 27, line 15, at end insert—

“(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””

This amendment enables regulations under section 12(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to amend or revoke instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (implementation of EU obligations etc).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 48 to 50.

[Victoria Prentis]

The amendments make changes to powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and to powers to make regulations under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. As we have heard, both Acts provide powers to promote animal welfare and introduce licensing and registration schemes for the keeping of animals. The amendments allow us to amend or revoke retained direct EU legislation or secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

Previously, the UK shared competence with the EU to make legislation relating to animal welfare. The EU made a number of regulations on welfare matters that now form part of our statute book. The amendments will ensure that we can amend or revoke those regulations when we introduce our reforms. The enforcement of EU law was implemented through the power in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Act was repealed following our departure from the EU, so it cannot now be used to amend or revoke regulations under that power. I should remind the Committee that animal welfare is a devolved matter, and the amendments will enable Scottish and Welsh Ministers to do likewise when exercising their own powers under the 2006 Acts.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

Amendments made: 48, in clause 44, page 27, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) In Schedule 1 to that Act (regulations under section 13), in paragraph 19 after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

(1A) In the case of consequential provision, the power under sub-paragraph (1) includes power to amend or revoke—

(a) any retained direct EU legislation;

(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””

This amendment enables regulations under section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to make consequential amendments or revocations of retained direct EU legislation and instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

Amendment 49, in clause 44, page 27, line 19, at end insert—

“(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””

This amendment enables regulations under section 26 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to amend or revoke instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

Amendment 50, in clause 44, page 27, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) In section 51 of that Act (regulations under Part 2) after subsection (2) insert—

(2A) The consequential provision that may be made (by virtue of subsection (2)(a)) by regulations under section 27 includes provision amending or revoking—

(a) any retained direct EU legislation;

(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment enables regulations under section 27 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to make consequential amendments or revocations of retained direct EU legislation and instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 44 provides us with an important power. Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and section 26 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 enable the UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments to make regulations that promote the welfare of animals. The clause amends those sections, giving us the ability to amend or revoke any retained direct EU legislation and to replace it with new regulations that promote animal welfare. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Reduction in limit on non-commercial movement of pets

[Olivia Blake]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 45, page 27, line 29, leave out “five” and insert “three”.

This amendment would restrict the maximum number of dogs, cats and ferrets that may enter Great Britain in a non-commercial motor vehicle to three.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and as a veterinary surgeon. Opposition Members will probably be relieved that I rise in strong support of what they say. We need an evidence-based response, and the evidence that we on the EFRA Committee took from the Dogs Trust during our inquiry was powerful. I refer Members to our report on the movement of animals across borders, where we looked at a lot of the issues, from farm animals and horses to pets and so on. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam has said, the research suggests that 97.7% of owners have three dogs or fewer, so if we changed from five to three it would strengthen the legislation and make it a significant deterrent to the unscrupulous people who try to exploit loopholes in the law.

We took evidence from the British Veterinary Association as well. The Government could put in exemptions for people who are permanently relocating—they could apply for a special dispensation—but moving from five to three would strengthen the law.

[Victoria Prentis]

I welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to her first Committee. I am afraid I am going to resist the amendment while speaking to Government amendment 51. I appreciate the concerns raised about the number of pets that can be moved in a single non-commercial movement. I want to assure hon. Members that we completed extensive engagement with relevant groups, including authorised pet checkers, carriers, animal welfare organisations and veterinary bodies to determine a suitable limit. The aim was to strike a balance between disrupting the illegal trade, which we all want to do, while minimising the impact of genuine owners travelling with their pets—cats, dogs and ferrets. It is already a large change for a traveller to go from five pets per passenger to five per vehicle.

However, we have heard the arguments from across the House, and we would be willing to look at any further evidence that shows genuine pet owners would not be unduly impacted by a decrease to three pets per vehicle. I am particularly concerned about two pet owners travelling together with two dogs each, for example, but I am willing to look at evidence that hon. Members wish to send in, or to discuss it. If we decide to make the change at a later date, we could use the enabling power in clause 46, which allows us to make regulations on the importation of relevant animals on welfare grounds. In these circumstances, I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 51, in my name, simply ensures that consequential amendments are made in relation to the relevant Welsh regulations, as they are for Scotland and England.

[Olivia Blake]

I must say that I am disappointed. I will press the amendment to a vote because we think that the evidence was quite powerful. As was said, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have considered the question in a lot of detail and believe that this is the right way to go. I take the Minister’s point about people travelling together, but a balance must be struck between what could be seen as a loophole and a way of allowing this practice to continue, especially when we know how many puppies can come from one dog. There are large concerns around the issue and that this would remain as a potential loophole to allow puppy smuggling. I would ask the Minister to reflect again, but we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Bad news. I have the casting vote, but I have an obligation not to vote in favour of an amendment that changes the Bill, even though I am on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—Neil, I love you. I will have to vote against the amendment, because I am obliged, as Chair, to do so. Unfortunately, the amendment falls.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 51, in clause 45, page 28, line 16, at end insert—

‘(9) In regulation 3(1)(b) of the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Wales) Regulations (S.I. 2011/2379 (W. 252))—

(a) in the English language text—

(i) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) for “or” substitute “and”;

(ii) for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—

(ii) Article 5(4) of the Pets Regulation does not apply.”;

(b) in the Welsh language text—

(i) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) for “neu” substitute “a”;

(ii) for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—

(ii) Nid yw Erthygl 5(4) o’r Rheoliad Anifeiliaid Anwes yn gymwys.’—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment makes the same consequential amendments in relation to the relevant Welsh regulations as are made by subsections (7) and (8) in relation to the English and Scottish regulations.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

Thank you for your casting vote, Mr Davies. I would like to reiterate that we will continue to look at any evidence, and I am very happy to meet colleagues to discuss further. This is clearly an issue on which there are genuine differences of opinion.

Clause 45 limits the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that may be moved into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement. There is evidence, as we all know, that commercial importers abuse our non-commercial pet travel rules to bring in lots of puppies at once for sale. The welfare of these puppies, as we have heard many times and as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee reminded us, is frequently compromised. The clause will help to prevent the misuse of these rules. The new limit will be five per vehicle or three per air or foot passenger. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Olivia Blake]

I thought I had just made history with my first amendment. The Minister has obviously heard from across the House how important the issue is and that it warrants further consideration. I am disappointed that we did not win that vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Swiftly to the Minister.

[Victoria Prentis]

Neatly done, Mr Davies.

I agree—indeed, it is clear—that there is a great deal of consensus across the House on our manifesto commitment to crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies. Where we differ slightly is how to bring that crackdown about. I want to reassure all Members that I am absolutely committed to bringing in further restrictions in regulations.

One of the reasons we are using regulations is to enable Government to act in a way that is relatively nimble. What we have found is that after we restricted the import of puppies, the criminals started to import pregnant bitches instead.

What we need to do is to remain one step ahead of the criminals. We feel that the best and speediest way to do that is through secondary legislation. There is absolutely nothing half-hearted about our determination to crack down on illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies. I am determined to do that in a fair way, but as quickly as we possibly can.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear what the Minister says, and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do not understand how it can be quicker to do this through secondary legislation, nor do I understand why the two are mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to do both; I encourage her to do so.

[Victoria Prentis]

We are taking the steps we are taking today, if the Committee votes for them, in the Bill, which we hope will soon become an Act. We have not taken the foot off the accelerator for organising the regulations.

Before we bring forward regulations, we consult with those involved in the sector, to make sure that the regulations hit the spot, in so far as we can. In August of this year, we launched our consultation to seek views on the new restrictions that we are proposing, which are very much in line with the views expressed by hon. Members across the House. The proposals include raising the minimum age that dogs can be imported from 15 weeks to six months, for all the reasons that have been given. It is a lot easier for a Border Control checker to see if a dog is six months old or still a puppy. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned the cuteness factor. I do not think they lose the cuteness factor, but on the commercial market, puppies areó more saleable than adult dogs. That is absolutely the Government’s intention.

We also stated our proposal to prohibit the commercial importation and non-commercial movement of heavily pregnant dogs, specifically those over 42 days pregnant, into Great Britain. We needed to get that right. I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said in last week’s sitting and what I have heard him say before—I do not mean that critically—about the difficulty of checking gestation periods. We have to get this right and make sure that it is operable, easy for checkers to check and will deter criminals.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sorry to labour the point. Of course consultation is always a great thing, but I think the Minister has made it quite clear what she believes needs to be done. I am trying to imagine what kind of consultation response it would take to undo all this weight of evidence from so many experts. I cannot see that happening. I am genuinely baffled as to why there is a problem here.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is true that my Department places a great weight on consultation—indeed, it has to, under the rules set out in various pieces of legislation. I do not think we were wrong to do so in this particular case. There are difficult issues here, the bitch’s stage of pregnancy being one of them. I was just coming on to proposals to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears and tails. We all agree that these practices are abhorrent, but we have to make sure that we are not inadvertently making a problem—for example, for dogs that are already owned or rescue dogs that have been rescued from inappropriate ownership. It is important that we consult and get it right, but Members should not take that as any indication that we are going slowly. We really are not.

The evidence that we have seen to date, not least that which was gathered in the consultation, suggests that the import of young, heavily pregnant or mutilated animals is mainly an issue for dogs. We are therefore initially focusing our efforts on dogs, and we consulted on dogs this year. However, I reassure members of the Committee who feel we are being cattist in this matter, that there is an enabling power in clause 46 that allows us to expand the regulations to improve the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets in future, should we gather evidence that that is necessary.

The consultation closed on 16 October. We are currently analysing the responses and will publish a summary in due course. I hope hon. Members feel reassured by our proposals, which make it clear how seriously we take the welfare issues with this trade. It is important that we consider the views of the public and interested groups before we make a final decision on new restrictions, although I would hope that the text of what we agreed on gives a fairly clear indication of the direction of travel of the Government. We need to ensure that the measures we introduce are necessary and proportionate and that there are no unintended consequences.

[Dr Hudson]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments that the Government are listening and consulting. I recognise and applaud that, because it provides an evidence base: the Government are casting out for opinions and stakeholders will get back to them.

There is also an evidence base about health treatments for dogs coming in with regards to the tick treatment that was stopped in 2014. There is scientific evidence that a dog in Essex, for instance, picked up a tick and contracted an exotic disease called babesiosis. That particular dog had never travelled out of the country, so another dog must have come into the country, or gone away and come back, with a tick onboard that it shed. The dog then took that tick onboard and contracted an exotic disease.

That evidence base makes it clear that we can act and put in place tighter guidelines to protect our biosecurity. A benefit of being a United Kingdom of islands is that we have a biosecurity barrier that we can and should strengthen for the animal population.

[Victoria Prentis]

I turn to new clauses 24 and 25, which relate to the health requirements of imports of non-commercial dogs and cats—that was a well-timed intervention. I reassure hon. Members that any regulations needed to introduce preventive health measures necessary to protect animal or public health due to the movement of pets into this country could already be introduced under existing powers to make regulations, including article 19 of the pets regulation—regulation 576/2013 as retained—or section 10 of the Animal Health Act 1981.

In relation to ticks, on which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is something of an expert, it is true that we have seen small numbers of localised infestations of non-native ticks in recent years. It is also true that the Government strongly encourage pet owners to treat their dogs against picking up ticks wherever they can. I look forward to working with him further on the issue and I know that he will be talking to the chief veterinary officer in the next few weeks to discuss his views as to why we need to deal with the problem now.

In relation to rabies, there is already a requirement for all pets entering GB to be vaccinated against rabies, with a minimum 21-day wait period. We operate one of the most rigorous and robust pet travel checking regimes in Europe. All pets entering GB on approved routes undergo 100% documentary checks, which includes checking vaccination status. In addition, recent quantitative risk assessments have concluded that the risk of a pet animal with rabies entering the UK under the pet travel rules is very low. It is obviously good and to be applauded that our rabies status is as it is and I do not consider that further requirements are necessary in this area.

Finally, I turn to amendment 52 in my name, which amends clause 46 to ensure that we can set out exemptions to any prohibitions or restrictions brought in under the clause and set out a permit system through which to issue such exemptions. It will ensure that the new prohibitions do not have an unfair impact on individuals who need to travel with their pet under exceptional circumstances—for example, moving permanently to GB or because of a natural disaster. I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to withdraw amendment 117.

[The Chair]

I am sure Dr Hudson will be very happy to have had a tick from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I have the casting vote, and I am obliged to vote no.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: 52, in clause 46, page 28, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations may—

(a) provide that a prohibition or restriction is subject to specified exemptions, including an exemption in cases where a permit issued under the regulations is in force,

(b) make provision for and in connection with applications for permits and the determination of such applications, and

(c) require a specified fee to be paid on the making of such an application.”

This amendment provides that regulations under clause 46(1) may contain exemptions, including exemptions applying where a permit is held, and may make provision about permits (including applications for permits, the determination of applications and fees).

Amendment 53, in clause 46, page 29, line 37, leave out “or a” and insert “, summary sheriff or”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment adds a reference to a summary sheriff, in relation to warrants issued in Scotland.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

When the UK harmonised its pet movement rules with the EU in 2012, we saw a significant increase in pet movements into Great Britain. Evidence from stakeholders suggests that that also led to a considerable increase in the illegal trade in puppies, whose welfare is, as we heard, frequently compromised. Clause 46 provides the powers to crack down on puppy smuggling and the low-welfare movement of pets. The clause provides powers to introduce restrictions on the importation of pets on welfare grounds, as well as powers to set out the associated enforcement process, including offences with the appropriate penalties.

We have had an interesting and useful debate. We were well informed by our evidence sessions, by evidence submitted in our extensive consultation launched in August, and by the excellent report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. As we move forward, it is clear that Members on both sides of the House are committed to these improvements, which ought to crack down on illegal puppy smuggling. I will look at how we can speed up the work going on alongside the Bill—the reply to the consultation, publishing the evidence received in the consultation, and work on drafting the regulations—to ensure that the twin tracks of the Bill and the regulations go hand in hand, so far as is possible. That ought to provide reassurance across the House that the Government are extremely keen to crack down on this illegal trade.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Heather Wheeler.)