Westminster Hall

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

Monday 26 January 2026

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: Oral evidence taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 2 September 2025, on State of Play: Play, HC 1122.]

10:34

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 729440 relating to play in the key stage 1 curriculum.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker, and a real privilege to present this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Before I turn to the detail, I want to set out three key points that frame the debate. First, England is now an outlier in the United Kingdom as the only nation with no statutory expectation that play-based learning should continue beyond age five. Scotland and Wales already have legal frameworks and national strategies that embed and protect play into the early primary years; only in England does the statutory requirement for learning through play effectively stop at the end of reception, creating a cliff edge between reception and year 1. Nobody’s brains, let alone four or five-year-old children’s brains, respond well to cliff edges. Such an approach runs counter to everything we know about children’s developmental needs and the evidence on how young children learn.

The second key point is that play-based learning is not the same as enrichment, which usually means activities that sit alongside the core curriculum such as clubs, sport, music, trips or recreational time. Those activities are valuable, but they are by definition additional. Play-based learning is something quite different: a structured, evidence-based way of teaching the core curriculum itself. The Government’s response to the petition appears to misunderstand that distinction and thereby misses the point.

Thirdly, we must distinguish between two different but equally vital kinds of play. There is purposeful, guided play in the classroom as a core teaching method; and free, social, physical play in playgrounds and outdoor spaces. I happen to live next door to a primary school and can vouch for the fact that the latter is a great deal noisier than the former, but it is a joyous and happy noise—the sound of childhood. Both kinds of play are essential and both are currently being squeezed to the detriment of our children.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In my constituency of Horsham we already see the positives that play-based education can bring, with organisations such as Woods for Learning, which is a forest school catering for children with special educational needs and other children. The effectiveness is clear enough. Would my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to look at bringing that approach into the classroom, too?

[Dr Savage]

Woods for Learning sounds marvellous. We know that time spent in nature punches above its weight in terms of psychological and physical benefits for children, so I absolutely agree.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the importance of access to play. Something that many children and parents have raised with me in Hastings and Rye is how many playgrounds have closed or fallen into disrepair in my constituency. I have done an audit of all the playgrounds and found that eight have closed since 2015 and more than half need upgrading. Many of them are run by housing associations that neglect their duty to maintain them. Does she agree that we have to do better and ensure that the playgrounds, often in the most needy parts of our constituencies, are properly maintained so that children can enjoy them?

[Dr Savage]

I absolutely agree. I have encountered similar challenges in my constituency of South Cotswolds when playgrounds are not well maintained, or when developers, having promised to provide them, shove them off into a muddy corner of a field that is entirely inappropriate for children’s play. It is essential for the sake of our children that we make sure that safe, enjoyable and not-too-muddy spaces are provided.

I thank the creator of the petition, Ruth Lue-Quee, who is in the Public Gallery with many others who feel passionately about this issue; Ruth is a former deputy headteacher and now an education consultant. I also thank the more than 106,000 people who signed the petition, including more than 200 people from my South Cotswolds constituency. That scale of support reflects a widespread sense that our education system, as it is currently structured, fails too many children. At the all-party parliamentary group on play last week, I heard even more from education experts on that very point. One experienced schoolteacher told me bluntly that the present model works well for perhaps 10% of pupils, but not for the majority. That is not because teachers lack skill or commitment—they have those in abundance—but because the system is fundamentally misaligned with how a child’s brain works and learns.

On a personal note, I should say that this debate goes to the heart of why I decided to stand for Parliament. The preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution commits us, as a party, to building a society in which no one is

“enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”

and in which every person is empowered to develop their potential to the full. The journey towards fulfilled potential begins in childhood. Play is one of the primary ways in which human potential, creativity and confidence are formed; that is why I was keen to put my hand up to introduce this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Let me return to that first key distinction: the difference between enrichment and play-based learning. Enrichment, as I have said, means activities added on around the edges of the school day. Play-based learning, on the other hand, is about how learning itself is designed and delivered. It is a planned, teacher-guided pedagogy in which reading, writing, arithmetic and wider knowledge are learned through exploration, talk, movement, construction, role play and problem solving.

Teachers are not stepping back—far from it. They are actively shaping the environment, setting challenges, modelling language, asking probing questions and intentionally extending children’s thinking while giving them genuine agency over how they engage in an embodied and creative way. Practitioners give powerful evidence of what that looks like in practice. In one platinum-rated primary school that uses a play-first model, the headteacher told me that children must complete all must-do tasks, which are aligned with national expectations, but the children get to choose when and how to do them during extended play-based learning sessions.

The school has academic standards at or above national averages. Attendance is described as “through the roof”: the children cannot wait to get there in the morning and they are a bit reluctant to leave at the end of the day. Behaviour problems fall and children almost cannot wait to participate. Globally, across more than 2,000 schools and 1.8 million children using high-quality play approaches, we see the same pattern emerging: higher engagement, better attendance, fewer behaviour issues—because children are not wired to sit still for hours a day at age five—and much greater professional satisfaction for teachers, who see their students really thriving.

That brings to me to the second distinction: guided play in classrooms and free play in playgrounds. Guided play in the classroom supports cognitive and language development. Children experience what psychologists call “productive struggle”. They plan, manage resources, seek help when they need it, collaborate, persist and reflect. They develop independence, motivation and embodied understanding, not simply compliance and conformity. Free play, especially outdoors and in nature, serves a different but equally vital purpose. It is where children develop physical confidence and learn to negotiate rules, to resolve conflict, to take manageable risks and to build friendships while experiencing a real sense of autonomy. Free play supports mental health, resilience and social intelligence in ways that no formal lesson, no matter how well designed, can fully replicate.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I have been to see the OPAL—outdoor play and learning—programme at Brookside primary school in East Leake in my constituency. The teachers there are finding that the outdoor play element means that they are spending more time successfully teaching in the classroom because there are fewer issues and disputes to resolve. Does the hon. Lady agree that teachers and schools are pushing for those things both indoor and outdoor, because together they ultimately result in better learning for children?

[Dr Savage]

I wholeheartedly agree. The evidence is incontrovertible: free play benefits students, teachers and parents.

The two forms of play are complementary, but not interchangeable; a truly child-centred system must value and protect both. Neuroscience helps explain why that matters so profoundly. Play activates almost every region of the developing brain, strengthening connections between emotional, social and cognitive systems. It stimulates dopamine and serotonin, creating what might be called a happy, relaxed, learning-ready brain. Those rich, flexible neural networks support memory, creativity and adaptability. By contrast, chronic stress and over-formalisation create rigid neural pathways that inhibit curiosity and learning, and create more stress that is not conducive to a receptive brain. In simple terms, joyful, playful brains learn better.

The issue is not just about short-term wellbeing; it is about future-readiness in the age of artificial intelligence. The skills that will matter most in the future are not rote recall, but creativity, adaptability, collaboration, emotional intelligence, imagination and the ability to navigate uncertainty. Those are precisely the same attributes that high-quality play develops. If we want children to thrive alongside AI, rather than be diminished by it, we must nurture the uniquely human capacities that play supports.

However, practitioners have told me that teacher training in England contains remarkably little on child development, neuroscience or the pedagogy of play. Many teachers know how play works, but feel constrained by rigid tests and by inspections that prioritise uniform outcomes and control rather than curiosity and agency. That contributes not only to poorer outcomes for children, but to burnout, demoralisation and a recruitment and retention crisis across the teaching profession.

It is also vital to remember that the effects of depriving children are not equally felt. Children in low-income families or those with special educational needs and disabilities are most likely to experience barriers to play while also being the children most likely to benefit from it. If the Government are serious about taking into account the educational needs of each individual child, play must form a vital part of their SEND strategy and curriculum reset. That is why the petitioners are not asking for just warm words; they are asking for statutory recognition for play-based learning and continuous provision to be embedded in the national framework, and for every single school to have a proper strategic plan for play, just as they have plans for literacy, safeguarding or special educational needs.

Finally, I return to the three points with which I began. England is still the only country in the home nations with no statutory expectation that play-based learning should continue beyond age five. That is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Secondly, play-based learning is not enrichment; it is different. It is a core pedagogical approach grounded in evidence about how young children’s brains develop and how deep learning takes place. Thirdly, guided play in classrooms and free play in playgrounds are not luxuries. Together, and complementing each other, they build the cognitive, emotional, social and creative foundations that children need—not only to pass tests, but to flourish as human beings in a rapidly changing world.

I hope that the Minister will respond directly to what the petitioners are asking for: for the Government to recognise play-based learning as core and not peripheral; to address the reception-to-year-1 cliff edge; to strengthen teacher training in child development and play; and to ensure that our curriculum and accountability systems give every child the chance to grow into a confident, curious, resilient and creative adult.

If we want a generation who are able to think, collaborate, imagine and thrive in a world shaped by AI, we must start by taking play seriously. Play is not a distraction from education, but one of its most powerful enablers.

16:45

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this debate, and the 106,082 people who signed the petition, of whom 182 are my constituents. I pay tribute to the campaigners, who are here today, for their important work on this topic.

There is a huge body of evidence that demonstrates the paramount importance of play in early childhood. When my two-year-old next door neighbour visited for tea over the Christmas recess, he announced as he stepped through our door, “Where are the toys?” If any of us has any doubt about the paramount importance of play, that is a particular experience that he was looking for on his visit and looks for wherever he goes.

I pay tribute in particular to the work of PEDAL—the centre for research on play in education development and learning—which is a part of the faculty of education at the University of Cambridge. PEDAL is dedicated to amassing evidence on the importance of play and is developing a wealth of resources for practitioners in all aspects of childhood. PEDAL highlights the important role of play in developing relationships and secure attachments for young children, in supporting physical and mental health, good development, learning and communication, and in building good foundational social relationships.

I have had the privilege of visiting many early years settings and primary schools in my constituency and across the country, and I have seen many brilliant examples of play-led learning, particularly in the many schools that that now have forest school programmes that give children the opportunity to go into the outdoors and learn from each other and the natural environment, outside of the formal classroom. The best teachers and early years practitioners make play a part of the curriculum, and work to make all learning fun.

This topic is relevant to aspects of the Education Committee’s current and recent work. We are midway through a big inquiry into the evidence on what makes for good support across the early years. We have undertaken some work to scrutinise the curriculum and assessment review—a topic I will return to—and last year we undertook a major piece of work on SEND, focusing on creating inclusive learning environments for all children and looking at the evidence on the very high number of children who are being failed by a system that is not properly geared to meet their needs. As part of that work, we identified transition points in education as requiring particular attention as the Government consider SEND reform. The transition from the early years foundation stage to key stage 1 is important in that respect.

We are also undertaking work on child poverty. Although play is important in education settings—in formal settings—in early childhood to reduce the attainment gap, access to high-quality play experiences in communities is also vital. My constituency is in the eye of the storm of the housing crisis, with so many families with young children who are not adequately housed and are living in overcrowded, cramped accommodation. For those families in particular, being able to access high-quality play equipment in their local community close to home is vital to their children’s development.

I will briefly pay tribute to a much-loved and much-missed Member of this place, the late right hon. Frank Dobson, who was passionate about play. Under the previous Labour Government, he helped to deliver a step change in investment in play equipment in our communities, and he continued to correspond with me about this topic until he was very near to the end of his life. The erosion of council funding under the Conservative Government for 14 years of course made it harder for councils to keep pace with investment in this space, and in recent years we have seen too many examples of play equipment that has fallen behind best practice and even fallen into disrepair.

I welcome the curriculum assessment review and its focus both on restoring creative subjects to the heart of the curriculum and on reducing the burden of assessment. These are important reforms and they are very welcome. Of course, the curriculum is a framework; it does not dictate individual lesson plans or teaching methods. Consequently, I hope that as the Government continue to develop the guidance around curriculum reform, there will be creative responses to these reforms that give some prominence to play, particularly in key stage 1.

Finally, I will highlight a conversation I had recently—last week, in fact— with the Estonian Education Minister. As we know, Estonia’s education system achieves excellent outcomes. In the early years, it focuses almost entirely on the social and emotional development of children in early childhood as the foundation for more formal learning. The Estonian Education Minister told me, “School is tough in Estonia. We expect children to work really hard. We give them a great deal of content. But they do that on a foundation in the early years that means that they are good co-operators and collaborators with their classmates, that they are good at working in teams, and that they are good at managing their own emotions to engage with learning to the fullest extent.”

This Government have an ambitious programme of reform for education, and a clear commitment both to making childhood better across our country and to investing in the services that support children, particularly in their early years. I hope that as the Government bring forward more detailed guidance to support these reforms and move towards the publication of the schools White Paper, which we expect shortly, the work of the petitioners on the topic of play in the key stage 1 curriculum will be at the forefront of their thinking. Play is important for children’s development, for their engagement in education and for discovering a lifelong love of learning, and the evidence to support that view is very strong.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I suggest an informal time limit of four minutes per speaker, because of the popularity of this important debate. I hope that Members will help each other out by keeping speeches to four minutes, please.

16:53

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Barker, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting this petition on behalf of the petitioners.

Hopefully, I will not take four minutes to speak, because I am no expert on this topic. I am here today because 389 of my constituents signed the petition, which means that South West Devon had the fifth-highest response rate in the country. As a Member of Parliament, I always feel that when we are sent that little table telling us how many of our constituents have signed a petition, it is great, where it is possible to do so, to come and represent their views. I have also heard from two or three parents directly about this topic.

In addition, teachers have contacted me, including Cari Dyson. I have to say that if not for Cari, I probably would not be here this afternoon. She is a key stage 1 teacher who uses a play-based approach in her classroom. She told me that this petition

“is not asking for KS1 to reduce essential academic content”.

Instead, it aims to ensure that core knowledge can be taught using

“purposeful learning through play; structured enabling environments; and skilled adult interaction.”

Cari is one of the signatories to the petition who does not agree with the Government response to it, and perhaps she will not agree either with the official Opposition response, but I want to express her views this afternoon. I am certainly very grateful to her for sharing her expertise and experience.

I draw attention to one school in my constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting towards the end of last year. Sparkwell All Saints primary is a very small rural school, and such schools can deliver this programme, which larger inner-city schools might struggle with. I put on record how impressed I was with what Sparkwell All Saints provided. The school starts with the Montessori-style nursery and continues that through into key stage 1. If I had children and I lived in the village, I would be queueing at the door to get my kids into the school, which is delightful to visit. Mr Cole, the headteacher, is inspirational, and the value of the play-based, hands-on teaching method that nurtures children from my constituency is clear to see.

I understand the arguments for play, but we have to ensure that any increased emphasis on it does not hinder the teaching of a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum, because, at the end of the day, we are preparing children to go through other key stages. However, as a non-expert in the room, I will say that I absolutely see both sides of the coin.

One thing that will come up in the course of this debate—I think it was highlighted by the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—is that often the schools that offer play are particularly beneficial for children with additional needs or special educational needs. One question I have for the Minister is: how do we ensure that, when this approach is used in local primary schools, we are creating a fair playing field? We do not want a situation where a few schools deliver an amazing, creative environment for children who might struggle in more academic mainstream schools, but on the other side, negatively impact SEND provision more broadly across the community. I absolutely recognise the value of play, but a school could potentially become known as being particularly good for SEND children and end up with a higher-than-average cohort of children who meet those criteria.

Ultimately, I am completely compelled by what I have heard this afternoon. I hear all the arguments and I have seen the value of play for myself. I am slightly cautious and sceptical, given my past role as a governor in a primary school in a more urban setting that had a more traditional curriculum; none the less, it is important that we have been able to debate this topic this afternoon.

Is it the Government’s view that a one-size-fits-all approach is right, or is it right to have differences in the school system? The new Labour Government want to halt the progress of free schools, which could provide this alternative form of education within the state system, and they are not keen on multi-academy trusts, which perhaps also offer a different way of teaching. I am interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that one-size-fits-all approach, or whether there should be space in our state education system for different ways of teaching and learning.

16:57

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the Petitions Committee on focusing on such an important debate, the 216 of my constituents who made the case through the petition, and the teachers and support staff who have very much brought this to my attention. I raise for the record that my sister works in early years, and every night when I go home from this place, she tells me about the importance of play. I have no better counsel than her.

The pedagogies that are integrated into our education system will determine the long-term outcomes of a child’s learning and development. It is only natural for a child to engage in explorative, creative and imaginative play when engaging with language and new concepts. It is play that helps a child to process their learning, reinforce its application and take pleasure in the process—of course, roleplay plays a vital role as well. It is during play that a child also learns wider physical and social skills. They will be connecting the neural pathways in their brains and embedding principles deep in their mind.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Many constituents have contacted me about this important debate, and as a mum of three children, I have seen for myself just how important play is and how much it has helped them to understand teamwork and problem-solving. It is not just me who says that; UNICEF tells us how much it helps resilience, reduces stress and supports emotional wellbeing. Does the hon. Member agree that there are so many ways that play could be integrated into the key stage 1 curriculum as part of education?

[Rachael Maskell]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. She made the point so powerfully, not least because of her own experience.

It is really important that we embed play as a fundamental principle in the curriculum. For far too long, play has been seen as a process of reward or enrichment, not as a fundamental part of a child’s learning, but it is vital throughout childhood for that purpose. To deny play as a core learning approach for improving reading, writing or maths is to not understand education. Helping a child find their own creativity will help them find themselves.

Play-based learning is purposeful. Teachers have to really prepare when they integrate play into their work: they have to set the right environment, introduce the right medium, equip the learning space, indoor and out, and integrate that with the interests of the children to optimise the environment and ensure that they really grasp the concepts that they are being taught. As we have heard, England is an outlier in this area, and we have to catch up.

When I visited Carr infant school, I saw the contribution that play made to every part of the curriculum. When the school centred learning on play, its outcomes improved. Burton Green school has created environments where children can explore and engage. Whether it is Osbaldwick, Acomb primary or Westfield community school, so many schools across York have totally embraced the evidence of the importance of play.

The neuroscience very much determines that play is central. My constituent Charlotte Davies regularly reminds me of the importance of motor and sensory integration so that the brain can be trained to help a child’s ability to play. That is often lost as children are forced away from the right pathways for their education. We need to develop the right pedagogies and ensure that we are creating the physical and mental opportunities to learn.

The Government are grappling with the opportunities around developing a proper SEND programme, which we know is important, but if we are going to divert children from just spending time on their screens, creative play, integrated into learning, will make a difference. My plea to the Government is this: follow the evidence, and when it comes to assessments and examinations, let us drop those SATs and ensure instead that we have a proper approach to education.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but I am going to have to take the limit down to three and a half minutes. It is an informal limit; if we can stick to it, I will not have to impose a formal limit.

17:02

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the petitioners on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her excellent speech introducing it.

We have already heard some great speeches on the benefits of including play in key stage 1 education. We have a wealth of academic evidence on the subject that makes a compelling case—for example, the finding that children’s learning through play produces a 90% retention rate, compared with just 30% through reading and watching. Arguably even more persuasive are the testimonies of parents who stress just how vital play is in their children’s lives and how important it is for play to be properly incorporated into their learning. I want to add that play is fun, and children deserve to have fun in school. Hopefully, it will help them to like and enjoy school, and learn better throughout their school life.

Becky from my constituency is a parent of two young children and a teacher at Ely St John’s community primary school. She contacted me recently to stress the importance of play-based learning in key stage 1. She wrote:

“I am confident that this approach is not only effective but also essential for young children’s learning and well-being.”

She has found already that the children are thriving and that feedback from parents has been very positive. However, she also wrote of her disappointment that she thought hers was the only school in the area able to offer this approach to children. In her opinion, the pressure is coming from the curriculum and from Ofsted.

A further pressing concern, as we have heard, is the Government’s strategy on SEND. The upcoming White Paper is expected to call for greater inclusion in mainstream education, yet part of the reason for the strain on local authorities dealing with SEND has been the lack of resources among mainstream schools already under pressure. As teachers like Becky recognise, without the necessary resources, schools feel the pressure from Ofsted to just stick to the basics of the curriculum.

We want our schools to be inclusive, to recognise and accommodate the differences in how each child learns, and to emphasise the importance of nurturing natural curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. Adopting a play-based learning approach in key stage 1, and giving each child the space to develop and engage with their education on their own terms, is crucial for that. If the Government are willing to listen to those who know that from experience, the schools White Paper could truly be a turning point; if they are not, serious questions for the future of our children, our schools and proper provision of SEND support will remain.

Can the Minister provide details on how the Government are engaging with experts, teachers and parents on play-based learning for key stage 1 children? What consideration is being given to its inclusion in the upcoming schools White Paper?

17:05

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate so comprehensively, and pay tribute to Ruth Lue-Quee and all those in the Public Gallery who have campaigned so hard to make it happen.

Ruth says that right now in England, at the end of foundation stage, when they are just five years old, children hit

“a policy cliff edge and practice becomes inconsistent.”

She says we need

“teacher-planned, curriculum-aligned play-based learning and continuous provision in the classroom. It’s how young children learn best, achieve best and build strong foundations.”

I agree with Ruth. I speak as a dad of two young boys who I know for sure would have benefited hugely from continuous provision in key stage 1; as a former teacher, sure that I would have seen the benefits in my classroom; as the husband of a teaching assistant who knows that it would help the children she supports; and, first and foremost, as the MP for St Helens North, certain that this would help every child in my constituency and across the country.

We all need to be clear what this campaign is and is not about. It is not about the early years, it is not about enrichment or extracurricular activity, and it most definitely is not about lowering standards in any way. It is about bringing England into line with the rest of the UK and closer to countries such as Finland and Singapore. It is about following the evidence. It is about doing what is best for all children, our schools and, as a result, society.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

My constituent Julia has been a teacher for more than 20 years. She wrote to me to share the benefits of play-based learning for children’s cognitive, social and emotional development. Given the increasing prevalence of cognitive and language disorders in young children, it is really important that we get this right. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when assessing the benefits of play-based learning, we should carefully consider the experience of teachers, as well as all the academic evidence available?

[David Baines]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I completely agree that there is a huge body of evidence behind the petition, which I will touch on later, and we need to follow the evidence, especially on something as important as our children’s education.

Sir Ken Robinson, someone I am a big fan of, described play as “a fantastically serious activity”, and he was right. Some schools in England already have continuous provision throughout key stage 1, and they show that it works. People might wonder why we are asking for it to be statutory, if schools can already do it. The answer is that every single child in every single school should be given access to the best possible education. It should not be a postcode lottery. We also know that in high-pressure environments, which schools undoubtedly are, it is optional practice that gets squeezed first. Schools default to what feels safest for accountability and what feels familiar. Statutory expectation protects and encourages what works.

Key stage 1 is what Ruth Lue-Quee calls the “missing middle”. The early years foundation stage is protected in policy and key stage 2 is SATs-driven, but key stage 1 has the least protection for children’s developmental needs, despite being a vital stage in every child’s life. There is a huge body of evidence showing that putting five-year-olds in more formal classroom settings and removing continuous provision from the equation is not in their best interests, so why do we do it? The good news is that we do not have to. The Government have an opportunity here, and the timing could not be better, with the curriculum and assessment review and the schools White Paper coming forward.

I mentioned at the start that I am a dad and have two children. My youngest is nine today, and I am missing his birthday party at home. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] I know. Part of me wishes I was there, but I am glad to be here to speak for him and his friends. I know that the change we are debating, with a different approach in key stage 1, would have massively benefited my son and his friends. It might be too late for them, but it is not for others.

I have already raised this point with Ministers, and I will carry on making it. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to further meetings and discussions both with her and with her colleagues. It is our job to figure out how we prepare children for the mid-21st century. We do not know what that will look like, but we can be sure that we will not prepare our children for that future by doing what we have done in the past. The Government have rightly said that we want to give every child the best possible start in life. Learning through play until the age of seven would help with that. I thank Ruth and all others who have supported the campaign; they have my support and they should have the support of everyone in this Chamber.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Many happy returns to your son.

16:42

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her exceptionally detailed and very interesting opening speech.

I have had the tremendous privilege of visiting several schools in my constituency, and I think all Members will agree that there are a few things that warm the heart more than seeing happy children, particularly children who are learning in a safe and pleasant environment. East Tilbury primary school, which has taken part in the Outdoor Play and Learning programme, has really stood out to me. I am proud to share the fact that that delightful school achieved the platinum award, which is the highest level in the programme and is attained by around only 2% of schools nationally. OPAL now works with more than 2,000 schools, so that is no small achievement. Although we do have many educators in the Chamber, for those who are not quite so fond of mental arithmetic, that puts the school in the top 40 out of 2,000, so it really is quite an achievement.

I was struck not just by the surprisingly natural equipment that was being used—trees for climbing, tyres, sand pits and wildlife areas—or the simple ball games, but by the confidence, co-operation and genuine joyfulness that the programme produced in the children. I spent time observing, and playing and speaking with the staff, the pupils and the OPAL representatives, and it was clear to me that high-quality play directly supports wellbeing, social development and readiness to learn, as Members have already stated with some impressive statistics.

Crucially, the programme is not about lowering standards elsewhere or replacing learning with play; it is about using play intelligently to reinforce the core skills of communication, resilience, problem-solving and teamwork, particularly within the early years. I think that is why we can all agree that this is a win-win. As we have seen elsewhere across Europe, play can build the foundation for more advanced learning as children go through the key stages.

Importantly, East Tilbury’s success was driven not by top-down prescription, but by school leadership, staff commitment and community buy-in. That is a valuable lesson for us as policymakers, and I hope the Minister pays particular attention to that point. I urge the Government to focus less on rigid mandates and more on sharing best practice, supporting schools that want to innovate and trusting professionals to decide what works for their pupils. Done well, play is not a distraction from learning, but a foundation for it, and East Tilbury primary school is living proof of that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. After the next speaker, there will be a formal time limit of three minutes.

17:13

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), as well as Ruth and all the campaigners who have turned out in good numbers to bring this important debate on play-based learning to the House.

Growing up in today’s world is difficult for children, and it presents unique challenges for our brilliant early years sector. Too many children start school without the fundamental skills that they need. Often, they are not school ready, toilet trained or able to use a knife and fork; they are unable to focus, pay attention or concentrate; and they do not have the speech and language skills or the ability to play and form friendships. Those are fundamental skills. Without them, far too many children struggle to thrive and flourish, and it can scar the rest of their school years.

Early years provision should embrace how young children learn best. The move from the play-based early years foundation stage into the far more formal structure of key stage 1 can be abrupt for many. Play-based learning is statutory only up to the end of reception. Once children enter key stage 1, there is no requirement in the national curriculum to continue that approach, despite clear evidence that five, six and seven-year-olds still learn best through exploration, collaboration and carefully planned play alongside direct teaching.

This issue matters enormously in communities like mine in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, where schools are working hard to close early attainment gaps and to support children who face disadvantage. While phonics and early attainment results are improving, too many children still arrive at school without the secure foundations they need. If we are to tackle lifelong barriers, we must get the early years of formal schooling right, which is why I welcome the Government’s actions under the leadership of the Secretary of State.

Significant steps in the right direction have been taken to better support early years childcare and education, including the roll-out of Best Start hubs and Families First partnerships. But we have to focus better on school readiness, supporting early speech and language development, and further strengthening early years provision. The Government are taking practical steps to ensure that children are equipped with the skills they need. The initiatives to improve phonics, early literacy and teacher training reflect a clear commitment to building solid foundations for all children, but we must recognise the importance of play and holistic development.

Play is not just a “nice to have”; it is a foundation of language and literacy development, as the National Literacy Trust has highlighted. High-quality play is especially vital for disadvantaged children, helping to close early language gaps and give every child the tools to thrive. Simply put, play is the rocket fuel of learning. I support children’s health and wellbeing and urge the Government to listen to parents and early years professionals and take meaningful steps to embed play and continuous provision within the key stage 1 statutory framework.

17:16

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Play is firmly back on the agenda in this Parliament, as symbolised by the new APPG on play. On Wednesday last week, we heard from, among others, Ruth Lue-Quee—My Mummy Teacher—about the importance of this petition.

In England, we rightly pride ourselves on an early years foundation stage that places play-based pedagogy at the heart of learning, but for children, that approach ends abruptly at the school gate of year 1. My constituent Rachel Peck, a key stage 1 teacher and early years practitioner, says:

“The need for play doesn’t suddenly disappear at five. Removing play so early removes the very opportunities children need to develop creativity, collaboration, problem-solving and communication.”

My constituent Louise Jane tells me:

“Children in Key Stage 1 are still so young. Sometimes it feels like the system sees them as numbers and data—when they are so much more than that.”

We know that active play stimulates the release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which supports memory, focus and neuroplasticity. Put simply, we know that movement helps the brain to grow. We also know that play offers challenge and risk, so that children develop self-regulation, emotional resilience and the ability to manage stress—essential social skills that cannot be taught by a child sitting down with a worksheet.

My constituent Rachel Peck says:

“We spend the rest of children’s school lives trying to teach skills that should have been naturally developed through play alongside their peers.”

I agree. Yet when children enter key stage 1, we find that play becomes a reward and its withdrawal a sanction, without realising that it is often the absence of movement and play that drives the behaviours that then get punished. My constituent Kate Bethune, whom I met at one of my surgeries, told me:

“We are crushing children’s natural creativity and curiosity because we are obsessed with compliance and early testing. Many children are simply not developmentally ready to sit still and write for long periods.”

So what do we need? We need to make play-based pedagogy and continuous provision statutory in key stage 1, thereby creating a clear national expectation that play is a developmental need, not an enrichment activity.

I want to thank Veronica Woodward of St Walburga’s, Leanne Dixon from Stourfield junior school, Pauline Sweetman from Stourfield infant school, Vanessa Webster from Epiphany, Michelle Dyer and Imogen Bull from the Avonbourne academies, and Chris Jackson from Avonwood school. Last Friday, Chris hosted us for one of my SEND roundtables, so that we could hear from teachers and headteachers about what future reform should look like. They were convinced that play-based pedagogy is critical for supporting children’s wellbeing and trying to address some of the issues that occur in later life. Just this morning, I was at St James’ school and spoke with the headteacher, Mr Brown, and the assistant head, Mr Parsons, who is also a key stage 1 teacher, and they too agree.

We are in a rare reform window. The decisions that are being made now on curriculum and assessment will shape classrooms for years, and with them children’s confidence, wellbeing and attainment. This is not about choosing play over learning; it is about choosing play because it is learning.

17:19

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate.

I know how important this issue is for my constituents from speaking to children, headteachers and parents. Play should not be seen as an enrichment activity; play helps us to learn. The greatest breakthroughs in scientific endeavour, including Einstein’s theory of relativity, came as a result of people being able to think creatively. Physical expressions such as dancing, creating music and making up stories are not childish things to do. For example, there is evidence that listening to music enables children to engage with patterns and sequencing, which are fundamental to the basics of maths.

One of the best parts of this job is going to visit my local schools. Worthington primary school in my constituency has rolled out a free breakfast club. But it was not the breakfast that was fascinating; it was the fact that kids were sitting around playing with Lego—they were just expressing themselves without needing to conform. The headteacher said that that is improving their overall behaviour in classrooms, because they are so much more relaxed going into formal lessons.

One of my local district councillors, who is a former GP and psychotherapist, shared this with me:

“I was sitting in a primary school class as a School Governor some years ago. The topic was ‘materials’ and how they change. The teacher was using ice/water and melted/chilled chocolate to explain the topic. All well and good. In the corner of a classroom one of the hen’s eggs had only just hatched. A child wanted to talk about this exciting change in materials. That, I am sorry to say, was not allowed as it did not concord with the Lesson Plan.”

The campaign for play-based learning is not about increasing playtime; it is about ensuring that learning is delivered in a way that aligns with how children grow, develop, think and ask questions—just as they asked why an egg had hatched but the others had not yet. One of my earliest memories as a parent is visiting a science museum. The hatchery needed to be visited several times a day, and the excitement increased more and more as the day continued. Children will direct us in how they want to learn, and we have to give them that opportunity to express themselves.

Learning through play is not a new idea, but we have been rolling back on its importance. We know that we are now the outlier in the UK: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have already embedded play-based approaches into their curricula at an early school level. We are falling behind and letting our children down. It is important that we value play by recognising it in the curriculum. It would be useful to hear from the Minister on that specific point, given that play is not an added extra but an important part of component learning for our children.

17:22

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her excellent speech—although the “productive struggle” she referred to sounded rather like a slogan from my trade union days. I wholeheartedly support the petition, and I thank all the campaigners behind it for ensuring that we are debating this important subject today.

I have heard from so many parents across North East Hertfordshire that over-formal academic approaches do not suit their children. Our whole society is missing out on the vast untapped potential of children who are never going to thrive in a sedentary environment. The valorisation of that model, and the expectation that all children can be measured against it, teaches many from the youngest age that learning is a struggle to be resented, not an exploration to be enjoyed. Politicians so often speak about the importance of education equipping children with skills that businesses require, but frankly I think it is a lot more important that five, six and seven-year-old kids are happy and healthy.

Fortunately, we do not need to choose between an education that is fun and inclusive, and one that equips pupils with essential knowledge and skills, as has been so powerfully proven by Unplugged Tots, which is run by my brilliant constituent Hannah. Unplugged Tots supports children to be the problem solvers, inventors, engineers, scientists and technologists of tomorrow by equipping them with the skills they will need through accessible, fun, engaging activities that are screen-free. Hannah is proving that we can teach children as young as two and half the foundational skills and critical-thinking abilities for coding through play—and without any screen whatsoever. It is a genuinely inspiring model that I hope the Minister will look at closely, and that could benefit schools across the country.

I will give the final word to Hannah, who says:

“Today’s children are tomorrow’s future and equipping them for this rapidly changing future is essential. If we want to build capable citizens for tomorrow, we must take play in Key Stage 1 seriously…Play supports the whole child, providing an equitable starting point for all children, regardless of background. When play is integral to the curriculum, we raise standards by nurturing confident learners prepared for a rapidly changing world equipped with a lifelong love of learning.”

17:24

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I extend my congratulations to the campaigners for securing this debate, and particularly to the 442 people in my constituency who signed the petition.

As many Members have pointed out, play-based learning is not about lowering attainment or standards. Indeed, countries that prioritise learning through play, such as Finland, Norway, Sweden, Japan and New Zealand, consistently score highly in international rankings. That is echoed in their attainment levels at 16 and beyond, not just at key stages 1 and 2.

Play-based learning has the ability to be truly inclusive learning. I understand that an inclusive schooling model is being strongly considered in the Government’s upcoming White Paper. A way to achieve that at key stage 1 is by incorporating play-based learning.

Play-based learning supports early language development. The charity Speech and Language UK estimates that the needs of around 2 million children in the UK with a speech and language challenge are not always met. For about 30% of children with a SEND need, speech and language difficulties are the primary cause of that need. Play-based learning allows children with a speech and language challenge to take time to really come to grips with it. It supports their speech and language learning and allows them to develop the skills that will be crucial to them as they continue their journey through education and into employment, and throughout their life. There is a real opportunity to turn things around for those children.

In the context of inclusive schools, play-based learning asks who we really want to see in the classroom. Who are classrooms for? They are not just for children who can sit still, rigidly listen to lessons and learn by rote. They are for all children—for all young minds. Play-based learning encourages curiosity and creativity, and therefore sends a signal to all children that they are welcome in our classrooms and our schools, and that however they learn they will be supported.

I join the many Members who have made powerful statements about why play-based learning should be adopted. I urge the Government to use this moment, when we are looking at how our education system can best deliver for children, families and society, to grasp the nettle and embed play as learning in key stage 1.

17:27

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate with such a well-argued and passionate speech that went to the heart of this debate. I commend Ruth Lue-Quee and all the petitioners for starting the petition, and the 106,082 people who signed it. I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a happy birthday.

What is play for? What benefits can it bring to children? And why is it more important than ever that we enable children to learn through play, both inside the classroom and out? Most importantly, perhaps, why should educational play stop at age five in England? Anyone who has spent time watching children play can see that they are learning all the time: their young brains are puzzling over how to do something and they collaborate with friends, finding solutions to whatever challenges they have set themselves, building resilience and learning the art of perseverance.

As someone who has recently welcomed a grandchild into the family, the algorithm has found me, and I now regularly see posts about Montessori play on my feeds. There are brilliant ideas for simple activities in which young children can engage that are fun, that are absorbing and that teach them crucial skills that they will carry with them as they grow. The best bit about it is that children do not know they are learning. They are not being told to sit down, be quiet or work at a set pace. They are enjoying themselves, going at their own speed, working things out as they go and quietly developing their little brains as they play.

We often say in this place that high-quality education is the best possible investment we can make in the future of our country. As the bedrock of everything that follows, the early years are crucial, laying that foundation stone for learning, wellbeing and opportunity. From ages four to seven, significant socio-emotional and physical changes are taking place. For example, at four years old, children start to expand their vocabulary and express their needs through words rather than actions. At five, they start to develop empathy for others and, at six, they begin to experience multiple emotions simultaneously. These are crucial and long-standing developments that shape a child’s character for life, so it is vital that during these formative years children have access for the most appropriate learning methods that nurture their curiosity, creativity and critical thinking—the skills that will help them thrive as adults.

Evidence suggests that during this period of a child’s life, play-based learning can have a positive impact on communication, as well as emotional and physical development, but being outside, getting wet and muddy, sliding around, climbing over things and exploring their world is just as important as sitting inside playing with building bricks or doing puzzles.

Children develop their knowledge and skills in the most meaningful way by doing things that they want to do. The Lego “Play Well Report”, based on nearly 13,000 responses from parents and children, found that 83% of children say they learn better when it “feels like play”. Through play, children have the space and time to make connections in their learning, try things out, make mistakes and learn how to do better next time. Hon. Members from across the House have shared personal experiences, input from teachers and academic evidence that all show the importance of learning from play.

Parents in this country recognise that play helps build the skills that lead to academic success, as well as how important play is to foster creative, sociable and emotionally resilient adults. Critics of play in the classroom often have the misconception that play is only unstructured fun—noisy children mindlessly running around like headless chickens without a care in the world, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds explained, that is not what we are talking about today, as important as it is.

Guided play within the classroom gives children the opportunity to learn and develop in a no-pressure environment, approaching tasks at their own pace and in their own way. The 2023 Ofsted report “International perspectives on early years” agrees with this, highlighting how teaching and play are difficult to separate, with adults likely to be teaching children during play—whether that be free or guided, or unconsciously or consciously.

Other countries have play embedded in their curriculum. In Sweden, the curriculum guidance explicitly states that both free and guided play should be a part of education, and that a child has a right to both these types of play. In Finland, school does not start until age seven, but high-quality early years education is widely available and affordable. Finnish early years programmes focus on children’s holistic development, with an emphasis on play as the primary mode of learning, where teachers act as guides for the child’s exploration.

However, we do not need to look only overseas for inspiration; we can also look at alternative approaches to education here. I recently visited a school in my constituency that follows the play-based Steiner-Waldorf education system. That approach focuses on holistic development through self-directed imaginative play, fostering creativity, social skills and nature connection before age seven. Children are encouraged to engage in uninterrupted free play, nurturing their creativity and allowing them to form and then express their own experiences. Teachers function centrally as role models, teaching not through instruction but through action, which children can then imitate.

Crucially, the Steiner approach includes significant amounts of time spent outdoors, regardless of the weather, to ensure that children connect with nature, improving their physical health and providing them with wonderful educational opportunities. It also helps build that deep connection with nature, which we will need for future generations to care about and promote the protection of our natural world. I commend all the schools in South Devon that prioritise forest school as a way of teaching and nurturing children so well through outdoor play.

I am convinced that there are aspects of the Steiner style of teaching that should be considered more seriously by our mainstream education system, especially for little children in their formative years. It may be dismissed by many as weird hippy nonsense, but it is much more serious than that. We should keep an open mind when approaching how we best educate children during this crucial period of their lives.

The Liberal Democrats believe in broad, balanced and forward-looking early years education that prepares students to excel, both in school and outside the classroom. Play-based education must be a part of that, and should not stop at five years old. Playing is important throughout life, though it might change somewhat as the years progress. As this petition highlights, the Government acknowledge the importance of play in achieving this in their early years foundation stage statutory framework. The framework details how play is essential to children’s development, building their confidence as they learn to explore, relate to others, set their own goals and solve problems. Children learn by leading their own play, by taking part in play, and through learning that is guided by adults.

A child’s fundamental development does not stop when they leave reception, so why do the Government think that play is important only until the age of five? Why is England lagging behind the other nations of the UK? To address those inconsistencies, the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to explore how play-based learning could be effectively implemented within the key stage 1 curriculum in England, including through consultation with teachers and schools. This is not about enrichment, but play-structured learning in the classroom.

I hope the Government will take a good, hard look at how play can best be incorporated into our curriculum, given the extensive benefits it can provide, as hon. Members have laid out so eloquently.

17:35

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to take part in this debate on play in the key stage 1 curriculum.

First, I thank the 106,082 signatories of this petition, including the 200 signatories from my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her opening remarks, and I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a very happy birthday, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sure that is all he ever wanted.

I praise the contributions from all hon. Members. It has been a thoughtful debate, which covered a whole array of issues. We may not agree on all aspects, I found it very fruitful to consider the different points of view. In particular, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who made an excellent contribution, highlighting the need for consistency; I echo her question for the Minister on that point.

Having heard hon. Members at length today, it is quite clear that we all accept that play has an important role in children’s cognitive and social development, particularly in their early years. There is strong evidence to suggest that play is an important factor in a child’s development. It teaches young people resilience, problem solving and social skills, enhances cognitive development and so much more. Dr David Whitebread of the University of Cambridge argues:

“Play in all its rich variety is one of the highest achievements of the human species, alongside language, culture and technology. Indeed, without play, none of these other achievements would be possible.”

That is why the early years foundation stage statutory framework includes play in delivering learning and development. The official Opposition support that framework, which sets out this responsibility for early years education providers. As a father of two young children, I recognise the importance of play. I know that key stage 1 is a crucial time in a child’s learning and development, when children are set up for future academic success based on the foundation of knowledge and learning skills they receive when they first start school.

It is thanks to the knowledge-rich curriculum, underpinned by phonics, introduced by the last Government under the excellent leadership of Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb, that primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world, with 80% of six-year-olds now reaching the expected reading standard, compared with only 58% in 2012. Millions more children are in good or outstanding schools, with tougher exams, better teaching standards, a rigorous curriculum and thousands of new academies.

I say that because, having heard the debate, it is important to be clear about what we are discussing. While play should certainly be part of that delivery, we believe that schools are best placed to decide how the curriculum is delivered to their pupils, and it is important that precious time in the classroom is not missed out on. I know that many hon. Members have pointed out that that is not what they are talking about, but there must be clarity about how play is delivered, because we all agree that we are preparing our children for the future.

That desire for freedom is why the official Opposition strongly oppose parts of the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that restrict academy freedoms and seek to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Why does the Education Secretary think that centralising decision making in Whitehall is more effective than empowering school leaders? The transfer of power from headteachers to unelected officials at the Department will be deeply damaging for children, and will see their education suffer as a result. It is not just the Conservatives who believe this. It was Sir Tony Blair whose Government championed the initial academisation of schools. I know he is greatly concerned about this, because it is a reversal of 30 years of consensus around academic achievement and development.

Although we also welcome the curriculum review, I have worries. It was a relief that the Government chose not to follow the example of their counterparts in Labour-run Wales by dropping phonics from the curriculum. However, as the Opposition have stated at the Dispatch Box, if everything is a priority, nothing is. If the Government want more play, they need to make clear which part of the curriculum has to be pushed to the side, and will stand to suffer, as a result. If the Government truly want to give children the freedom to learn and grow through play, they should confirm that they are committed to ensuring that the core skills of reading, writing and numeracy, which children need to succeed, will be part of that.

If more play is needed for children, there is another way of achieving that. I would like to talk about the use of screens by children. According to Ofcom, 25% of children—

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. May I bring the shadow Minister back to the issue of play, please?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Absolutely, Mrs Barker. The point that I was going to make was that if children are not using social media, that will free up more time for play. That is why that issue is really important. We all want to achieve the same things: more resilience and more capability. Hopefully the Minister will confirm whether the Government agree with us that the use of screens at such a young age can have a detrimental effect, and confirm whether they will progress with the evidence.

I accept that many parents are simply trying to do their best, and they want to have the best opportunities for their children. That is why I implore the Government to take a deep, hard look at the official Opposition’s approach to the use of screens and social media, and to the use of phones in schools. We have called for the use of phones in schools to be officially banned to allow for greater standards in schools. We are worried about the fact that children now spend more time online. Just last week I read reports that some young people try to swipe, and even tap, on books because they use digital devices.

[Tom Hayes]

This is a debate about whether play ought to be a mandatory part of key stage 1—do the official Opposition support that?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I made that very clear. We support the education statutory framework as it is, but I think that the questions around social media and the use of phones are really pertinent. That is what parents are writing to us, as Members of Parliament—

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the shadow Minister to bring his remarks back to the petition, please.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and those people who signed the petition. The Opposition recognise the importance of play, which is why we challenge the Government to give further clarity on the development of the curriculum review, and what will be part of it. If everything is a priority, nothing is, so what will be part of that debate? I also challenge the Government to give more clarity about the freedom of schools, as asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon.

17:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank all hon. Members who have attended and contributed to this important debate, and thank all those who signed and engaged with the petition, particularly those who are in the Public Gallery to listen to the debate. I know from conversations with the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), who has responsibility for this area but is unfortunately unable to attend this debate due to a prior commitment, that this subject has drawn much attention and support from many constituents.

My primary goal as an Education Minister is to give every child the best possible start in life. I have had the pleasure of visiting primary schools and early years providers across the country, including many wonderful examples in my constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire such as Theale Church of England primary school, and Calcot junior school, whose pupils are coming to Parliament later this week. It was clear on all my visits how important play is to younger children’s wellbeing and development. Some of my best days in my job as Minister for Early Education have included being attacked by plastic dinosaurs and racking up my dry cleaning bill in muddy outdoor play areas. It has been a privilege to listen to hon. Members’ thoughtful contributions and hear about the excellent work being done in their constituencies.

The hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) started off the debate wonderfully by reminding us that the best sound in the world is that of children playing at break time and lunch time—I wholeheartedly agree. She also drew on a theme that was important throughout the debate: the distinction between play-based learning and enrichment. The Government accept that distinction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) has been running a fantastic campaign in her constituency against the closure of playgrounds. The Government are determined to do something about such closures, and we committed £18 million to that very issue in the Budget. Other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), touched on that issue.

We have had fantastic contributions, which I enjoyed listening to, from my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Thurrock (Jen Craft), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) on the importance of play. Of course I add my birthday wishes to my hon. Friend’s son; I hope he gets a chance to have a good play with his new toys.

There have also been important contributions on play and screen time and on school readiness from my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge). On the question of ensuring that screens are not displacing play, the Government are determined: we will bring forward the first ever guidance for parents on screen time in early years, take tough action to ensure that there are no phones in any schools so children are not disrupted from play or learning, and work with parents and families to find the right balance so that children at school or nursery are doing what they should be doing: playing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock touched on the importance of play for early language development. That is very much part of this Government’s plans for school readiness as we strive to ensure that record numbers of children are ready for school. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood remembered the great Frank Dobson—a huge advocate for play—and I thank her for bringing his memory to the debate.

England’s early years foundation stage statutory framework recognises the importance of play, setting out that play, both indoors and outdoors, is essential for children’s development, including physical development, communication and language. I agree with colleagues that the impact of play on children’s development and wellbeing does not stop when they reach school age. We will help schools to decide how best to support children’s transition from the early years foundation stage into key stage 1. Some schools continue elements of the pedagogical approach of the EYFS, including play, into year 1 to enable a gradual transition.

Ultimately, however, we believe that teachers are best placed to apply their professional judgment and creativity to meet the pupils’ needs in this area. It is important that teachers have the flexibility to adapt their approach to best support each pupil to obtain the knowledge, skills and understanding that they should do during their education. We re-emphasised that principle in our response to the curriculum and assessment review last November, and that is why it would not be right for us to legislate to make play and continuous provision statutory in the key stage 1 curriculum.

That does not for a second mean that we expect children in year 1 to spend all day every day sat inside, and it certainly does not mean that play is no longer on the agenda. The Government have committed £18 million to upgrade 200 playgrounds across the country, we are amending the national planning policy framework to protect play spaces and my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have published the first national guidance on commissioning and delivering health play services. In education, we are also acting to provide children with opportunities outside the classroom. I recognise the important distinction that colleagues have made, but enrichment is also important in schools. We will set out a new core enrichment offer that every school and college should provide for every pupil, delivering access to civic engagement, arts and culture, nature, outdoor and adventure, sport and physical activities, and wider life skills.

Our free breakfast clubs are also a brilliant opportunity for schools to incorporate more play into each day, offering 30 minutes in the morning where children can explore a range of activities, whether kicking a football around or building a Lego masterpiece, in a supportive and calm environment. Across the country, I have seen breakfast clubs where schools are using this Labour Government’s investment to help children explore their imagination and creativity. Of course, breakfast clubs also help to drive improvements in behaviour, attendance and attainment, and provide families with more affordable childcare choices.

I will briefly mention our curriculum reforms. This Government recognise that our children are stepping into a world of huge opportunity, but also of immense change and challenge. We want our new national curriculum to arm them to thrive, building skills that have been spoken about in this debate, such as communication, creativity and social and emotional skills, which can be developed through play and a wide range of enrichment activities.

In conclusion, this Government are serious about the importance of play in childhood, and across Government Departments we are investing in the infrastructure of play and in a transformed early years system. Although we do not agree with the specific suggestion outlined in the petition that play and continuous provision should be mandated as part of the national curriculum at key stage 1, we trust teachers to make the best choices for their students. We thank everyone for coming today and for their thoughtful—

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

My hon. Friend has got me right at the end of my speech, but I will give way to her.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she go back to the Department and ask people there to engross themselves in the evidence, which overwhelmingly shows the importance of integrating play with learning, and to ensure that we take an evidence-based approach to policy making?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her last-minute intervention and I can reassure her that we in the Department are immersed and engrossed in the evidence. Our view is that play can be a very important way of helping children to learn. However, we do not think that it is right to mandate it at key stage 1, because we believe that it is important for teachers to have flexibility themselves. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend knows—and as her sister, a fantastic superhero working in early years, will know—play is embedded as part of the EYFS curriculum.

Mrs Barker, I will leave it there.

17:50

[Dr Savage]

I again thank the amazing petitioners and all my colleagues who have contributed to this important debate.

I echo the request already made, that the Minister go back to her Department to reconsider this issue. I feel passionately about it; I have spoken with many educators over the last few weeks in preparation for this debate and they have educated me, deeply impressing on me the critical value of play within the curriculum as a pedagogical method. Wales and Scotland are already aware of that, as are many countries in Scandinavia, and the evidence suggests that they are raising children who are happier and more engaged in their lessons and are doing extremely well. This feels like a critical moment for the debate; with AI so high on the political agenda, we really need to nurture those skills of creativity, confidence and imagination—all those essentially human things that AI cannot produce.

The Minister spoke about giving teachers the flexibility to introduce more play to the curriculum if they think it is appropriate, but play should not be a postcode lottery. It should be a right for children in schools across the entire country. I urge and beseech the Minister, please, to take these passionate requests from Westminster Hall today back to her Department.

[James McMurdock]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way at this last moment. Does she agree with me that these debates are called debates for a reason, and that where there is an overwhelming outcome to a debate—one way or the other—we expect the Minister, regardless of who they are or what party they are a member of, to take that outcome away and implement it quite directly and quite heavily, wherever possible and wherever appropriate? Does she agree that in debates such as this one we expect a relevant outcome and not just an exercise in hearing our own voices?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reiterating that point. I hope that I speak for the entire Chamber when I urge the Minister, one final time, to convey this message to the rest of her Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 729440 relating to play in the key stage 1 curriculum.

17:53

Sitting suspended.

Animal Rescue Centres

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

18:00

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 718660 relating to the licensing and regulation of animal rescue centres.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the petitioner Paul Watkinson and his colleague Niki Roe for their hard work in gathering almost 110,000 signatures for this petition, which is a fantastic achievement. The petition, which is entitled “Introduce Licensing and Regulation for Dog and Cat Rescues to Protect Welfare”, states:

“Many UK animal rescues operate without clear legal oversight, creating opportunities for unethical practices. Some rescues have been linked to supporting irresponsible breeding, neglecting animals, or misusing public donations.

Without enforceable standards, there is a risk that animals suffer in poor conditions, and public trust is undermined. We call on the Government to introduce mandatory licensing and regular inspections to ensure rescues operate transparently and uphold high welfare standards. Regulation is essential to prevent cruelty, improve accountability, and ensure all rescued animals receive proper care.

By introducing clear legal requirements, the Government can safeguard animal welfare, protect public confidence in rescues, and prevent organizations from operating irresponsibly.”

However, it is important to acknowledge that most animal rescues do great work.

Many activities associated with animals must already be licensed under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, including selling pets, providing boarding for cats and dogs, hiring out horses, dog breeding and keeping or training animals for exhibition. It is clearly not unusual for animal activities to be licensed, so the petitioner and many others believe that rescue and rehoming centres should be the next step.

In England, there is currently no statutory code for rescue centres; there are only voluntary frameworks. They include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals code of practice for animal welfare establishments and the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes standards, to which the Government’s response refers. However, Scotland has already introduced a licensing system for dog and cat rescues under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. Similarly, Wales has had a code of practice for animal welfare establishments since 2020. Its consultation on licensing animal welfare establishments found that 82% of respondents were in favour of licensing; the Welsh Government announced in June 2025 that they would prioritise taking forth the proposals of the consultation. England now has a great opportunity to join the rest of Great Britain and catch up with licensing these organisations.

There are many establishments that are not meeting standards but have good intentions. Well-meaning individuals can find themselves out of their depth and have no structure or training to know what is best. Once organisations are known to be local rescues, they can be inundated with animals left on their doorstep. A lack of knowledge and training is putting animals at risk, along with staff exhausted by malpractice and people who choose to adopt from the rescue. It is important for the law to draw a distinction between being a cat lady and being an unofficial rescue that is overcrowded with animals. Unfortunately, there are also cases of people running rescue homes with financial and malicious motivations. The worst scenarios include very dangerous practices, including rogue traders masquerading to the public as something they are not.

Nobody wants to close small organisations, so it is important that smaller dog and cat rescues be supported through a transition and that cats and dogs be moved to other rescues where it is completely necessary. Rescuers should have the opportunity to move through legislation and structure and be supported with grants, for example from the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes. Work is already going on between small organisations and the bigger charities: larger groups can advise and support the smaller organisations. That would continue as we transitioned to a licensing model.

Under the current laws, anyone can set up a rescue. I think we would all agree that is not acceptable. The fact that there are no standards or training can lead to the illegal import of animals, the outbreak of disease and poor hygiene standards. Without regulation, those dangerous practices will only continue. Nor have we any data on how widespread they may be, as without legislation there is no formal tracking of dog and cat rescue homes across the country.

We know that the current system is not working, as we know of many sorry cases in which it has failed. When I met staff from the Blue Cross, they told me about the many animals that they had found being kept in inappropriate circumstances for long periods. For example, one dog had lived in a blank kennel for eight years with no kind of enrichment. The rescue thought that the dog was simply sedate, but really he had just given up on life. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is not sufficient: it keeps an animal alive, with a safe environment, diet and housing, but it does not address the specific issues that arise in rescue shelters, such as the spread of disease.

Dog and cat rescues should ensure that pets are safe and suitable to go back into the public domain, and that they have a good quality of life over long periods. The Animal Welfare Act states that local authorities

“may prosecute proceedings for any offence under this Act”,

But that relies on individuals whistleblowing on offending organisations. That can allow suffering to carry on far too long.

There are already many examples on which legislation could be based—Scotland’s legislation, the Welsh code of practice, the RSPCA standards and the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes standards. The foundations are already there. The sector is aligned on the need for action, as I am sure the upcoming consultation will show.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank the 145 signatories to the petition from Bournemouth East; I also thank Staffie and Stray Rescue, Waggy Tails Rescue Dorset and Margaret Green Animal Rescue, alongside Cats Protection and the RSPCA, for all that they do in my constituency. My hon. Friend mentions the Government’s recently announced plan to consult on the issue. Does she agree that we need a publicly accessible national database of animal welfare establishments? That is the only way in which the rescue and rehoming centres that ensure that abandoned or lost animals have a safe place and a second chance can truly be supported.

[Irene Campbell]

I agree that that would be a good step forward. It is also important to strike an appropriate balance when setting regulations. If regulations are too exacting, people may begin to shop rather than adopt, possibly importing from abroad. Another common issue is that dog and cat homes often end up taking in other species—so-called exotic pets or wild animals, for example—that they may not be qualified to take in. In future, it may be worth looking at regulating all forms of animal rescue centre to prevent the abuse of all species. The enforcement of any future animal welfare legislation is key, because otherwise new licensing will not be effective. It is important that the local authorities that will inspect the organisations be upskilled and capable of dealing with new, rigorous systems.

Although the petition closed in October 2025, the Government responded in July 2025, advising that all animal rescue organisations have to meet existing protections under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that individuals contact the local authority if an organisation is not meeting them. Their response also advised that members of the public can check whether a rescue centre is a member of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, which has standards for rehoming, neutering and training, among many other matters.

It is important to consider that the Government’s new animal welfare strategy, which was launched in December 2025, addresses the topic of dog and cat rescues. I am happy to see the actions outlined in the strategy, including the commitment to launch a consultation on licensing rescue and rehoming organisations and developing the evidence base on welfare issues.

Rescue animals are some of the most vulnerable animals. It is important that as lawmakers we do our best to fully protect them. Being a registered rescue should not be voluntary, and the Government are right to take steps to address the issue. It is important that when we set goals such as these, we have a clear road map. I look forward to the Minister’s response and am keen to hear the timelines associated with the consultation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye, and that if they wish to be called to speak they must have been present at the start of the debate. It may help Members and those viewing the proceedings to know that I shall call the Front-Bench spokespeople by 7 pm. Not many people are in for this debate, so I am sure that all the points that Members want to make can be explored.

18:09

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank everybody involved with the petition, whether they put their name to it or got it off the ground.

Just outside my constituency of South Basildon and East Thurrock, there was an incident in which the remains of 37 dogs were found, along with 20 other living dogs, in varying states of ill health. It should go without saying that this was a deeply distressing incident locally and for everyone who became aware of it. Rightly, it shocked residents, generated significant local concern and led to more than 1,000 of my constituents signing this petition. Animals suffered, and that must never be minimised.

What troubled many people locally was not simply what happened, but the response. Basildon council confirmed to my office that no licensing breaches had occurred—not because conditions were acceptable, but because animal rescue and rehoming centres do not currently require any licensing at all. That immediately raises a serious question: was this a failure of the law, or a failure of the use of laws that already exist?

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, there is already a clear legal duty on any person responsible for animals to ensure their welfare, including through proper care, a suitable environment, protection from suffering and timely veterinary treatment. The Act provides powers for enforcement, improvement notices and prosecution where standards fall short. Local authorities also retain powers on environmental health and on statutory nuisance and partnerships with police and animal welfare bodies, where conditions pose a risk to animals or the public.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990, the public health Acts, the Housing Act 2004—if the animal welfare unit is a domestic premises—and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are all additional existing laws that are in effect and which could be used in scenarios in which we believe that animals are being mistreated. Yet, in this case, concerns were reportedly raised months before any meaningful action was taken. That points not just to a legislative gap, but to questions around resources, clarity of responsibility and enforcement confidence.

I am instinctively cautious about expanding licensing regimes. The animal rescue sector is overwhelmingly run by people motivated by compassion, often operating on shoestring budgets and good will alone. Heavy-handed regulation risks driving good actors out of the sector, reducing rehoming capacity and ultimately harming the very animals that we seek to protect. That is why the right starting point is to ask, “Are existing powers under the Animal Welfare Act being used consistently? Do councils have sufficient clarity and resources to act early? Are we confident that additional regulation would prevent harm rather than simply adding bureaucracy?”

I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on the issue. I urge that the consultation focus as much on enforcement effectiveness and unintended consequences as on new statutory schemes. Regulation alone is not a guarantee of better outcomes if it is not properly resourced or proportionate. We must be careful not to do more harm than good, particularly in a sector that depends on trust, volunteerism and public confidence. Animal welfare matters deeply to my constituents—that is evident from the 1,000 people in my constituency who put their names to the petition—but so does getting this right. I genuinely want to strike that balance, and that is why I put this speech together in the way I did. I thank everyone for hearing these words.

18:13

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate. I was privileged recently to meet the lead petitioners—Paul Watkinson and Niki Roe of Jack’s Giant Journey, who are in the Public Gallery today—to discuss the issues that dog rescue centres face. I also thank the 175 constituents from Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition.

Although animal welfare is a devolved issue, Scotland is currently the only constituent nation of the UK in which animal rescues and shelters are licensed. There is much to be learned from that experience as Welsh and UK Government Ministers develop proposals for licensing regimes in Wales and England respectively.

I greatly welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s commitments to introduce regulations for animal rescues, sanctuaries and rehoming centres, following clear support in consultation in 2024. The measures will go a long way toward protecting animals and ensuring effective minimum standards for those sadly much-needed institutions. I look forward to taking those commitments to doorsteps across Casnewydd Islwyn ahead of May’s Senedd elections. I encourage the Minister, when taking proposals forward in England, to look at the responses to the Welsh Government’s 2024 consultation and to talk with Welsh Government colleagues about the work that they have already done in developing a licensing scheme. Let us learn from one another as we work together to level up animal protections across the UK.

Currently in England and in Wales, anyone, regardless of competence, premises, finances or track record, can set up a rescue and take in animals and charge fees, and they will face scrutiny only once things have gone badly wrong. We have all seen the most extreme cases pop up on our TV screens and news apps. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) mentioned the 37 dead dogs and 20 live animals seized in Basildon and Billericay in May last year, and almost 100 animals were seized from an animal sanctuary in Lincolnshire in 2024.

Although these extreme cases of animal abuse are shocking, there is a more sinister side to the regulatory desert in which rescue centres in England and Wales operate. Too often, when adopting an animal, members of the public do not know what they are getting and from where, because of the lack of a mandatory licensing and inspection regime. Seventy-eight per cent of the public believe that minimum standards are already in place. That leaves animal abuse hidden and allows families to be taken advantage of or even put at risk. Voluntary-only standards, such as those operated by the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, are well intentioned but unenforceable. Rogue providers ignore them, while responsible rescues already comply. Only a nationwide licensing framework will provide consistency and accountability.

Unfortunately, too many animals being rehoused from animal shelters are, unbeknownst to the adopters, from puppy and kitten farms. Others rehoused via rogue rescues were stolen. With no law to compel rescues to check where a dog came from, paperwork can be limited. The issue is best highlighted by the case of Maggie, a King Charles spaniel adopted from a dog rescue centre. Unfortunately, little did her adopter know that Maggie was the product of a puppy farm. That was known by the rescue centre, but not discussed. Maggie was later found to have more than 20 rotten teeth, facial paralysis and a heart murmur. She also had a shoulder injury possibly after being kicked. Worryingly, one in every four rescues is unknowingly rehoming puppy-farmed dogs like Maggie. A new licensing scheme must prevent that by ensuring proper record keeping, microchip scanning and veterinary assessment.

Animals also often arrive in pseudo-rescue centres after being imported from abroad in a practice denounced by the RSPCA as “Deliveroo for dogs”. With the Naturewatch Foundation reporting that four in every five dogs in the UK have no verified origin and the numbers of animals entering Britain doubling in the last decade, this is of grave concern.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a real champion of these issues, so I thank her for her work. My constituency is home to the Radcliffe animal centre. It is the only RSPCA animal centre in Nottinghamshire, but what most people do not realise is that the centre is still funded individually—independently—not by the national society, and it costs £800,000 a year to run. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to invest in the capacity of the sector and to look at funding of these centres, to ensure that we reach the standards that she is describing?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about consistency, levelling up and ensuring that across the UK we are all operating to those standards, so I thank him for that intervention.

People need to know the animal they are adopting. A lack of screening also presents major biosecurity concerns. A University of Liverpool study found that 15% of imported dogs that were tested had Leishmania infantum—a parasitic disease uncommon in the UK —despite 93% of the tested dogs’ owners believing that a vet had given their dog a clean bill of health. Any new licensing regime must ensure that rescue centres accept only animals imported with full documentation verifying origin and veterinary health. Medical checks must also be undertaken prior to rehoming.

Rogue operators often rehome animals with no regard for their behaviour, putting vulnerable people at risk and potentially worsening the surge in dog-related violence we have seen in recent years. Hospital admissions for dog bites have risen by 47% over the past 10 years, costing the NHS more than £71 million a year. In my county, Gwent, 539 dog attacks were reported to the police last year, an increase of more than a quarter on 2024.

We cannot allow the supply of dogs to become dominated by dodgy breeders and rogue rescue centres. That is why any new licensing regime must be outcome-focused, with minimum requirements for enrichment and behavioural support, as well as a behavioural assessment prior to rehoming. Rehoming animals with unaddressed behavioural issues only puts people at risk.

In introducing such a scheme, UK and Welsh Ministers must learn the lessons from Scotland. Small, independent foster-based rescue centres are a critical part of the animal welfare landscape, with independents outnumbering the major charity sites by almost 10 to one. In Scotland, many of these were forced to close after 2021, when the Scottish Government tied licensing to charity status and a minimum turnover of £5,000. Those closures came despite many foster-based rescue centres having excellent welfare standards. I urge the Minister not to replicate this mistake, and to ensure that any new licensing regime incorporates smaller rescue centres. In recognising this diversity of high-welfare provision, I also ask the Minister to consider a tiered approach to any new licensing fees, thereby reducing the disproportionate burden that could be created for smaller, high-welfare rescues.

In closing, I emphasise that the case for change is urgent. We need licensing schemes in England and Wales that people can trust. The rules must be robust and enforced.

18:21

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this debate on a very important issue to many of my residents.

The discovery of dozens of deceased dogs at the South Essex rehoming facility last year brought the consequences of the lack of regulation for animal rescue centres into sharp focus. That case is progressing through the courts, and I know that many constituents have closely followed developments, including my daughter, who is probably monitoring my attendance here. I used to be the most important male in her life, but I have been replaced by Caesar, a five-year-old ragdoll cat. Anyway, I digress.

While most rehoming and rescue centres operate to high standards, I share the concerns of residents who feel that without regulation, both animals and their owners face unnecessary risks. In the UK, we have robust animal welfare laws that regulate services including pet boarding and breeding, yet oversight of rehoming centres remains a blind spot. As it stands, anyone in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can set themselves up as a rehoming organisation without any licensing or inspection requirements. The decision to hand over a pet to a rehoming centre is an incredibly hard one to make, and those who take that decision deserve to have full confidence in the quality of care that they are promised.

I welcome the Government’s work on an integrated approach to improving animal welfare, including tackling puppy smuggling and puppy farming. I hope they will pay adequate attention to the regulation of rehoming and rescue centres. The thousands of signatures that this petition has collected, including 647 from Southend East and Rochford alone, demonstrate the scale of concern. I am grateful that the issue is getting the attention it deserves.

18:23

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

Across the United Kingdom, nearly 60% of households own a pet, and around 10.2 million of those pets are cats. They bring comfort, companionship and a great deal of amusement to millions of families. I know that personally, because I am owned by two rescue cats, Clement Cattlee and Mo Meowlam. Vital to the welfare of those pets and their future are our rescue and rehoming centres, such as Johnstone Cat Rescue in my constituency. Those organisations carry out extraordinary work, but beyond the duty of care established in the Animal Welfare Act, there are no specific statutory requirements governing how those services operate. As a result standards vary wildly across the sector. That is deeply unfair to the many outstanding providers that deliver a genuine and professional service through the dedication and compassion of their staff and volunteers.

Sadly, as so often is the case, it is the few that fall short that cast a shadow over the many, and it is because of such cases that we are debating this issue today. Too often, lack of training, resources or proper oversight means that even well-intentioned providers fail to meet the standard of care that our cats deserve. In more troubling cases, animals are placed in foster or rehoming centres where due care and attention are simply not given.

I will give one example. Linda, a volunteer at her local cat protection charity, saw a photograph of a kitten advertised by a local rescue centre and wanted to offer it a loving home. She completed an online form and later received a brief telephone call. During that call, she was not asked about her lifestyle, her living arrangements or whether she had any other pets, and she was given no meaningful information about the kitten’s health, background or needs; she was told only that it was three months old. She paid an adoption fee over the phone and was given an address from which to collect the kitten a few days later.

When Linda arrived, she was not allowed into the property. Instead, the fosterer came outside, closed the door behind them, took the cat carrier from Linda’s hands, pushed the cat inside and handed the carrier back to her. There was no opportunity to see the kitten’s living conditions, to see its mother and assess its health, or have any conversation about its needs or care. She was then told, almost as an afterthought, that the kitten had not been neutered or vaccinated.

That is why regulation matters. We need clear, enforceable, baseline minimum standards that protect animals, support responsible rescue centres and give the public confidence in the system. That must be backed by properly trained inspectors and meaningful oversight.

As has been mentioned, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes has standards that could provide a good basis for the licensing of rescue and rehoming centres and help local authorities to enforce any licensing regime. The Association of Dogs and Cats Homes has 153 rescue centres already following those standards, which have been enforceable since 2015 and are self and externally audited. They cover the management and governance of centres, as well as the health and welfare of the cats and dogs in those centres and transported to them. The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 should also be considered when looking at existing standards, as they also cover wildlife.

I welcome the Government’s recent animal welfare strategy, but I confess that I was disappointed to see no clear detail on how they intend to consult on the licensing of animal welfare establishments. Through my work as chair of the APPG on cats, I know that the sector is ready and willing to engage; the Government should be equally willing to listen.

If new legislation is to genuinely improve standards, we must also learn from the experience in Scotland, where it has become clear that without effective enforcement, adequate funding and properly trained inspectors, legislation alone does little to improve the lives of animals in substandard establishments. Scotland’s two-tier licensing system has also caused confusion for both rescue centres and local authorities. That is a lesson that we should take seriously, so that any system introduced in England is clear, workable and accessible for those who operate within it.

Our rescue centres do remarkable work; our cats deserve the highest standards of care, and the public deserve to have confidence that, when they open their homes and their hearts to animals in need, the system behind that decision is worthy of their trust.

18:28

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing the debate. I pay tribute to the campaigners, who are with us today, for the opportunity to raise this issue, which is of deep concern to many of my constituents, as well as to people across the northern parishes and indeed the whole country.

Across all our communities, rescue centres play an extraordinary role: they step in when animals are abandoned or neglected, or when they can simply no longer be cared for. They do so largely through the dedication of volunteers, through donations and though good will, and their work is often unseen but invaluable.

However, unlike kennels and breeders, animal rescue centres in England currently operate without a clear, consistent national licensing framework. There are proposals that would address that gap, using the model that already exists under other legislation. That would not create a new system from scratch, but extend a familiar and well-understood framework to a sector that is currently insufficiently regulated.

We know that that approach can work, because it works elsewhere. As has been mentioned, Scotland already has licensed animal shelters, and I am reliably informed that Wales is committed to introducing legislation too. That means that England is now the only part of Great Britain without a formal system of oversight. Introducing such a system would simply bring England into line with best practice across the rest of the country.

There is strong support for that across the rescue and veterinary community. The RSPCA and Dogs Trust have publicly welcomed the discussion about licensing, and colleagues across the House have also expressed their support. This is an issue on which there is genuine cross-party and evidence-based agreement, focused solely on improving animal welfare.

Across Southport and west Lancashire, we are fortunate to have several rescue organisations that do excellent work. I visited one of those, the Woodlands Animal Sanctuary, only a couple of weeks ago. It provides a safe and caring environment for animals during some of the most vulnerable periods of their lives. It already operates to high standards and would have nothing to fear from proportionate regulation.

However, not all rescue centres are able to meet the same standards. Many of them, despite the best intentions, are run from spare rooms or garden sheds. They are driven by compassion, but lack the facilities, training or support necessary to guarantee the best outcomes for animals. Without sufficient formal oversight, conditions can vary widely; in the most extreme cases, that has led to the tragic consequences we have seen across the country.

At a time when the cost of living crisis is forcing more families to make heartbreaking decisions about their pets, the pressure on rescue centres is growing. That makes it even more important that animals are placed in environments that are safe, suitable and properly supported. This is not about burdening good organisations with too much regulation; it is about giving them recognition, consistency and reassurance, while ensuring that every rescued animal receives the care it deserves. I hope that today’s debate can be a constructive step towards achieving that shared goal, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

18:33

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair this evening, Sir Alec. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the 201 petitioners from Glastonbury and Somerton.

For many years, the UK has enjoyed the reputation of being a nation of animal lovers, with over half of us owning a pet. Indeed, I am owned by three Patterdale terriers, George, Bert and Griff, who keep me on my toes, and a farm cat, Thomas, who spends less and less time up at the farm.

The UK was the first country in the world to start a welfare charity for animals. That concern to rescue and care for animals led to the formation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. A 2025 survey by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals found that 17% of dog owners and 33% of cat owners got their pet from a rescue centre. The RSPCA collects an abandoned animal every hour during the summer, and an estimated 250,000 animals go to rescue centres every year, which equates to 700 per day.

The cost of living crisis has undoubtedly increased the number of animals being abandoned, with the RSPCA recording a 24% increase in pets being handed over in 2022. Many rescue centres reported increased pressure because of the covid pandemic, which changed the landscape and increased the number of abandoned pets. Many covid dogs were sent to rescues with major separation anxiety, having never been away from their owners. Owners clearly had to go back to work, which put untold pressure on them as well, as they had to give up their dogs.

I put on record my thanks for the incredible work that rescue centres do. Somerset and Dorset Animal Rescue, based near Wincanton, has been run by Liz and Colin Stewart for more than 30 years. In their time, they have saved the lives of more than 34,000 animals, including dogs, cats, ponies, chickens and rabbits. In 2007, in recognition of their work, Liz was invited to the House of Lords to receive the award for international animal rescuer of the year. They run a charitable non-profit organisation. They have no full-time paid staff and rely on support from volunteers, but the costs of running such an operation are significant, with veterinary and food costs rising every day.

Some centres do not have the experience and knowledge of Somerset and Dorset Animal Rescue, and many exist without the facilities and resources to ensure that animals receive the right care and support. However, the lack of regulation surrounding animal rescue centres means they can operate without a licence as long as they do not report making a profit.

[James Naish]

The hon. Lady touched on the costs generated by animal centres, and earlier I mentioned the £800,000 running costs of the Radcliffe animal centre in my constituency. I put on record my thanks to David Carter of Gamston in my constituency, who has lit up his house every Christmas for a decade to raise money for the local animal centre. However, does the hon. Lady agree that relying on people like David to generate funds for these centres puts their regulation and licensing, and the way they look after animals, at risk?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I thank Mr Carter for all his amazing work to support the financing of these important rescue centres. Many people across the country do exactly the same thing.

Despite having the best intentions, some establishments take on too many animals or animals they do not have the specialist knowledge, expertise or resources to help, which often results in devastating situations where animals are sadly left to suffer. Donna, a constituent from Street, wrote to me recently about the heartbreaking situation at Save A Paw in Essex, where 40 dogs were sadly discovered.

If regulation is not in place, not only are such awful situations allowed to occur, but major health risks can be posed due to poor biosecurity. Pets should be spayed, wormed, de-fleaed and vaccinated while at a rescue centre, but there is no regulation to ensure that they are. Indeed, some animals in rescue centres are becoming infected with diseases that will need lifetime treatment, which is obviously an additional cost to the owners who take them on. There is support in the industry for measures to be implemented, with an RSPCA survey finding that 82% of wildlife rehabilitators believe welfare standards are inconsistent across the sector, and that more than 68% feel statutory licensing is important.

Earlier today, I spoke to Zoe, who runs Rushton Dog Rescue in my constituency with her mum, Cindi. They have operated for nearly 20 years in Langport, and have rescued thousands of dogs, along with horses, ducks, cats, ferrets and other animals, keeping them at their 15-acre centre. Zoe told me they believe that licensing would be good for the centre, and that unregulated pop-up rescues, sometimes operating out of people’s homes, can leave animals without the care and proper expertise they need.

Concerns also exist over those who use animal rescue centres as a front to run unscrupulous puppy breeding businesses, which leave legitimate animal rescue centres to pick up the pieces. In fact, Zoe told me that that was her No. 1 concern, so I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on the extent to which her Department is aware of the issue, given its admission that it lacks a complete picture of rescue centres in the country.

The Tories pledged to pursue licensing requirements in 2021 and 2023, and confirmed that they would look to consult on the matter, but ultimately failed to act before the last general election. The Liberal Democrats have called for a comprehensive national strategy on animal welfare that secures Britain’s place as a world leader on standards. As such, we welcome this Government’s commitment to ensure rescue centres have the right checks in place to protect the welfare of the animals they care for, but we are clear that any potential new licensing requirements must be properly enforced. There is also a need to ensure that regulations actually result in welfare improvements.

Zoe was also keen to stress that the Government must give existing rescue centres the financial support they need, to ensure they can follow new regulations to bring about improved welfare at animal rescue centres. The RSPCA has been clear that if that does not happen, many smaller rescues, set up with the best of intentions but lacking specialist resources, would be forced to closed, and the lack of capacity would place an unsustainable burden on those remaining in the sector. In turn, that would result in a lowering of animal welfare standards as remaining centres were overwhelmed and unable to care for their animals. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government would be willing to provide the support the industry requests.

I was also able to speak with Nigel, who runs the Somerton branch of Service Dogs UK, a charity dedicated to supporting armed forces and emergency services veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder by matching them with rescue dogs from across Somerset and the south-west. It uses rescue dogs from Dogs Trust, and applies strict rules, including background and household checks, before matching dogs. Nigel feels that regulation could ensure that rescue centres are properly inspected, while helping animals to receive the medical treatment they require. However, he noted that three out of 15 dogs in the Service Dogs UK system were found unchipped and abandoned on the street, which highlights the scale of the problem rescue centres are trying to deal with.

Nigel also highlighted concerns over individuals who set up centres and bring in dogs from overseas, putting them into British homes without proper controls. Vets and other public health experts have expressed concerns about the health and wellbeing of dogs and animals illegally imported into the UK, as well as the potential infection of animals already resident here.

The Liberal Democrats believe it is important to improve the welfare and quality of life of household pets, while ensuring that all animals are treated equally in legislation. That is why I am really proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), whose Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 will transform animal welfare in the UK and eradicate cruel practices that should have been wiped out years ago.

It is right that we now look to take action on this important matter, and I hope the Government come forward urgently to launch their consultation. There is strong support from the public and industry, and as the number of abandoned pets sadly increases, the problem will only grow.

Animal cruelty must be considered unacceptable, because animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel pain and suffering. They have a right to live in decent and humane conditions, and it is crucial that we change the law to better protect them from harm. I hope today’s debate serves as an important step on the road to higher welfare for animals who find themselves in the care of rescue centres.

18:45

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec. It is also a pleasure to hear from the Petitions Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for outlining the petitioners views. There were almost 110,000 of them across the country. Some of them are here today in the Public Gallery. Led by Paul and the other campaigners, they have driven so hard to get us to where we are today—not just this debate in Parliament or with the private Member’s Bill that I introduced, but in actually seeing that consultation brought forward by the Government, which is very much to be welcomed.

I begin by thanking hon. Members from across the Chamber: the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock); the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones); the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba); the chair of the APPG on cats, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), and the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) contributed in a really valuable way to this debate. It is without doubt that the breadth and strength of those contributions have demonstrated why this issue of licensed animal shelters and rescue centres matters so deeply to communities right across the country.

Now, it might be highly unusual to have the shadow Transport Secretary speaking in a debate on a subject for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I requested this one personally, given the fact that an incident that has been referred to, and that sparked off this position, happened in my own constituency at Crays Hill. Many Members will be aware of that and have made a reference to that horrible and tragic case—the appalling discovery of dozens of animals found dead at a property which was presenting itself as a rehoming centre. Some animals were taken back alive. Yet even when they were taken alive some had to have the most horrendous operations done to them, including one having to have its eyes removed because it was so badly maltreated. I was inundated with correspondence from my own constituents and people across the country who are determined to see high standards brought in for this sector and proper, meaningful oversight delivered.

I thank those 2,600 of my constituents who responded to this petition—more than any other constituency in the country. They are the reason that we are where we are today and the reason I brought forward my private Member’s Bill for establishing a licensing regime for animal shelters. Only by setting clear standards, and, crucially, as Members have said, by having them properly enforced, can we actually protect animals. That is why I am determined that, hopefully, with the Government’s consultation coming forward soon, we arrive at a licensing regime that puts animal welfare at its heart—and I look forward to hearing a few more details from the Minister in her response and very much welcome the proposal’s inclusion in the animal welfare strategy. That licensing regime must be one that clamps down on malpractice and bad actors while protecting and supporting the many kind-hearted individuals and organisations—from small individuals right through to some of our largest national charities—which provide safe, caring and responsible environments for animals and often animals in real need.

We have heard passionate speeches from right across the House in support of those small, often individual institutions in Member’s constituencies. I am heartened by the depth of experience and expertise that exists in the sector to help us get this licensing regime right as well. I place on record my thanks to the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, Farplace Animal Rescue and so many others for their outstanding work and leadership in this area. I obviously also have to pay tribute to Paul Watkinson. His dogged determination to protect animal welfare and ensure that high standards are there across the board also deserves recognition in this House, as do local campaigners in my constituency.

As the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford said, the problem, as has become painfully clear, is that anyone, regardless of their experience or their intention, can put up a sign and declare that they have an animal rescue shelter or rehoming centre. They will not face routine inspection, be subject to monitoring or be required to apply for any form of licence. That gap in oversight has led to consequences that are as clear as they are troubling: it has undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sector; placed intolerable pressure on reputable charities that are trying to get on with their meaningful work and that already face additional costs; and most importantly, it has resulted in animals suffering—not only dogs and cats but horses and the other animals that have been mentioned.

We know that it does not have to be this way. As we have heard, in Scotland, a licensing regime provided a clear bulwark against malpractice and has been in place since 2021. As was mentioned, in Wales, the Government have made plain their intention to move in the same direction. It is therefore vital that England, which is currently an outlier, moves in the same direction. To continue as we are at the moment is clearly not sustainable, and there is a clear advantage to addressing this issue now. As we set about fixing the problem, we are not starting from scratch. As hon. Members have mentioned, we can draw directly from the experiences of those who have gone before us to get it right. I have spoken to many animal welfare charities based in Scotland that are adapting to the legislation and want to see updates. We can help get it right. We can get it even better here than those charities have managed. That is why it is so important that we act now.

It is important to recognise that many rescue and rehoming centres already operate to the highest of standards. A significant number are subscribed to the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes voluntary code. That framework is the gold standard and was developed over many years with considerable care, expertise and sector-wide input. I am sure that the Minister will look closely at the voluntary code and work constructively with the association and the wider sector to ensure that the policy is delivered properly. At its best, the sector shows us what good looks like. The task before us is to ensure that those standards are applied fairly and right across the board, so that wherever they are, animals get gold-standard treatment.

The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the fact that, for licensing to succeed, it must be proportionate and, crucially, properly enforced. One message I have heard repeatedly from across the sector is that regulation without enforcement is no regulation at all. Clear standards must be matched by trained inspectors, adequate local authority resourcing and a system that allows concerns to be acted on before situations deteriorate into crisis, as clearly happened in my constituency.

Any effective system must reflect the realities of modern rescue and rehoming, including foster-based rescues and online rehoming operations, as well as reflecting the work of organisations facilitating rehoming more broadly. The ADCH standards are excellent and many responsible rescue centres have rightly adopted them, but a voluntary system alone will always leave gaps, as rogue operators can simply opt out. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on a licensing regime for rehoming organisations, but that consultation must be followed by real clarity. The sector has been has been ready to engage for many years. What it needs now is a timetable and a clear scope, and there must also be reassurance that wildlife rescue centres will not be left outside of any framework and that there will be support for smaller organisations during any transition.

What happened in my constituency last year is not just deeply disturbing; it is a crime, and the man who was arrested for it has recently pleaded guilty and is now awaiting sentencing. I am glad that he will be brought to justice. The situation has galvanised campaigners, charities and Members from across the House to work together to ensure that this issue receives the attention it deserves. There is a clearly a broad consensus across Parliament, the sector and the devolved Administrations. The case for licensing is well made, but what is now required is genuine action.

Animals entering rescue and rehoming centres are, by definition, already the most vulnerable. Many have been abandoned, neglected or mistreated before. The very least we owe them is a system that keeps them safe and properly cared for, and we must hold those whose care they are put into to clear and enforceable standards. I urge the Government to ensure that England embarks on a structured roll-out of a licensing regime that is proportionate, inclusive and centred on animal welfare, regardless of the size of the organisation involved, at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the dogs at Crays Hill did not die in vain and we can prevent other tragedies in future.

18:54

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec—my first time, I think; I am sure there will be many more. I thank the Petitions Committee and everyone who signed the petition for raising this important issue, especially the 164 from my own constituency of Wallasey. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee in the way that she did. The strength of public support behind the petition reflects a clear and shared concern. There was certainly cross-party consensus in the debate today about the state of sections of the rescue and rehousing sector, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposal to introduce licensing and regulation for dog and cat rescues. I also want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to boosting animal welfare across the board.

Animals play such an important role in our lives. They enrich our homes, support our wellbeing, and in return they deserve the highest standards of care and protection. We are a nation of animal lovers, so we have to ensure that our policies uphold our commitment to their welfare at all stages of their lives. The Association of Dogs and Cats Homes reported that almost 35,000 dogs and 69,000 cats were rehomed by its member organisations in 2024. It found that more pets were being abandoned due to the cost of living crisis, something that has been mentioned by hon. Members across the House during this debate.

The Government are concerned about the neglect happening in organisations that pose as animal rescues and about the lack of transparency in the rescue and rehoming sector itself—again, an issue brought up by many who spoke in the debate today. I was horrified, as was everyone else in this debate, by the case in Billericay in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden); the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) also referred to it. In May last year, 37 dogs were found dead in the care of a man who was pocketing donations for his so-called animal sanctuary. It was a shocking act of neglect and lack of humanity from the man entrusted to care for those animals.

As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said in his wind-up speech, the man has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing next week. That points to the fact that there are rules and regulations currently around the treatment of animals in rescues, even though there is not direct licensing in England at the moment. So it is not true that absolutely no rules apply, although the Government and I accept that we need to consider what we can do to increase the protection for animals that find themselves in that position.

Organisations may present themselves as rescues but fail to meet even basic welfare standards. There are also cases of well-meaning individuals willing to take in animals in need, but despite good intentions they lack the capacity to care for the animals properly. We have to make sure that the public can trust in the safety and legitimacy of animal rescue shelters in their area. We are taking seriously the risks posed by illegitimate rescues, whether that is financial exploitation, inadequate disease control or the rehoming of animals with unmanaged behavioural issues, all of which are risks, as many right hon. and hon. Members pointed out in this debate.

Most rescues operate responsibly and act with genuine intentions; we will crack down on those that do not. Last month we published our animal welfare strategy, which sets out the priorities that will deliver by 2030. It delivers on our commitments to introduce the most ambitious reforms to animal welfare in a generation. The Secretary of State launched the strategy at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, an organisation that delivers crucial work rescuing and rehoming dogs and cats while also promoting best practice and knowledge, providing training and grant funding to animal rescue partners and offering online pet advice and training to anyone who needs it.

The Government recognise the incredible work that people across the country, including those at Battersea, do to protect our animals. That work, often done on a voluntary basis, ensures that the animals taken into the care of those organisations are offered the opportunity of a forever home. We also value our strong relationships with those who work in these key sectors, and are proud of the work we have already achieved through partnerships with such key stakeholders. Our history of delivering positive outcomes for animals would not be possible without the dedication of the organisations and individuals we work with and their expertise across many species and complex areas.

I am sure many Members will have attended the engaging Westminster Hall debate on the animal strategy last week. It further demonstrated the cross-party support and real dedication and commitment from across the country to ensuring the welfare of animals. As the pet population continues to grow, it is essential that our welfare standards keep pace, ensuring that all animals are safeguarded throughout their lives. To that end, the strategy will deliver on our manifesto commitments to end puppy smuggling and puppy farming. We will ensure that existing legislation is up to standard and work with local authorities and the sector to ensure that it is effectively enforced; as hon. Gentlemen and Ladies from across the House know, if the most perfect legislation in this area is not enforced, it might as well not exist.

We have come from a period when enforcement suffered enormously because of cuts to local authorities. It is harder, and it has been much harder recently, for enforcement to happen in a reasonable way. We have to make sure that we close the loopholes. As part of the animal welfare strategy, we have been very clear that we will launch a consultation on licensing domestic rescue and rehoming organisations. That would ensure that set welfare standards were being met and enforced across the licensed rescue centres. That could include, for example, requirements for training, for the environment the animals are kept in and for standards of care.

Today, hon. Ladies and Gentlemen from across the House have pointed out the need to ensure that we strike the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked in particular about a mistake that she said the Scottish Government made when introducing their licensing regime, which had the unintended consequence of closing down quite a lot of facilities that might have sensibly been able to survive. It is important that this Government learn the lessons of the unintended errors made in trying to regulate appropriately in such a diverse sector. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock made a similar point in his remarks.

We do not want to have such a fantastically sophisticated licensing regime that we put a lot of very good organisations that are doing a valuable job out of business. We are aware that many small rescue and rehoming organisations rely solely on donations and volunteer efforts. Any new licensing framework must therefore be proportionate, and we will carefully consider the variations in types of rescues and animals that they look after.

I know that many of our constituents will be keen to engage with the consultation at the appropriate point. We will share details about that, including scope and timings, as the policy is developed. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock asked a series of questions about that, but many of those questions are on points that the consultation will be trying to tease out, so that we can come to an appropriate decision about the best way to license and regulate in this area and we do the most good and the least harm.

I want to be clear that animal rescue organisations, as we have all contemplated following the horrible events in Billericay, must already meet statutory welfare requirements. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, any person responsible for an animal, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, has a duty to ensure its welfare. Companion animal rescue and rehoming organisations in England and Wales must therefore comply with the statutory welfare requirements set out in the 2006 Act. Members of the public can also check whether a rescue centre is a member of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes. As has been pointed out in this debate, that group has set clear standards for animal assessments, neutering and rehoming procedures to which all its members adhere. The Government will continue to promote the work of that group and to encourage the public to source pets from responsible rescue and rehoming organisations in the United Kingdom. Many animal welfare organisations work hard to promote more responsible sourcing practices, and we will continue to promote their efforts.

We know that some individuals choose to rescue pets from abroad. Bringing animals from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks. We will continue to develop the evidence base on the welfare issues associated with international rescue and rehoming. We have already commissioned the University of Liverpool to assess the impact on dog welfare, both for the dogs rehomed from abroad and for the domestic population. We expect to publish that research later this year.

I hope that everyone will agree that we must move forward, both with our banning of puppy farming and with the licensing of rescues, so that we modernise our animal welfare laws in this very important area and ensure that all animals, whether they lose their first home and must be rehomed or not, can look forward to acceptable standards of care and welfare before they find their new forever home.

19:06

[Irene Campbell]

I very much welcome the Minister’s response. This has been an important and informative debate. The animal welfare strategy is a big step forward in the right direction, and I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking steps to correct some of the gaps in our animal welfare legislation. We have a massive opportunity to create change and I am looking forward to the consultation that is coming soon from the Government, as we have just heard.

I once again thank the petitioner, Paul Watkinson, and his colleague Niki Roe, as well as the groups that I met in preparation for this debate. I also thank, as ever, the staff of the Petitions Committee for all their hard work in organising these debates. As a final point, I should probably have mentioned that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dog advisory welfare.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 718660 relating to the licensing and regulation of animal rescue centres.

19:08

Sitting adjourned.