Lords Chamber

Friday 5th September 2025

(began 1 year, 1 month ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:06
10:07
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Portrait Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

(Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I beg to move that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill be read a second time. In England, if read a second time. In England, if you vote, for any election, whether it is for Parliament, or for a Local Authority Audits for mayor, or for a police commissioner, you are able to apply for a postal proxy voting online. In Wales and in Scotland, you can only vote online having applied for Parliamentary and, in Wales, for police commissioner elections. There is no facility for applying online for a postal vote or a proxy voting for the elections to the Scottish parliament, to the Welsh Senedd, and two local authorities in Scotland and Wales.

What happened was that when the 2022 Elections Bill was going through its stages in both houses, neither the Welsh Senedd or the Scottish Parliament gave legislative approval to that bill for various reasons which will probably recall. The consequence of that was the ability of Welsh and Scottish electors to apply online for postal votes was not passed. And so this bill is ensuring that that anomaly is now overcome. And of course it is absolutely vital because it is so very important that people in this digital age are able to apply for votes online.

Bizarrely, some 10 years or so ago, the then prime minister decided to make a minister for digital inclusion. It was an odd appointment, alongside my being Welsh Secretary. But it was interesting and I discovered and learnt a lot. In those days 17 million people were not online. The importance therefore of in this digital age, being able to apply online for a postal or proxy voting has got infinitely more important. In the last general election, 2024, those people in Great Britain who applied for postal votes, 84% of them applied online, and 93% applied for proxy voting.

Provision for online voting is made by the United Kingdom digital services, run by the United Kingdom government. And that is the reason why we are debating it here in this chamber. And why isn't being debated initially in the chambers of the Welsh Senedd the Scottish Parliament. The bill is supported by all the parties. It obviously supported by the United Kingdom government. It has the backing of the Electoral Commission, and most significantly, it is supported by the Welsh and Scottish governments.

The bill was sponsored in the other place by my honourable friend, Tracy Gilbert, the member of Parliament for Edinburgh North and Leith. The bill passed its third reading on July 4 on July 4, 2025. It has three main provisions. Firstly, Scottish and Welsh government can bring forward regulations to enable electors to apply for postal and proxy voting online using the Digital Services Act which is a reserved issue. Powers will be given to Scotland and Wales to make secondary legislation to increase, to include an identity verification recommendation which would be the National Insurance number that cannot be used as alternative evidence.

It will align postal voting cycles, electors will have to reapply for postal or proxy votes every three years with renewals for devolved elections matching the reserved elections. That is the basis of the bill that is in front of us this morning. I will briefly go through each clause, it is a short bill as you will see. Clause 1 will enable regulations to be made which will allow electors in Scotland and Wales to make applications online for absent vote arrangements for local elections using the UK digital service.

So if you are voting for Scottish Council for the Welsh Council, this clause allows you to apply for postal votes online. To support this integration of absent voting applications for Scottish and Welsh local government into the digital service, the UK one, this enables regulations to be made which will apply the same identity checking requirements using reserved absent voting applications to devolve absent voting applications. You will have heard me say that it is the National Insurance number will be the usual identification there.

Clause 1 will also enable a route for any elector who is unable for any reason to provide a National Insurance number to submit documentary evidence to confirm their identity. It amends the time through which postal voting arrangements for local elections remain valid in Scotland and Wales. Postal voting arrangements are currently potentially indefinite currently potentially indefinite with a signature requirement of five years for local devolved parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. This will now align with United Kingdom so will be set at a maximum of three years before the electorate has to reapply.

This is important for electors obviously you will find it confusing and inconvenient to have different postal voting arrangements for different types of elections. Amendments at Commons committee stage were made to clause 1 to enable Scottish and Welsh government ministers to make transitional revisions to proxy voting arrangements for devolved local government elections. Clause two enabled regulations to be made to allow people to vote online for the Scottish Parliament. Is that digital services reserved for the United Kingdom, the provisions ensure that Scottish ministers may not make regulations under this clause without the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, where those provisions relate to the UK digital service.

I understand that extensive discussions between the government of Scotland, Wales, and the United Kingdom with regard to this particular aspect and I cannot see any difficulty in times ahead on this. Clause 3 does the same for the Welsh Senedd. And clause 4 will provide for commencement and inserts the power to make transitional's or saving provision. That power allows provision to be made to align with the expiry date of postal voting arrangements for those who already have a postal vote in both the UK and devolved elections.

It provides for the ending of existing postal voting entitlements for devolved elections. In some limited cases, it may be necessary to end existing postal vote arrangements for devolved elections. And finally, clause 5 refers to the territorial extent and to the name of the bill. When this bill receives Royal assent, it will then go to Edinburgh and to Cardiff, so that the Scottish Parliament will pass their own regulations. There are ongoing discussions with the devolved governments about the timeframe for those changes.

It is my sincere and earnest hope that, in Scotland and Wales, in May next year, people will be able to apply online for postal and proxy votes for those hugely important elections for those two countries. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is will be ready
10:16
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is will be ready

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is will be ready I first voted in favour of Sunday opening in Pembrokeshire many years opening in Pembrokeshire many years ago. I was then a parliamentary candidate and it was my first time candidate and it was my first time to get elected. Can I echo the comments from the noble Lord in terms of his introduction of this bill and that I do hope it will reach the statute book and can be fully operational in time for the important elections next year? I would nearly echo the comments made by Paul Holmes in the other place and saying that it is a sensible and timely move to enhance further access and uphold the integrity of our electoral system.

I only want to address to particular comments in relation to this legislation. One comment I would address to the government and the other one is a more broad comment in relation to the process of Private Members' Bill. -- Private Members' Bills. The PACAC Comment... "We are concerned that the government do not share this view and have called on them to make their decision clear." I think we will hear comments in this chamber today advocating that electoral law is a mess at the moment and should be substantially consolidated as soon as possible.

I welcome this piece of legislation because it is a small step in that direction. My other comment is addressed more to the authorities of this House and the Commons. Most members are not aware that Private Members' Bills from this house when they complete the process here go to the Commons and they go to the bottom of the pile in terms of the overall process. When Private Members' Bills come from the other place to hear, they go to the top of the pile.

Now, the authorities in this house try to make sure that members bills have completed their stages as much as possible so that before we start receiving legislation from the other place there is not any interruption of our efforts. But this makes it virtually impossible for a private members legislation from this House to become law. I am fortunate enough and that I was the last member of this place to have got a piece of legislation onto the statute book.

It was a piece of electoral law change to the ballot secrecy act. It is much more difficult from this House. I would encourage all the authorities involved to look at this anomaly by which we are treated disadvantages fully in relation to private members legislation. With those few comments, I support the bill, and I hope it makes rapid progress through this house onto the statute book because it is important these changes are in full operation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the elections next year. I also wish to thank and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also wish to thank and congratulate Lord Murphy in bringing this bill so speedily before this
10:20
10:22
Baroness Curran Portrait Baroness Curran (Labour)
-
-
I strongly welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill, introduced by my friend Tracey Gilbert. As it's been said, it's vital to ensure that all electors are able to participate in the process and choose laws that represent them -- choose those that represent them. There are those with challenges that make this impossible in person. The option to vote by post or proxy are vital. As it's been said, currently voters in UK Parliament elections can make use of the online absent voting application process alongside the traditional paper process.

So can voters in England and all can -- it can be used in all local government elections in England. But voters in Scotland and Wales do not have that option in devolved elections. Putting them at a disadvantage. It can also lead to confusion. This bill gives Scottish and Welsh government's powers to allow postal and proxy votes enabled through the use of the UK Digital Service. Given the proximity and the profile of the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales, this is an important bill and provides a key means to address confusions and inconsistencies that can potentially face voters in Scotland and Wales.

My understanding is that if it is passed within this timeframe, it does give those involved in the delivery and those participating in the elections enough time to manage such processes. And may I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to Tracey Gilbert MP whose work I know well. She is Toro, extremely competent and it is clearly evident in her handling of this legislation -- thorough. She has consulted widely and has the support of key stakeholders.

Further, this bill has cross-party support and I am pleased to note the respect for devolution that runs through this legislation and in the handling of this legislation. In fact, I'm pleased to emphasise the positive cooperation and agreement between the UK and Scottish governments, which hasn't always been the case but it is happening now. This has enabled us to be confident in the handling of this legislation and the content of this legislation. More over, as my noble Lord said, the bill also includes alignment of postal voting and requirements which improves efficiency.

This ultimately will need to improve electoral arrangements and voter experience, which can only assist in greater voter participation. I reiterate my support and my thanks to all those involved. Lord Murphy and Tracey Gilbert. Because these are necessary steps that have to be taken and hopefully, I'm sure it can be implemented for these important elections in 2026. elections in 2026.
10:26
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
As introduced by Lord Murphy, this bill has a simple yet important aim, to make it easier for voters in Wales and Scotland to apply for postal and proxy voting. It achieves this by giving the Welsh and Scottish governments the necessary powers to bring forward like relations for devolved elections -- regulations for devolved elections. The use of postal voting in Wales has continued to rise. At the 2021 election, over 458,000 postal votes were issued. An increase of 16% since 2016.

This demonstrates a clear and growing demand for greater flexibility in how people vote. Yet significant challenges remain. In 2023, the electoral commission found that nearly 400,000 people in Wales were either incorrectly registered or missing entirely from the electoral register. This appears to be a consequence of an outdated system that disadvantages certain groups. Particularly young people, Private renters, and those who have recently moved. This is especially concerning and Wales were the franchise has rightly been extended to include 16 and 17-year-olds in Senedd and local elections.

The ability to register online for absent voting could alleviate some of this and that is why I support this bill. But I believe we should go further. In May 2022, 16 and 17- year-olds were able to vote in local elections in Wales for the first time. Yet only around one in five registered and turnout among the F- 35s were the lowest of all age groups. So I returned to a point I have raised before with noble Lord the Minister. As this government plans to introduce votes to 16- year-olds in England as well, why not register -- introduce a national voter registration day to align all parts of the UK.

This could be targeted at young people, perhaps during registration class in school. If registering to vote let's -- takes less than five minutes, why takes less than five minutes, why not do it in school? I'd be grateful to hear if the Minister has given it further thought. This must of course be part of a wider improvement to citizen education so that young people understand not just how to vote but why their vote matters, how to identify misinformation and how to hold decision-makers to account.

I certainly enjoy playing my part in this through the Learn With the Lord's programme. Will has already child automatic voter registration. The pilot scheme is over -- already underway. Testing automatic registration could help reach different groups. Scotland has also moved in this direction as part of a recent bill which includes provision to fund the introduction of automatic voter registration at schools, colleges and universities. And the UK Labour's own election manifesto included a commitment to improving voter registration.

May I also ask the Minister if he will outline the government's current position on automatic voter registration? To conclude, this bill represents a simple and positive step towards improving access to democracy in our devolved nations by removing the unnecessary hurdles and enabling governments to modernise voting procedures. I support this bill and I hope the house will do the same.
10:30
Lord Mott Portrait Lord Mott (Conservative)
-
-
As someone who has spent the vast majority of their career helping to run election campaigns across the UK, I rise to add my support to this commonsense piece of technical legislation. It makes no sense that a voter in Scotland and Wales can apply online for postal and proxy vote in the UK general election but cannot do the same for local elections. And when they could do so if they lived in England. This bill will resolve this. Bringing in identity checks for absent voting concurrently -- is also sensible.

I note there is both cross-party support and the Electoral Commission backing for these changes. I expect this to pass through without controversy. But as other noble Lords have said today in this debate, I do hope it does pass quickly. However, whilst this is a welcome, it is a very minor tweak. I would like to take this opportunity briefly to spotlight a broader concern, as already highlighted by my noble friend Lord Hayward. There are currently 100 pieces of electoral legislation and likely thousands of pages of guidance to try to explain it.

The Law Commission described the current system is being complex. Such system is being complex. Such complexity does not serve democratic engagement. And did, it leads to areas of uncertainty. This means that even the most professional political parties and well-trained professional agents may run the risk of breaking the law through no fault Are politics is now changing at pace. The Constitutional affairs committee, the Commitee on Standards of public life, and the Electoral Commission have all raised similar concerns. I don't propose that, the mist will be pleased to know, to set up my views on how the law should be reshaped here today.

But I do believe that it is long overdue for a full overhaul to consolidate and simplify electoral very soon. simplify electoral very soon.
10:32
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Conservative)
-
-
It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend. I agree entirely with the points he has just made in support of my noble friend Lord Hayward, about consolidation of electoral law that is long overdue. Can I declare my interest as a member of the remuneration board for the Welsh Senedd which settles salaries and conditions of employment for members of the Welsh Parliament and conditions for both staff as well. We have today that rare event of a piece of legislation which I think everyone can support.

I congratulate the noble Lord Lord Murphy of buying for introducing it so lucidly and so crisply. I have little to add except it is extremely important and I agree entirely with the noble Lord that we should really pass this legislation with great expedition so it can be brought into force in both Scotland and Wales ahead of Welsh parliamentary election's and the Scottish Parliament elections which I think is very desirable. In Wales of course the Senate elections are Epoque making, they are different so we need to encourage people to vote in those elections.

We have multimember constituencies coming forward. We have a list system, we have more members, and a lower voting age as was mentioned by Lady Smith. I associate myself with what she said about encouragement to votes. I hope the Minister will be saying a few words about that important topic. With that, but I congratulate Lord Murphy for bringing the legislation through to your Lordships House and look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to it becoming law. The expertise of many members of this House on electoral law matters this House on electoral law matters has once again been demonstrated in this debate. On these benches, we this debate. On these benches, we support the provisions in the 2022 Elections Act to make it easy for people wishing to apply to vote post or proxy, to apply to do so online. or proxy, to apply to do so online. Similarly, we now support this bill to allow the Scottish and Welsh parliaments to extend the provision of an online application for absent of an online application for absent voting to all elections in those countries.

Modernising the conduct countries. Modernising the conduct of elections encourages participation. It can also cut participation. It can also cut costs, with money saved invested elsewhere in our democratic elsewhere in our democratic processes. Fundamentally we need as few barriers as possible to voting, few barriers as possible to voting, subject of course to measures maintaining the security of the ballot process. I remain concerned that there were more problems with that there were more problems with absent voting and the abuse of processes involved in it than with voting at polling stations.

I supported the measures in the 2022 act to try and deal with postal vote fraud. The new rules introduced then to try and prevent parties or candidates harvesting postal votes still seemed ineffective and unenforceable to me. So if we make voting by post easier, then we must try to do more to try and make sure that postal votes are completed with proper conditions of secrecy. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether or not the may be further provision in forthcoming legislation about the security of postal voting in particular.

I have a more fundamental question about our overall approach to electoral legislation. This sensible measure has come to us by way of a Private Members' Bill. As Lord Hayward, Lord Bourne, and other members have suggested, this highlights the need to reform election legislation, not in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way, but in a fundamental way. So that when changes are made, such as were made in the 2022 act, they are not so open to charges of partisan interference in election rules.

For some years, many of us have been hoping for a government that will accept the Law Commissions proposal to consolidate all our electoral
10:36
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that law legislation. The noble Lord quoted the Law Commissions. I refer back to what they said in 2020. back to what they said in 2020. Electoral law in the UK is spread across 17 statutes with plenty of across 17 statutes with plenty of regulation. It has become increasingly complex and fragmented. It is difficult to access, apply, It is difficult to access, apply, and update. Much of the law is and update. Much of the law is rooted in 19th-century language and practice, and does not reflect modern electoral and.

Please Can the minister save the government agree minister save the government agree 's with that? And can you tell us if he will stand, in his words, his he will stand, in his words, his vote, and that of all of his labour colleagues in the last Parliament, to end the provision for a Secretary to end the provision for a Secretary of State to direct the Strategy and Policy Statement to the Electoral Policy Statement to the Electoral Commission? Thereby undermining its independence. This bill is a small independence.

This bill is a small step in improving our electoral arrangements. Many things need to be arrangements. Many things need to be put in place to improve. As Baroness Smith said, we need above all to ensure that our systems are modernised to ensure that everybody legally entitled to vote is unable to do so by being on the electoral register.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, let me start by thanking all members of both houses
10:38
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
thanking all members of both houses for their hard work in progressing this bill. The right to vote is a cornerstone of our democracy and we must take necessary steps to make sure voting is as accessible as possible for constituents. I'm sure your Lordships House is united in both praise and gratitude for the electoral staff across this country on whom all our democratic rights and freedoms depend. On this side of the House, we welcome this bill. It was first proposed under the last Conservative government, and it takes important steps to improve voting accessibility in Scotland and Wales.

It also builds on strong foundations. Not least the Elections Act 2022. The act made real progress in strengthening the security of our democracy including the requirement for digital imprint on online campaign materials. This bill implements significant measures to ensure that those who may have accessibility requirements are best equipped to exercise their democratic rights. It is right to make the voting process as seamless as possible for those who may be disabled, or have particular challenges. Allowing them to register for absent voting digitally takes large steps to ensure that this is the case.

However, effective fraud checks are needed for both paper and electronic absent voting applications. Safeguarding the integrity of elections is a core duty of governments, and ministers must act decisively to modernise the system and block malign influence, whether that be from domestic or foreign powers. That is why I welcome the government's stated commitment to working closely with the Electoral Commission and others to protect integrity, security, and effectiveness of UK elections and referendums. I urge them to ensure that this is not just rhetoric but is also reality.

I welcome the provisions in the bill to ensure devolved voting in Scotland and Wales is in clear alignment of the electoral procedure for the UK-wide elections. The bill provides Ministers of the Crown in the Scottish and Welsh government powers to regulate services used. This will enable ministers to address any issues they may have, whether it be partial condition of application signatures and evidence requirements. In a manner that a most fitting. I support different governments and legislatures being better equipped to make policy choices for their respective jurisdictions.

However, I do hope that a large degree of alignment can occur between governments as far as practically possible, to ensure smooth administrations of elections. While supportive of the provisions this bill contains to make voting more accessible and efficient, I would strongly caution the government to cease their plans to weaken voter ID requirements. Of course we should make every effort possible to ensure that voting is made as accessible as possible to all in our democracy. But I urge the government to think again, the trade off from loosening the voter ID requirements simply not worth the considerable risk this would pose to the integrity of the voting process.

In conclusion, on this side of the House, we are pleased to be in the position of unity with the government's stance on this bill. The Conservative party is, and will always remain, the champion of democracy and support any legislation that empowers people's rights. With that being said, we should be cautious of any legislation that could jeopardise the reliability or security of that precious democratic process. I hope the government takes these considerations seriously, works closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the democratic system operates effectively and with integrity so that we all can continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms it provides.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to begin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to begin first with a few words of thanks. First to my honourable friend in the other place, member of Edinburgh
10:42
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
North and Leith, worked hard in bringing this important bill through the other place and to this chamber. I would also extend thanks to my noble friend, Lord Murphy, his introductory speech has made clear the benefits of this bill. It is commitment to working to support this bill for this chamber is clear. Finally I would like to thank all noble Lords for being here today to discuss this important piece of legislation. Postal and proxy voting is an important enabler to democratic participation, and one we are proud to champion.

I'm pleased to see there is interest across the chamber in doing this. The government shares the honourable Friend commitment to this bill. At this moment in time, voters in Scotland and Wales can use the online absent vote application service to apply for postal and proxy voting but only for certain elections such as to the UK Parliament. If the same voters in Scotland and Wales wish to use the online service to apply for an absent vote for a devolved election, they will find themselves unable to do so.

This means many voters in Scotland and Wales who wish to apply for this still needs to complete a paper application. This bill creates the legal framework to give voters in Scotland and Wales an equal choice in how they apply for their absent voting arrangements for use in the Senedd Camry, the Scottish parliament and local elections in Scotland and Wales. The bill also includes changes to align application procedures, as my noble friend as outlined. To bring the services online, further regulations will be designed and delivered by the Scottish and Welsh government, who have responsible of the four devolved elections.

There are clear benefits of introducing the online absent vote applications to voters in Scotland and Wales, and devolved elections for both electors and administrators. By introducing the services, people in Scotland are Wales will get the choice to apply online for postal or proxy voting four devolved Parliamentary local elections as well as returning the existing option for electors to apply using a paper application if they wish to do so. One such key benefit is the removal of a need for duplicate applications to be made by electors if they desire an absent vote for both devolved and reserved matters.

This means electors will spend less time making applications and administrators will spend less time processing them. This bill has been welcomed by the Scottish government, the Welsh Government, and those working in the Scottish and Welsh electoral centres. I want to quickly point to some of the points noble Lords have raised, in particular Lord Rennard, Lord Hayward and points raised about consolidation of electoral law. Whilst we understand the importance of consolidation of electoral law, major reform would require careful consideration and an extensive amount of time.

A full-scale consolidation to bifurcation requires an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation. To achieve this would be the job of more than one Parliament. This government has an ambitious agenda to improve our elections including giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections and strengthening the rules around donations to Political parties. We are focused in delivering that agenda. However, we are cognizant of the challenges facing elections and we will continue to look at areas that help to modernise and improve the electoral process and delivery.

The point made by Baroness Smith in relation to automatic registration. We are taking action and laying the foundations to make the registration process simpler and more automated in the coming years, leading to an automated registration system will happen gradually and will take time. We will test new automated methods of registration. In Wales, the Welsh Government has already piloted an approach to automatic registration. approach to automatic registration. In relation to the national registration day, I think it's an important point to make and I assure the noble Lady I will take that away to my colleagues in the Ministry of education and make that representation and see what more the Minister of education can do to improve the situation of 16 and 17- year-olds in relation to this.

Finally, on the points raised by Lord Rennard, he is right to remind me of my words in relation to the policy statement and guidance statement. I want to see this clearly to the house. An independent electoral commission which discharges its duties without fear or favour is vital for public confidence in our democracy. The Electoral Commission remains operationally independent, with Electoral Commissioners and leadership responsible for determining how the commission should carry out its duties. The actions we are taking to strengthen the electoral system...

The government intends to designate a new strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission to reflect the government was rarities for elections and commissions responsibilities. To conclude, as my noble friend has mentioned, this bill requires further the decision to be made through the Scottish and Welsh Parliament. They have the responsibility to make any decisions relating to implementation. We recognise the drivers behind any decision that the Scottish and Welsh Governments Meme, including the importance of communicating clearly with electors and maintaining the goal of reducing critical errors undermining electoral integrity.

Regardless of the implementation timetable, this bill is an essential foundation for the service to come online for future devolved elections. I very much hope that noble Lords will support this important bill.
10:49
10:51
10:51
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
I beg to move that this bill be now read for a second time. Noble Lords will know of my entering commitment to animal welfare. As a veterinary surgeon and co-chair of the all-party -- all-party and -- all-party Parliamentary group on animal welfare, I try to be an advocate on these issues and I'm very honoured to present the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill to the house today. First, I'd like to thank all those involved with its successful passage in the comments, notably the member for Winchester, Doctor Danny Chambers.

It's a real pleasure to acknowledge any's contribution because I was privileged to be one of his academic teachers at the University of Liverpool veterinary school when he was a student and I was the Dean and I got to know him very well at that time. I was heartened to see how well the bill was received in the Commons and I'm confident that the bill will achieve support and that together we can tackle the illegal pet trade which causes substantial welfare harm to our most popular pets.

It might be useful at this stage to briefly outline some of the historical position that has led us to this situation currently. The bill covers dogs, cats and ferrets for two reasons. Originally and specifically because they are all highly susceptible to rabies, a terrible and universally lethal viral disease affecting both animals and humans. Because of their close contact with humans, those species are the most likely source of infection to humans with rabies. Secondly, because of more recent criminal misuse of the existing travel rules, the welfare of our most popular pets is seriously being compromised.

Before the year 2000, the UK kept our animals and us free of rabies by requiring all imported dogs, cats requiring all imported dogs, cats and ferrets to undergo six months of quarantine, but with the advent of effective vaccines for dogs, cats and ferrets, and increasing human traffic, substantial public pressure grew to replace quarantine with compulsory rabies vaccination, thereby allowing people in the United Kingdom to take their pets from the UK, often to Europe and back without quarantine.

Since then, there has been a huge increase in pet movements and data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency show that non-commercial pet movements in 2011 of 100,000 rose to over 300,020 24. Compared -- in 2024. This was compared with figures from 1995 before quarantine was abolished which suggested approximately 8000 which suggested approximately 8000 per year animals, so dogs, cats or ferrets, were imported. This huge increase gives rise to concerns that the less stringent pet travel requirements intended for genuine pet owners are being abused by commercial traders moving pets for sale or rehoming and taking advantage of the increased demand for pets, particularly dogs.

Published sources have estimated that we need approximately 950,000 copies a year to maintain our current dog population. But there is insufficient UK supply to provide those numbers. Sadly but not unexpectedly, some of this demand is being met through illegal imports of young dogs. For example, in 2021, investigation by Four Paws International found that about 50% of puppies found on gumtree were found to be of a legal origin -- puppies. Every responsible owner wants to give the new puppy or kitten are best -- the best start in life.

However, it has been made apparent that unscrupulous traders are using illegally imported animals are raised in poor conditions, transported for many hours in bad conditions and have arrived in their destinations not in the best of health. And perhaps not vaccinated against various diseases. These animals may thus have health and behavioural problems and may not have socialised properly with humans, which can create really serious problems both for the pet and for the owner subsequently. This bill will close these issues by making it more difficult for illegal traders.

This includes kittens alongside -- including kittens alongside puppies enters there's parity for cats and kittens along with dogs and puppies. The bill changes to non-commercial pet travel rules also extend to ferrets. As mentioned earlier, this species is mentioned earlier, this species is susceptible to rabies, and as a country, we take our bio security very seriously. It's paramount that we continue to protect our babies- free status as well as improve the welfare of our pets. With regard to the non-commercial pet travel rules, the bill will close loopholes in the current rules.

It will supplement the current rules and close loopholes. It will reduce the number of pets that can be brought into the country in a single commercial movement under these rules from five per person to five vehicle and three per person to five vehicle and three her -- per passenger. Currently, deceitful traders can bring in five pets each. Reducing the number of pets permitted in non-commercial movement will make this harder and less profitable for disguised trade to take place.

The bill will also ensure that non-commercial movement to a pet can only take place within five days of the movement of its owner. The new rules will ensure that pets can only be moved by an authorised person if the owner also completes the same journey within five days of their pet. This addresses a loophole that has been used by traders claiming to be authorised persons as a way of bringing animals in commercially for sale. By introducing a title link between the owner and pet travel, the bill seeks to ensure that these are genuine non-commercial pet movements are not disguised trade.

The bill also provides the government with the discretion to determine that the movement should be still treated as non-commercial even where does not comply with the new requirements. This will effectively enable the government to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis to ensure groups with protected characteristics, for example assistance dog users, are not adversely impacted, providing there is sufficient justification for the exemption. The ability to grant exemptions will also allow flexibility in emergency situations, such as when genuine owners are unable to travel unexpectedly within five days of their pet due to medical emergencies and natural disasters or other unforeseen circumstances.

The government has been clear that these exceptions will only be granted in very limited circumstances. They will be tightly controlled and subject to strict criteria to prevent misuse, and I'm sure the Minister will touch on this later in her response. In addition, the bill will introduce a regulation -making power to restrict the welfare movement of animals into the UK. The first time the government uses its power, it must do so to restrict the movement of puppies and kittens below six months old, heavily pregnant dogs and cats and dogs and cats which have been subjected to non-exempt mutilations, such as cropped ears.

Looking at these three things in a bit more detail, regarding the minimum age of import of six months, we currently see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or younger despite current rules inhibiting that. -- It transgresses rabies requirements. Puppies and kittens can be a two early at six months old, making this limit to be successfully enforced. With regard to pregnancy, we expect that, if this restriction were not introduced, traders may respond to the restrictions by importing more pregnant pets instead.

Therefore these new regulations to be brought in under this bill will prohibit dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant, that is two thirds of normal gestation, it will prevent them being brought into Great Britain. At that stage, pregnancy is much more easily judge, example by swelling and mammary gland development. Mutilations, the bill will introduce the power to restrict the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails, and declawed cats.

These mutilations are illegal here in the UK unless they are performed under specific exemptions. If we were to allow animals to be brought into Great Britain that have suffered mutilations, that would undermine the enforcement of the prohibition in the UK. The main enabling power provides flexibility to introduce exemptions to these prohibitions by secondary legislation. It is a very important point. However such exemptions must be carefully considered to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited. The bill also introduces a limited power to create criminal offences.

These may be created for breaching any of the three prohibitions I have just set out, or any other restrictions or prohibitions that may be created under the enabling power. Or for breaching any conditions attached exemptions to such prohibitions. Or for breaching a requirement to carry out checks on animals being brought into the UK. To aid enforcement and criminal offences that may be included, and include obstruction offences. The bill will strengthen the current enforcement regime by choosing powers to make regulations in regards to dogs, cats, and ferrets that have been seized or detained.

These regulations will enable enforcement bodies to recoup costs associated with care and accommodation. And to rehome animals in cases where they have been abandoned. It is very important because it is costly to hold onto animals that have been seized. The bill also provides powers to make regulations which enable monetary penalties to be imposed, to strengthen compliant and deter unlawful at the. The changes the bill makes to a non-commercial travel scheme including amending the limits on the number of animals permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement, and introducing an express requirement for travel to align closely with the owner's movements, will apply in England, Wales, and Scotland.

The bill also grant regulations making powers that extend across all four nations of the UK. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. However the duty to enact the three prohibitions the first time that the enabling power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. Movements within the UK are unaffected by this bill. In closing, this bill is a significant step forward in preventing this cruel trade and will significantly improve animal welfare. It is supported by multiple relevant organisations including the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, the Animal Sentience Committee, and supporting these measures.

And many others. My Lords two similar bills in the past few years have not successfully completed their passage through Parliament through various procedural reasons. In a further consideration of this bill, let us make this third time lucky. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a second time. I support this bill and thank our two Parliamentary veterinary
11:06
Lord Grantchester Portrait Lord Grantchester (Labour)
-
-
two Parliamentary veterinary members, Dr Danny Chambers in the other place, and from your Lordships House, for their sponsorship of this measure introduced with the backing and support of the government. This is an enabling bill setting minimum thresholds of welfare and conditions for the importation of dogs, cats, ferrets, long linked through their ferrets, long linked through their susceptibility to this. Subsequent changes can be introduced to combat the exploitations and potential loopholes, and this is to be welcomed as a step change in effective control.

I received many submissions on animal welfare. Dogs in particular, and I declare my interest as an associate. I thank all those that have written to me, and from the British Veterinary Association in particular who have conducted many surveys on their members who have to deal with the unfortunate consequences of the huge rise in puppy smuggling. I also thank a police dog handler for the Metropolitan Police who is familiar with abuses that occur, and the necessary measures to combat them.

This bill is important to deter the smugglers, improve the welfare of pets during non-commercial importation, reduce the risk of diseases entering the UK, and protect potential customers. I thank the noble Lord for his excellent introduction to the bill. If I want reservation to the bill, it concerns what happens to diseased pets that are retained at the border. The bill makes little mention other than clause 1 subsection 6 and seven. Ken House understand what provisions under forthcoming regulations? One clause allows for "A specified person to meet the cost of retaining the animal.

" And clause B enables ownership of the dog, cats, or ferrets, to be transferred in specified circumstances. The Explanatory Notes do not provide any more clarity. Could I ask the Minister what is envisaged, if ownership is transferred? Could the animal be put down in various circumstances? Furthermore, this provision could be used as a loophole full rescuing mutilated loophole full rescuing mutilated animals,. Could the noble Lord or my noble friend the Minister provide clarity on this point? I have received many submissions from people anxious that rescue organisations will not be able to help mutilated animals in the future.

The Minister confirms that mutilated animals must not be imported and rescue organisations can continue to receive distressed animals through the commercial route for importing animals. It is frightening that the RSPCA report a 2000% increase in ear cropping in the last 10 years. Does the Minister agree that more clarity is needed in a rescue situation to avoid unnecessary distress? Regarding further provisions and relations to be brought forward, Claire asked the Minister whether she has considered to refuse asking frontline officers to come forward with recommendations and reflections on their experiences, undertaking inspections at important points? This could well provide necessary information of how the legislation is working on the effectiveness of the provisions to end malpractice.

I hope this bill passes without amendment, and has every chance to now become law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord trees for setting out the detail of this bill and its long-standing commitment to animal welfare, and
11:10
Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
-
commitment to animal welfare, and indeed human welfare. He makes a compelling case for its swift introduction and I'm grateful to him and the Minister for meeting earlier and the Minister for meeting earlier to discuss the details of the bill. I fully support this bill and hope it will move through the space quickly and unamended. We know why it is important. We are seeing exploitation of the current commercial routes, the system of imports, and this is impacting animal welfare. We have all heard distressing stories about the treatment of animals being imported through this controversial route.

We are seeing the burgeoning illegal trade were criminals are exploiting the current system in an organised and lucrative way. The clear focus on money rather than the health and welfare of. We are seeing a lack of consumer protection with well- meaning potential pet owners finding it difficult to get the knowledge reassurance they would like. I fully support this bill I hope in her response the Minister can come back on a few points. First of all I would like to hear more about enforcement, how the provisions work and have they been discussed with the police in Border Force and do they feel they are sufficient? Also I have been contacted by organisations concerning the bill.

The rescue and bringing in animals who have been mistreated through mutilation. Can the Minister confirm if these organisations should be using the commercial or non- commercial route? If the reduction of animals to five per vehicle rather than five per person is not sufficient to stop bad practice, can she confirm it is the case that this could be reduced further, though not increased through secondary legislation? I do not think we should risk losing this bill as we have done previously by bringing forward any amendments but I would be grateful if the noble Lady could provide reassurance on these points.

And finally on public education, I'm very much an aspiring dog owner and I hope one day I will have the opportunity to care for a dog in a way I would like. Until that day, I bides my time considering where I would find my future dogs was researching pedigree breeds and rescue charities, and it is not the bleeding that can detrimentally impact the health of the pets, it is also the treatment they receive in the first few weeks and months of their lives, and this can have a permanent impact on their behaviour.

I speak from experience here, as the owner of two rescue cats that are sadly deeply and seemingly permanently traumatised because of abuse that they had in their first weeks and months of their lives, is probably a kitten farm. There's a wealth of information out there and it can be difficult to navigate and get the assurance that animals that have been cared for in a way that any responsible owner would like. Alongside this bill, is the more the government can do to help educate potential pet owners about what they should look for to ensure they have a healthy and happy pet? This bill, when fully enacted, will be a marked improvement in animal welfare.

It will tackle the burgeoning illegal trade in animals and it will improve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consumer protection. I hope it will make law and I will support it. I strong support this long overdue bill and congratulate the
11:13
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
overdue bill and congratulate the noble Lord in steering it through this house. My noble friend Lady Fookes has asked me to say how much she wishes she was here. She has been an at a long-standing event for a war widow's association and she supports the bill. I want to talk about the plight of cats and kittens being smuggled into the country. I declare her interest as a patron of International Care and I declare an interest as a cat owner, as I know is the Minister, a proud owner of Sid.

The commercial market for cats has been changing in recent years. There's been a significant rise in the number of pure red and pedigree cats in the UK, and for the first time a number of these cats acquired over the last year has overtaken the market for cats like my own, with significant consequences because of the increase in the smuggling of such cats from abroad. According to the Cat Protection Survey, 4% of cats were from abroad. It is an astonishing 65,000 cats and kittens.

As any cat owner knows from a visit to the vet, travel is very traumatic and particularly for young ones. It causes severe stress, in turn causing serious clinical symptoms. Far too many cats are being transported or smuggled into this country in distressing conditions, often many in a vehicle at the same time. This bill will help tackle the problem by banning the import of kittens under six months. Pregnant cats in the last one third of the gestation period and reducing the number of cats who can enter in one single motor vehicle to five.

It is still a large number and ideal I think number should be three per vehicle which is still a significant number. It will not impact on the vast majority of UK cat owners. Perhaps the noble Lady or noble Lord Mac could explain why the number was set at five rather than three? The results were not to be an improvement in the welfare of imported caps, it will, as we heard from Lord Trees protect humans from imported diseases Smuggling is known to be a public health risk with some diseases being able to spread from cats to humans, with potentially fatal consequences.

We need to make sure we avert that risk. I have often raised the issue of the horrendous impact on cats mutilations undertaken for cosmetic or designer purposes. One important aspect of this bill is to ban the importation of cats with mutilations, particularly those that have been declawed, a barbaric and painful procedure. As noble Lords Mac no, declawing is illegal. If I have one problem in this bill, it is that it is enabling legislation requiring national authorities to make regulation to lead to the possible tremendous consultation and delay.

It hasn't the noble Lady heard the concerns of the delays in preventing it two years on from reaching the statue but we are set in a doomed cycle highlighting the problem of enabling legislation and we also encounter problems under the last government with the regulations concerning electronic shock collars, inexplicably delayed for general election. Nothing has been heard since and cats and dogs are still suffering needlessly. The same thing must not happen to this legislation. I would ask for a commitment from the noble Lady to implement it the maximum possible speed and not allow it to become victim to the same problems that have affected other animal welfare laws.

With that caveat I strongly support this bill and wish it well. Let's get it onto and wish it well. Let's get it onto
11:17
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
When I first read the title of this bill, I did wonder about the ferrets because -- but now I understand because dogs, cats and ferrets can carry rabies. I look forward at some point... I don't often agree with Lord Black but I do agree with what he said about the need for as -- for speed. This will require binding legislation and it is clear that we need to put criminal gangs and damaged animals out of their desperate straights as well.

This bill seeks to improve animal welfare and reduce illegal, cruel exploitation. This is known apparently as the puppy smuggling bill because criminal gangs have been exploiting loopholes in the law and avoiding welfare checks that the UK strongly requires. This process is going to need a lot of work in the future to stop further illegal exploitation and to stop animals being imported having experienced great cruelty and becoming very traumatised is going to be a lot of work.

I loathe the whole idea of subsequent legislation that we never subsequent legislation that we never get to but it is in this case absolutely crucial. And what we know is that heavily pregnant bitches are transported in cramped conditions and puppies are removed from their mothers are too young an age, transported in unsafe conditions, possibly unvaccinated, often with mutilations such as doctors or tails or cats that are declawed. When I first read that, it makes me feel first read that, it makes me feel quite ill.

Even reading this now, it makes me feel quite ill that we can treat animals the say. I thank people who have written to me to say that they have fears about the legislation, and I do understand those fears and I accept there could be problems going forward but I'm afraid this is a bill that has it time and it's time is now. When I read about animals in war zones that need rescuing, I do feel incredibly sad for them, but at the same time, we have to be sure that here in the UK we do have stringent welfare conditions for our animals.

Of course, I'd like to thank Battersea Dogs and Cats Home for their briefing and their strong push to support this bill. Similar bills have failed in the past but we cannot afford to let this bill not be passed, not become legislation, and I do look forward to cooperation on all sides of the house. How unusual, to have a bill that everybody supports. It's a real pleasure. Thank you.
11:21
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
I welcome this bill introduced by Lord Trees. His veterinarian background gives him great knowledge and expertise on animals and animal welfare. I have to declare an interest as a lover of animals and the proud owner of two dogs and a horse. The thought of animal cruelty is absolutely abhorrent as is the thought that criminal gangs could dupe new owners into buying sick pets. I'm delighted to support this bill. Animal welfare is a cause very close to my heart. I spent nine years on the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

It is also so good to speak on an issue with has been so much cross-party support, in the other place and indeed on these benches today. Carries on the work agreed under the last government. The last version of this bill failed due to the general election. It attracted a lot of support from the public. I'd also like to thank the Countryside Alliance, Battersea Cats and Dogs Homes. As we now, the British are a nation of animal lovers and dog ownership has height -- skyrocketed during the pandemic.

It's been hard during the pandemic. It's been hard to fulfil demand. If people cannot find an animal in the UK, they look to bring them in from abroad. As we've heard, this bill seeks to address animal welfare criminality in the pet trade and protecting consumers by stopping the illegal trade. Over recent years, has been much in the press, particularly about puppy smuggling and its abuses but we've also heard from my noble friend Lord Black eloquently about the smuggling of cats as well.

And I gather that in 2023, around 220,000 dogs were imported under travel pet schemes -- 320,000. And it can be a very lucrative operation and therefore needs stricter controls to clamp down on it. However, we must emphasise to the general public that it is perfectly impossible to import a pub illegally as many people do. -- Import puppy illegally. A lot of puppies are in poor health and traumatise. And I welcome the sensible new clause on pretesting to avoid diseases entering the UK.

At the moment, the UK is rabies-free and it's extremely important it remains so. This bill addresses loopholes for horrid mutilations such as ear cropping and tail docking and cats having their claws removed. Like my noble friend, I have had a lot of emails from people worried about older animals that are already aircraft. Some of these have had a horrible start in life. -- ear cropped. Nothing can be more horrible for a family than to acquire a pet, only for them to die young.

And pets and socialised from young, especially dogs, can develop very difficult problems or become dangerous. I do want to put on record the importance that we have sorrow -- thorough and consulted secondary legislation in due course. Like others, I would like to emphasise that we want this bill to pass and to be implemented so that we can stop this terrible illegal trade. To conclude, this bill builds on the work that the previous government did and I wholeheartedly support it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend Lord Trees introduce this bill and I wish to
11:25
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
introduce this bill and I wish to know -- wish the House to know my register of interests. First of all, as a dog owner. I also work for and I'm a shareholder in a large independent veterinary practice and represent an organisation. I fully support this important bill as a supporter of animal welfare. I know how critical it is that the house does it job in scrutinising this bill but I also hope we do not table any amendments that might change the bill, but make these changes via secondary legislation, as some have already stated.

I congratulate Lord Trees for bringing this bill. Also, the government, especially Baroness Hayman and the Minister supporting this bill. Some of the reasons why this bill is so important. Firstly, bio security, as mentioned by Lord Trees, we are rabies-free and we must continue that. Also, the veterinary industry has seen a number -- arise in conditions which have increased due to the increase in the import of dogs. If dogs are tested and found to be infected, in most cases at our practice we would recommend euthanasia, which is an offer outcome and distressing for both obviously the pet and their owners.

The welfare of hundreds, thousands of dogs, cats and ferrets imported this country in poor conditions, when younger heavily and a scroll. We need to also close a loophole that allows illegally mutilated dogs ears, tail docking, mutilated dogs ears, tail docking, declawing of cat by fashion obsessed owners who claim these are important. We need to improve the protection for the pet owning purchasing public so they can buy pets that have had reasonable winnings. I have questions and concerns that many were addressing in the briefing on Wednesday.

I think we need to continue to focus on this once the bill has been passed into law. Not only with regards to import of pets but animal welfare in general and with regards to control of animal diseases. We must keep enforcement on the agenda and support staff and local law enforcement. Access to the country via Northern Ireland. There is a possibly that terminal gangs can use this route to import pets in large numbers. I heard what was said at the briefing but can I ask the government to continue to keep a close eye on the number of pets crossing this border? And make sure that Northern Ireland doesn't become a loophole.

I'm sure that noble peers have already been contacted by dedicated, caring and loving people who rescue abandoned and mutilated dogs in Europe and bring them back to this country for caring and loving homes. The majority of these cases... But criminal gangs do use this to bring dogs into the country. So do we -- so we do need to close these loopholes. We must reassure those goodhearted individuals that we will accommodate rehoming of these unwanted and mutilated at three secondary legislation or via commercially important routes.

But we have discussed the bill to protect a large number of pets that are cruelly transported to this country and protect the pet owning community of this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would also like to thank Lord Trees for sponsoring this bill and I welcome this latest iteration and
11:29
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Portrait Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
welcome this latest iteration and the government support for it. It's only right that we acknowledge we failed to bring this to fruition. Because it has taken so long, it is only right to get this in. I will raise a couple of points which I think are worth mentioning again now. As others have mentioned, it is good news that the change in the non-commercial pet travel rules will reduce the number of animals brought into the country from five to five per person or five per vehicle.

Like others, I'd be interested to know how that figure was reached and perhaps the Minister could explain the thinking in her response. In the Dogs Trust national survey with responses from over 240,000 owners, it was estimated that 97.7% of them had three dogs are fewer. In reality, five still seems a generous and even unnecessary figure given that those animals could provide a that those animals could provide a I am pleased to see the enabling power of the bill that will allow penalties to be looked at in regulations.

We know you get a tougher sentence for smuggling cigarettes than puppies. The second issue relates to the importing of pregnant dogs. In recent years has been a change in approach as people have realised that smuggling a pregnant dog is a better way to reduce risk and maximise profits given that the average litter is five to six puppies. Since 2019, the Dogs Trust has taken 177 pregnant dogs, which demonstrates the escalating nature of trade. I should declare an interest as one of those dogs gave birth to my own dog.

I'm pleased to say that Tess my dog, leads a happy life and is indulged. It has not been so good for her mother. The Dogs Trust believe that despite her young age, when she came here from Hungary she was on her second or third litter and she was in a bad way mentally and physically. She was completely socialised. We cannot know the exact conditions in which she was kept but the assumption is she was locked up or chained up inside for most of her life.

It is also possible that she was transported to the UK to give birth, transported back to Hungary to get pregnant, transported back to the UK and so on and so on. It is a vile merry-go-round which charities say is on the increase. So while it is good that the bill will limit dogs to 42 days pregnant, would a complete ban on pregnant dogs be more effective? Thanks to the hard- working and dedication of the Dogs Trust which is a fantastic organisation.

I'm pleased to say they succeeded in rehoming tester, but she paid a terrible price in terms of health and welfare. Perhaps the Minister could explain further. I know she is genuinely committed to animal welfare and now in government. On both points I raised, the bill provides a significant improvement on the current situation and I would those who say let's get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it unamended. I support this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support this bill wholeheartedly and congratulate Lord Trees for introducing this excellent legislation to this House. On many legislation to this House. On many occasions, as noble Lords are aware, the subject has been raised in a the subject has been raised in a number of Private Members' Bills. Hopefully this time we will get it through. What it is all about is
11:34
Earl of Courtown Portrait The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
through. What it is all about is mentioned by noble Lords, it is basically raising the consent of both the legal and illegal puppy trade. Age and distressing conditions in which animals are transported, and the very real threat of dog to dog and dog to human disease. Current rules remain vulnerable to abuse. Puppies and kittens are still being imported far too young legally and illegally often in appalling conditions, and often with unsatisfactory health documents. These animals and their parents continue to suffer greatly.

The unsuspecting families who purchase them are left heartbroken when the animals fall ill or die prematurely. This bill seeks to tackle those harms by restricting the import of puppies and kittens under six months of age. By prohibiting the importation of heavily pregnant animals, and by clamping down on the cruel practice of cropping dogs is or cropping their tails abroad only to sell them here which has been mentioned by many noble Lords. The bill also closes loopholes in the Pet Travel Scheme which has been exploited by a scrupulous traders masquerading as private owners.

I also wish to raise private owners. I also wish to raise " Which follows an English vet as he seeks to stop the cruel puppy mill industry and puppy smuggling and ban US pet stores from selling puppies. Mark is the founder of the successful campaign to ban commercial puppy dealing, thereby making all breeders accountable. And provides secretariat for the all- party dogs advisory welfare group which I'm proud to be an officer. The bill is not just about protecting animals.

It is also about protecting the public. And tapeworm and rabies and other serious diseases. These remain present risk. By strengthening import rules, the bill reduces the chance of devastating animals. Thereby safeguarding human health and the health of our domestic pet population. My Lords I want to raise one issue which the noble Lord mentioned, the movement of young puppies from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. As noble Lords will know, under the Windsor Framework of Northern Ireland, there continues to follow elements of EU law on pet travel.

This creates a serious loophole. 2019 amendments to the 2018 regulations permit breeders to sell puppies under pet sales licence rather than breeders licence if a dog was bred overseas. This enabled breeding to take place in facilities that can evade scrutiny and provides no guarantee of meeting English licensing standards. Therefore young puppies bred in large numbers in Northern Ireland can be legally moved to Great Britain. And sold legally in pet shops without having to be seen with another. The 2019 regulation means they are now effectively two distinct sets of standards for puppies sold in England depending on whether they are bred here or abroad.

Under the former, strict scrutiny of the reading premises is required, where puppy can be sought from the place of birth in the presence of the mother. Under the latter, these important protections are absent with all the potential for the negative consequences of puppy health, welfare, human health, as well as puppy socialisation. This loophole needs closing as soon as loophole needs closing as soon as possible. My Lords, in closing, can the noble Baroness minister tell the House how this bill will interact with the Windsor Framework? And what specific steps the government will take to ensure the route from Northern Ireland to great Britain does not remain a weak link in our efforts to curb both the inappropriate legal and cruel illegal puppy trade.

Quickly and finally, I should give a mention to Jean, a rescue Scottish terrier who sadly died recently. The fact is, as mentioned by other colleagues, people are now getting pets must take the rescue dog as an option and a very good option.
11:38
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I congratulate my Liberal Democrat colleague and vet, the honourable Dr Danny Chambers MP from Winchester, for bringing forward this bill. As well as the noble Lord Trees, his mercenary teacher, and the Minister, Baroness Hayman for working with them both to make this bill a bill backed by the government. This bill represents a vital step forward in tackling the deplorable practices of puppy smuggling in the cruel importation of mutilated and severely stressed animals.

The veterinary profession including Dr Danny Chambers has been campaigning on this issue for over 10 years. So it is great that he has been able to actually deliver this much-needed change in the law, in just one year after becoming a Member of Parliament. Danny Chambers continues Liberal Democrat track record of animal rights, including improved standards in animal welfare and agriculture, ensuring the protection of funding for the National wildlife unit. It was the Democrats who rendered the practice of housing chickens in battery cages while in coalition government.

We continue to strongly believe that we should be ending live exports of all animals. This bill is an important step towards those wider goals. We on the Liberal Democrat benches, like other parties, are united in asking that no changes be made to this bill within the House of Lords. So this legislation can be passed as quickly as possible. Because dogs and cats, and ferrets, can't wait any longer. The scale of the problem is alarming. The current system has proved vulnerable to commercial imports and frequently been disguised as non-commercial movements.

To deliberately bypass more stringent requirements. The Animal and Plant Health Agency reported that in 2022, pet dogs were imported into the UK and it went up to 43% since 2020. I thank Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for their detailed briefing in support of this bill. Thanks also to Battersea for our own much loved rescue cat. The story much loved rescue cat. The story from Battersea of Milo, the dope man puppy is enough to break any heart. He was born in the UK but using the current loophole this bill sets out to fix, his is were cropped using cotton surgical thread, and is tails docked.

All illegal in this country but done here because protections are not strong enough. He came to Battersea at six months, and following surgery and supports, I'm delighted to report he now lives with a loving family and his older mental. People can get away with this and claim that Milo came from abroad and therefore this barbarism can be given to dogs like him here in England. Likewise the horrific stories we have heard about. This bill also addresses several critical issues that have long concerned animal welfare advocates.

It seeks to raise the minimum age for imported dogs and cats from 15 weeks to six months. This ensures young animals are not separated from their mothers too early, allowing them to develop adequately before undergoing potentially long and stressful journeys. It can have a lasting impact on their temperament and their health. These measures are essential another measures already described by many peers, not only for animal welfare but also for human public health, as they reduce the risk of importing diseases such as rabies.

This bill has widespread cross-party support, evidenced by today's debate. It has been warmly welcomed by leading animal welfare organisations. The RSPCA has explicitly supported the proposals. The British Veterinary Association sees this bill as a vital tool to sees this bill as a vital tool to end puppy smuggling. And that Dogs Trust also mentioned is a charity that has campaigned against puppy smuggling for over a decade. It is delighted that this bill will finally address this cruel trade. Some have raised the issue of the numbers, five pets per vehicle, pulling it is between some way.

However, I thank Danny Chambers, Lord Trees, and the Minister, for the extremely useful meeting earlier this week. And the clear explanation of support of this number from animal welfare organisations, a select committee, and the needs identified by those in the disability sector. My thanks or to to the Minister for the explosion that further regulations will be able to reduce that number in future if it is deemed necessary. In closing, I urge all noble Lords to support this vital piece of legislation.

It is a testament to what can be achieved when Parliament works as United team. My thanks again to Dr Danny Chambers MP for his initiative, his unwavering commitment to animal welfare, he is a recent and superb addition to this Parliament. This bill is a beacon of progress on animal welfare. I wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it a speedy and legislative journey. My Lords, in view of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in view of the importance placed on rabies in this bill, I have to tell the House, the campaign run by the noble Lord and myself when we were ministers in 1990. I was tempted to wear our campaign T-shirt for the whole of
11:45
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
campaign T-shirt for the whole of this debate. That rabies, bringing it in his madness, but I thought it may not suit the House if I was the weather struck the whole debate. I don't have any spare ones for sale and it does prove the point if you hang onto Sunny for 30 years it may have relevance one day. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in taking forward this bill. He has my full support and that the official opposition. It is long overdue and we look forward to it being on the statute book.

Animal smugglers are despicable people. Making money from animal cruelty and doing it over and over again, I would add the cropping of ears of them to the penalties on the bill. The figures show in 2023 many cases of dog and cat imports were intercepted at Dover. It is just one port as many where this was what it was it is just the tip of a large iceberg of animal cruelty, as money is made from this inhumane trade. What does this non-commercial mean? It is bringing in a cat and a dog and they want to sell on.

It is usually a one-off, possibly with five people bringing cats and dogs. Reducing the number of five per vehicle right. I would have gone further in reducing it to three per vehicle. Why would anybody want to bring in five cats or dogs at any one time? That is bad enough for a fit and healthy animal but this file trade is now bringing heavily pregnant cats and dogs and young pregnant cats and dogs and young There are also bringing in dogs with their ears cropped and cats with their claws removed.

I support the restrictions. That is wise and right. People who care about pet cats and dogs, they want to accompany them in transit if at all possible, not do this. If I had a free hand, I would not have permitted the exemptions in the rest of 5A. In terms of mutilations, I am supportive. I can see some merit in shortening the tales of some working dogs since long bushy tails can get tangled in gorse and brambles when they are working.

However, there is no veterinary nor medical justification for cropping dogs ears. It is a disgusting fad which needs to be outlawed everywhere. Therefore bringing in dogs with cropped ears should be banned. I support those rescuing damaged animals from Iraq and Afghanistan but the disease risks are great and each animal needs to be checked out. Also, bringing in rescue dogs with cropped ears gives the room -- the impression that it's an OK practice when it is not. I propose the government goes further.

We do not amend this bill but we do need a ban on ear cropping equipment in this country. I could not believe when Doctor Hudson said one could buy that kid still in this country even though cropping is a legal. Two days ago I did a Google search to buy dog ear cropping kit and there are dozens of kits for sale in this country legally. You can get your cropping clamps for people dog ear cropping tools from Ali express for just £29.

You can get terrier cropping kits on eBay for just £25. You stick the dog ears in between and you tighten it and the teeth cut the ears of. I make no apology for that sickening description because people should be aware what these things are and the suffering caused for no good reason. Let me come to ripping out the close of cats. Why on earth would anyone do that? Removing the ability of cats to use a scratching post is cruel.

Is an important part of the cats personality. If people don't want a cat to scratch their sofa, they can buy those scratching post. Or don't buy a cat in the first place if you don't like its natural behaviour. Again, we don't have the time to Again, we don't have the time to pause for amendments but it does not go far enough in my personal opinion. And did, it would probably be for another bill. At some point, we have to tackle the other cruelty of breeders deliberately breeding dogs with genetic defects knowing full well that the progeny will suffer those defects as well.

I raised the issue here. It's not relevant to the bill and I cannot see any other opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future. Now, the prime example is the situation -- sharp I -- shar pei. A study by the Royal veterinary College in London showed that a large percentage of these dogs have ingrown eyelashes. Can you imagine how painful this might be? Unscrupulous breeders are also deliberately breeding dogs with hip dysplasia, especially retrievers, causing arthritis and hip joints and pain and suffering.

Cavalier king Charles spaniel is an and is have evolved to have heart diseases. Boxers and Bulldogs as well. Of course, one of the grew -- well. Of course, one of the grew -- one of the new trends is the trend for dogs with squashed phases. -- faces. Animal welfare must not suffer because people want a cute little designer dog to fit into their Gucci handbag. The point here is not that I'm seeking to stop animals from every contract ring asserted diseases which happen in nature.

But to stop breeders deliberately breeding animals they know will inevitably have those cruel and debilitating diseases. These issues are not for this bill but I appeal to the government to take action on it. With the noble Lady the Minister ask her officer for a report on genetic defects in dogs? Will she see what can be done to stamp out illegal breeding of to stamp out illegal breeding of dogs which will suffer from cruel defects later in life? It's apparently illegal at the moment to do it but it's happening time and time again and it's happening deliberately and it ought to be stopped.

I take the view there are some leaders eating animals which they know will suffer horrendous and painful health problems, and that is about as evil as declawing and your cropping. Finally, I turned to enforcement. Because of the inadequacies of the Northern Ireland Protocol come our friends in Northern Ireland will not get the benefit of this bill. Not only will animal welfare for cats and dogs in Northern Ireland continue to suffer but there could be a big loophole, as other noble peers have commented.

What's to stop crooks from bringing in animals into Northern Ireland and then into Great Britain that we? Understand that Northern Ireland may have the power to change the 25 import cat and dog rose as well and if they do have that power come I hope it will be used in due course. Can have assurance from the Minister that there will be increased surveillance and all points of entry to the UK to enforce the 5p for -- five pet per vehicle requirement? Can we ensure that these pets are not then exported from Northern Ireland into Scotland and the rest of the UK? This is an excellent bill but despite its small size, it will make a huge difference in reducing the cruelty to cats, dogs and ferrets currently suffer.

And grateful to have the opportunity to do my rant about tackling the equal cruelty of breeding animals with known genetic defects. And possibly Lord Trees can take through a bill to tackling this in the next session of Parliament? And with ample parliamentary term, I would have floated a few amendments. I repeat what others have said, however, that if we do seek to amend this bill, it may not get through Parliament in time. It will not have the time -- there will not be time to deal with comments consideration of Lords amendments.

I commend this bill to
11:54
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
the house. Can I thank the honourable member for Winchester, honourable member for Winchester, Danny Chambers, as others have, for introducing this bill in the other introducing this bill in the other place and also to Lord Trees for sponsoring it in this house. I know sponsoring it in this house. I know as well as everyone here that the noble Lord is a great advocate for animal welfare, and he has followed animal welfare, and he has followed discussions on this bill from -- very closely.

The UK is a world very closely. The UK is a world leader for animal welfare and has a long history of promoting high animal welfare standards. Many across the house will agree that pets are important members of the family. Lord Black mentioned my lovely cat said. I also have a lovely cat said. I also have a rather elderly chocolate labrador called Max and they are very called Max and they are very important members of a household. -- Syd. The government does take the Syd.

The government does take the issue of pet smuggling very issue of pet smuggling very seriously. That's why we committed in our manifesto to bring an end to this cruel trade which causes unnecessary suffering to animals in unnecessary suffering to animals in the pursuit of profit. This is a really popular and important policy really popular and important policy right across the board. As the noble Lord Trees has outlined the importance of this legislation, it does look to stop the exploitation of loopholes in our pet travel rules by unscrupulous traders.

Crucially, the bill produces a number of dogs, cats and ferrets allowed to be brought into Britain in a single non-commercial movement. This limit is going to change from 5p per person to five per vehicle and three person to five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger. -- five pets. Were the purpose of the movement of a pet is relating to the sale transfer of ownership of the animal, this is to reassure the noble Baroness, the commercial importation rules should be used.

I am aware that some people and many in the house today have called for the measures to go a step further to reduce the limit to three per vehicle. We had a look at this very carefully and had discussions with Danny Chambers MP about this. Are one of the reasons for that decision was to not create unintended consequences for assistance dog uses. There were concerns that could negatively impact on their travel. But just to confirm again to Baroness Hogg, this bill gives us Baroness Hogg, this bill gives us power to reduce the number should these roles continue to be abused.

We will be keeping a close eye on the. The bill will also ensure that non-commercial movement of pets is explicitly linked to the movement of its owner. The amendments made by the bill require that the pet and the owner will have to travel within five days of each other. I was asked to... Buy Lord Kerr food and Lord Black -- Lord Clifford to clarify. We take this disease very carefully. Disease is kept under constant review and where necessary, we do have the powers in separate legislation, to introduce preventative health measures to control diseases that are likely to be spread due to the movement of pet animals into great Britain.

I was now going to look at some of the exemptions that have been discussed here today. Crucially, the measures are going to make it more difficult and less profitable for traitors to abuse the non-commercial pet travel rules, however, as Lord Trees mentioned in his introduction, to ensure new measures do not disproportionately affect protected groups, such as assistance dog users, the bill is going to give the appropriate authority discretion to effectively exempt owners from these measures if needed. I want to provide reassurance to the house.

These measures, discretion will only be exercised in exceptional circumstances and the process for exercising discretion will be tightly controlled in order to prevent misuse. What we don't want is for this to then become a backdoor for illicit activity or to undermine what the bill is actually trying to achieve. By incorporating this discretion, the bill offers the flexibility for responsible pet owners affected by unforeseen events. It could be a medical emergency or natural disaster. It also provides insurance for individuals or someone relying on assistance dogs.

As I said, we have the option to review the bill going forward in order to make sure that no one is negatively impacted, particularly if we see it as being abused in the future. In every case, we will have to be -- it will have to be judged on its individual merits. We will work in partnership with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop a clear and robust framework to ensure that discretion is only exercised when truly justified. The noble Lady Baroness Jones and Baroness Randerson both asked about exemptions to the prohibitions and restrictions that will be introduced within the bill's enabling powers.

The main enabling powers... Will continue to engage with stakeholders as relations are developed to make sure that we know that the introduction of exemptions are absolutely appropriate. I am obviously aware about the concerns about mutilated animals being able about mutilated animals being able We do need to ensure that any pets that come into Great Britain from rescue or rehoming I moved with the stringent regime. We have to protect the biosecurity of our country and animal welfare during transport and know that bringing a dog from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks.

We do recommend that any respective owners ensure testing for diseases, including Brucella Kallis, and that is carried out before movement takes place. We do know that we have the powers in separate legislation to introduce extra measures, as I said. The main thing is that any changes that we might make in future to the Bill do not Open Up Leupolz -- Open Up The noble Lord trees rightly highlighted that the Government must first use these powers to raise the minimum age which puppies and kittens can be brought into Great Britain to six months.

We will also restrict the movement of heavily pregnant and mutilated dogs and cats into Great Britain. And just to confirm to my noble friend, Lord Grantchester, ear cropping legislation does apply to both commercial and non-commercial movements. In the other place there was clear and vocal support at third reading to close the loop hole that allows individuals to claim mutilated animals had been imported, when they have been illegally subjected to cruel procedures here. The noble Lord Blencathra rightly raised the issue of the fact that he can buy gear cropping kits in this country online, which is really quite shocking.

Just to reassure that it is an offence in England and Wales under the Animal Welfare Act to carry out non-exempt mutilation, including the use of DIY cropping kits. Anyone convicted of illegally cropping a dog's ear may be in prison for a term of up to five years, receive an unlimited fine or both. Those convicted of an offence may also be disqualified from owning or keeping animals. The Government at the moment is focusing its efforts on delivering the crucial measures in this Bill, but doing so will also help us to do more to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears.

And will make it easier for us to police the existing event in England and Wales, as future offenders will be unable to claim that the mutilation was undertaken abroad. The noble Lady, Baroness Anderson, asked about pregnant dogs, that limiting the movement of in dogs after 42 days of movement of in dogs after 42 days of gestation. The reason this is... Physical signs of pregnancy can be seen from 42 days gestation and so the signs can be used during identity and visual checks at the border to accurately identify pregnant dogs, cats and the limit.

That is why we can't enforce a total ban on importing pregnant dogs. I did speak to enforcement officers about this and they felt this was the right approach. The noble Lord Blackmore of Lancaster asked about people that deliberately breed dogs with genetic defects, that is just appalling. We are considering a range of evidence, including Animal Welfare Committee's opinion on canine breeding and the findings from our post in limitation review of the animal welfare licensing of activities involving animals regulations, the live regulations.

Under those regulations, anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs or who breeds three or more litters in a three-month period my 12 month period, must have a valid licence from the local authority and licensed dog breeders are prohibited from breeding dogs if it can be reasonably expected on the basis of genotyping FNO type or health that this would lead to well the problems of the mother or the parties. Elsewhere we do support the work of Working Group that works towards a world where no dog experiences health welfare problems as a result of being selectively dead -- selectively bred.

We also support the advisory group who has online sales per -- who identifies online sells platforms to remove unethical Abbas but we will continue to do further work on this. I would also like to echo the noble Lord trees comment regarding the exemptions to these prohibitions. -- Lord Trees. Delivering these measures by secondary legislation allows us to go about further evidence and discuss the prohibitions with the stakeholders, public and enforcement bodies. It is really important that any new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively without any unintended consequences.

So any exemptions have to be appropriate. We have already started discussing in the Department, with Kennel Club, with assistance dogs international, because if there are going to be exemptions, we need to have proper information and evidence that this is the right way to go forward. And as I said before, anything that is brought in exemptions we have to be confident it is not going to create an unacceptable loop hole. So the eagle eyed will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial measures.

This is because there are low volumes of ferrets being brought into Great Britain, unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant legal trade in -- illegal trade all know welfare Mubeena ferrets at this time. However, if that changes, will continue to protect ferrets welfare in the future. A number of noble Lords asked about enforcement. Any new legislation, any new rules are only as good as their ability to actual enforce them, there we are going to be working closely, we are already working closely with enforcement bodies, to ensure they have the guidance and tools to enforce these measures effectively.

The Bill also introduces new powers to make regulations to provide authorities with additional enforcement powers when they are presented with a non-compliant pet. Just answer a few specific questions, local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency are going to be responsible for enforcing any new pet travel and commercial import requirements and the Bill will make regulations to give them a clear process to do so. We anticipate limited additional impact on enforcement authorities but we will continue to work with them to assess funding and resource impacts.

In fact, much of what is in this Bill will make the job more straightforward for them and straightforward for them and actually have outcomes. We are -- have better outcomes. We are looking at how to make guidance, so authorities have the better tools they need to... And it gives powers and the bills to support and strengthen the current enforcement mechanisms. For example, this could be in relation to the detention and seizure, non-compliant dogs and cats, and the cost associated with that seizure and detention.

Any rehoming of abandoned animals and any financial penalties. So, I think in response to my noble friend Lord Grantchester, it does make regulations about attention and seizure. Because those are necessary to ensure that we get effective enforcement, as I said, what is the point if we do not have effective enforcement? And delivering those measures through secondary legislation means that we can develop those proposals with the enforcement bodies, to make sure they are effective, efficient and proportionate.

Both the noble Lord Lancaster and the noble Lord Diallo coltan asked about Northern Ireland. -- Noble Earl. They are in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Windsor Framework, as that noble Earl said. Therefore the changes in the Bill makes to the maximum number of pets in a single non-commercial consignment, as the noble Lord quite rightly says, does not apply to Northern Ireland. But the enabling powers in the Bill to allow DAERA to introduce their own regulations, restricting the bringing into Northern Ireland of dogs, cats, ferrets and welfare grounds as appropriate.

Officials and enforcement agencies right across all four nations will continue to work together closely to share intelligence, disrupt illegal imports and safeguard the welfare of animals. This... All of that should make the difference, particularly as DAERA are currently consulting on some proposals and if those proposals were in to, would mean anyone who sells puppies would need to be registered with the local council. And registered individuals would not them the able to sell, give away or otherwise transfer the ownership of puppies are unwilling, we detonate when they should not been weaned or are aged under eight weeks old.

This paired with the fact that third-party thousand sales below a weeks of age are already banned across the rest of GB, means issue can be tackled by separate issue can be tackled by separate legislation. Just a few words, having talked about Northern Ireland on territory or consent, we have had legislative consent from Northern Ireland and Scotland. We are continuing to engage with the West government as their legislative consent process continues to progress. -- Welsh Government. They do support the bill, it is just a matter of going through the Parliament.

Changes to the non- commercial pet travel scheme, including the revised cap on the maximum number that may enter Jim be in a single non-commercial movement and the requirement that the journey takes place within five days of donors travels would apply in England, Wales and Scotland. -- May enter GB. The regulatory powers will extend across all four nations of the United Kingdom, although the duty to enact the three prohibitions for the first time... To Northern Ireland. The Bill does not apply to domestic travel, this is really important, it does not apply to domestic travel of dogs, cats and ferrets, including movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Those journeys will not be affected by this legislation. As I said at the beginning, we made a manifesto commitment to put an end to the cruel puppy smuggling trade. I'm really delighted that the government is supporting this bill, so we can get to work to just do this. I have packed previously failed versions of this legislation, so I'm delighted to be here representing the government, supporting a bill that we do expect to get onto the statute. Regarding timings, as a manifesto equipment, -- manifesto commitment, we are committed to this as soon as possible...

Having said that, I'd like to thanks again the noble Lord trees for taking this bill, this really important bill through the House today. Matt Lord Trees. I look forward to Russell to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work together as the Bill progresses. I would like to thank everybody
12:12
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to this fairly short but extremely entertaining and good discussion and debate about good discussion and debate about this Bill, there have been some excellent contributions and the passion and enthusiasm in this House for improving animal welfare, it is a wonderful thing and a great credit to the house. In my introduction, I acknowledge the contributions of Danny Chambers, which have been amply amplified by Baroness Grender, quite rightly. And I also want to thank another member in the other place, Doctor Neil Hudson as well, MP the Epping Forest, who has his hands full a bit I think at the minute but he is a constant and great supporter of this Bill and animal welfare in general.

I would also like to thank the Bill team, led by Hayley Atkin, who was sitting in the box over there. And my own veterinary research for all the hard work they've all done in preparing the work to help the passage of this Bill. And of course I acknowledge the terrific support of the Minister, the noble minister Baroness Hayman. Just emphasise three take-home messages, I suppose, but there are a lot more which will no doubt come up in subsequent discussion.

We must try and get this Bill through and we do not want to delay it. Because if it has to go back to the Commons, it will surely die. And there will be ample opportunity to discuss many of the issues in the development and tabling of secondary legislation. And that is the second key message, please can we get to the secondary legislation as soon as possible. And thirdly, when, I hope it is past, enforcement will be critical. And in fact, the noble Baroness the Minister has emphasised that.

I know she is very well aware now of the urgency of moving now to secondary legislation as soon as we can, to get that in place. So, my lords, I think this is not the end. As someone once said, it is the beginning of the end, I hope, of this particular bill. If anybody wants to discuss issues informally in the future, please do contact me, my door is always open and I'm very happy to discuss the issues towards secondary legislation.

But I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in conclusion, I beg to move. The question is that this Bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this Bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a committee of the whole house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whole house. The question is that this will be committed to a Committee of the committed to a Committee of the Whole House Mac. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" the stop Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I think we are
12:16
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
The contents have it. I think we are ready for the next bill, second reading of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this Bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this Bill be I think there was a really helpful I think there was a really helpful debater Animal Welfare and so good for many people in the House to see it. Not just one but two government it. Not just one but two government Ministers resigning today. Livestock worrying is the issue of significant concern for farmers and rural communities. It causes much distress and cost to animals and farmers. It and cost to animals and farmers.

It is already an offence through the dogs protection and livestock act 1953, but the police have sought greater powers, to more effectively detect and enable the prosecution of such offences. And that is why I such offences. And that is why I bring forward to your Lordship's House this bill which will modernise the said act. I start by also the said act. I start by also congratulating my colleague in the House of Commons for seeing this through in her first year as MP. through in her first year as MP.

Already familiar with the bill as I navigated it through the Commons last year. With the assistance of my last year. With the assistance of my noble friend Lord heart, who was there then chief whip and he will be making his maiden speech during this debate, to which I look forward to listening it did run out time in ahead of the general election and that is why I thank the Defra Ministers will recognise how important the passage of this bill is. And candidly they will be much thanked by farmers for doing so.

I also thank the Defra officials for their help to and I know they have been working on this for some time. Frankly several years. So we are nearly there. In essence, this bill is an attempt, somewhat of a simplification of the 1953 act, with some important updates, which are delivered through the schedule, in addition to the clauses. The bill extends the level two removal path in order to address attacks, where livestock are moved to different parts of the farm. It provides powers of entry and allows dogs to be detained with a further tax while an owner is awaiting trial for such offence.

It allows for more modern ways to gather evidence from a dog, including taking dental impressions and other relevant samples. It updates the fines that could be proposed. -- Fines. The bill also include alpacas and llamas, and the definition of livestock for the purposes of the 1953 act. Clause 1 a gives effect to this schedule which brings accident on Rose and Pahs in the scope of the offence. As any livestock farmer knows they do not sit in one field.

They are moved around and we need to make sure and ensure that dogs do not worry the livestock. That simplifies the situation and not only makes it clear that should be under the control of the owner that gives assurances to farmers about what the limits are. Other provisions in clause 1 ensure that any expenses arising from seizing and detaining the dog rather than costs falling on the police. The effect of clause 1B brings a definition of livestock because animals such as llamas are starting to be farmed considerably more and to be managed in livestock settings.

And this modest extension is an important element of clause 1. I know that some other organisations would and indeed has happened in other jurisdictions have felt like it is covering every animal under the sun but rather than doing that and just having these modest extensions, it is ultimately about keeping the bill and the act in line with what was intended, while ensuring that farmers can still be concerned about the safety of the animals. Clause 2 update the dogs protection advice dogs act to ensure that seizing a dog is more straightforward.

This is split into two areas, dogs found without the owner will be charged and dogs considered to be posing a continuing threat. The latter clauses explicit, subsection of the clauses explicit, the constable may seize a dog they have reasonable grounds to believe any dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on the road or path and, be, unless it is detained there is a risk that the dog could attack or worried livestock again. The overall effect of the clauses to make it more straightforward police to be able to grab a suspected dog in order to stop such behaviour and avoid the potential impact on livestock.

Without having to go to court, or wait until the owner is convicted of an offence. Clause 3 ensures that we can be more up-to-date on evidence, taking dental impressions. A dog bite can often be distinguished by what is happening with their mouth and what has happened to the animal, which is particularly important when an animal has been killed. The discussions with the police or anticipating that much sampling should be most straightforward. A more detailed examination of the dog they be required at times, in order to establish the connection to a specific incident.

If it is deemed specific incident. If it is deemed that it would be quite intrusive, the law requires a veterinary surgeon to be involved, to ensure that the dog in question is handled appropriately. Clause 4 extends powers of entry and search by application to the justice of the police. Frankly there have been too many examples of people saying they were bringing their dog and then they do not. The dog simply disappears, never to be seen again. Clause that basically enables a quick element of justice to be applied, in order to ensure that evidence can be seized.

Clause 5 covers the extent and provision and short timescale. This will automatically come into force after three months, after the day the act has passed and this avoids the need for any further regulations which I believe is a good devolutionary approach in primary legislation. Turning to the parts of the schedule I'm not ready address, paragraph 1 I'm not ready address, paragraph 1.6 and 1.4 the act talks about attacking or worrying which ensures that the bill covers what it is meant to.

In paragraph 1 of the schedule of dates that terminology used in the 1953 act so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from the worrying. Attacking is legally part of what is more widely described as worrying, in the 1953 act. However, the term worrying can dismiss the severity of some offences. Reframing the actor so that attacking is distinct from worrying that highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. To give a simplified view, discovers a dog attacking a sheep, cow, cover lid or many other animals that come under the terminology of livestock.

As well as the sort of behaviour like running around these animals can cause distress and severe consequences, such as aborting and there is even a story about how a dog ended up chasing livestock over the edge of a cliff. We need to ensure that not just what people would perceive to be an attack, direct contact with the animal or the dog but worrying behaviour more generally is addressed. To be clear though, this provision is not creating a new offence, it is clarifying language, throughout the act, both in effect attacking and worrying are already covered in the 1953 act.

However it is not clear from that. We do need to send a strong message to dog owners, right across the country. Your Lordships will be aware of support some lawful and tax that happened llamas are really frustrated that people are not controlling the animals which can have a major impact. And frankly too many people are often in denial about that. It is suggested anecdotally that quite a lot of the problems are caused by dogs escaping from their homes. The owners may have no clue about it would be mortified to know that their dog was on the loose, causing such disruption.

People have the power, already to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock, but not all farmers or shepherds want to do farmers or shepherds want to do that. They want the owners to be responsible and that is why I'm keen to ensure that the deterrent is sufficiently strong. The current act of the fine is capped at a maximum of £1000. That will go up to an unlimited amount that reflects the need for an effective deterrent. The reason why it is unlimited, this has become the trend in legislation.

He used the phrase a limited amount, it is a far more straightforward and practical terms have an unlimited amount. The sentencing house and the local courts can make that find relevant to the severity of the offence. I hope My Lords realise this bill is intended to be straightforward. I know there is a lot of detail, that is often the case when we're trying to amend other legislation. I do believe that these modest, I hope the sensible changes will be important for our farmers and for the animals for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which they care. My Lords, I beg to move move. The question is that this bill now read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a second time. I thank my CMP and newly elected Minister for South Cheshire and Eddisbury and the noble Baroness, Baroness Coffey for drawing up the Baroness Coffey for drawing up the simple amendment to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock act 1953. It modernises the law onto worrying livestock and causes such distress livestock and causes such distress to pasture animals, costing farmers and land managers often a sizeable amounts to their livelihoods and I declare my interest as a dairy declare my interest as a dairy farmer, in the rural constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury.

I would Chester South and Eddisbury. I would like to draw attention to important like to draw attention to important measures in the bill. It includes a new offence not keeping a dog on a fixed lead in an enclosed area, for fixed lead in an enclosed area, for example a field that contains livestock. The presence of the dog livestock. The presence of the dog in the field is immediately noticed by livestock, this can range from curiosity to anxiety that the dog curiosity to anxiety that the dog will also be a werewolf.

While it might seem over prescriptive, even a meandering dog with no ill intent can cause livestock to bolt with serious consequences. In addition, the dog and introduce serious diseases such as Neosporin to cattle, causing abortion. This is becoming ever more costly as a consequence. The other important feature to draw attention to is the measure increasing the maximum fine an unlimited amount, allowing penalties to keep up with inflation, providing an effective deterrent into the future. Constant pressure to revise what scene becomes insignificant as years pass.

I have confidence that appropriate farmers will be... By magistrates. We'll the Minister confirmed that guns will be issued, so that constant provisions can be avoided. An estimated 34,000 incidents of livestock worrying in England and. There are many updated features to this bill, such as requiring police to keep a register of dogs seized and extensions to animals are being newly farmed for stop I thank the noble Baroness Coffey for her introduction. Securing parliamentary time for measures is always difficult to measures is always difficult to achieve, leading off into war wide ranging generic pieces of legislation that can become bogged legislation that can become bogged down in a more controversial and contentious amendments.

So I welcome contentious amendments. So I welcome a bill that can make the necessary incisive improvements to specific circumstances, taking a more assured circumstances, taking a more assured progress. Minister Daniel Zeichner in the other place clarified many in the other place clarified many aspects of the 1953 act, including how this bill will apply to guidance and am grateful to him and to my and am grateful to him and to my noble friend the Minister, in your Lordships' House, for the Lordships' House, for the government's support of the measure.

I look forward to the maiden speech I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord heart and wish this bill to pass an amended in your Lordships' House a common law, without delay.
12:29
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness Coffey bringing this bill to the House. I'm sure all of us have enjoyed the TV program one man and his dog, remarking the skill of sheepdogs and shepherds working with very mobile and awkward animals like sheep. But historically and in evolutionary terms, the main predators for whom to animals, whether they be ovine, bovine aw's Irvine have been and are carriers, notably wolves, which of course are domestic dogs are derived.

Dogs and livestock are uneasy bedfellows, or should I say field fellows. In fact most human fatalities from cattle are a result from dogs alarming the cattle which all too sadly highlights at the potential dangers. Livestock worrying and attacking is a terrible problem, particularly in sheep which sheep not under proper control because panic, miscarriages of pregnant animals often horrific injuries and death. Sometimes, sadly farmers have to shoot their own sheep inhumane acts to relieve their suffering, or shoot the responsible dog, who are causing distressing.

The majority of these incidents as well involve unaccompanied dogs, I'll come back to that in a moment. National Police Chiefs' Council recorded between 2,000 and National Police Chiefs' Council recorded between 2013 and 2017 1,700 incidents, with over 900 livestock killed and over 600 injured, as well as a 92 incidents when dogs were shot. And these incidents have been rising at 225 survey by the National Sheep Association. They show that 87% of respondent farmers reported at least one sheep worrying incident in the last 12 months.

And the worst such incident resulted in the death of 44 sheep, in one incident. In an earlier NSA survey in 2021, the financial losses of a single incident of sheep worrying and attacks can be as high as for thousand pounds. And the average cost to each survey respondent was estimated at over £1500, per farm, The NFU Mutual calculates that the total cost of dog attacks on farm animals in 2024 was over £1.8 million. In summary, these events can cause great suffering to animals and great distress to farmers, dog owners and landowners, as well as substantial financial loss.

I strongly support the measures in this Bill and perhaps the most significant that I want to pick out are the measures in clauses 2 and three, which give police the power to seize and detain suspects and to take samples, including DNA, for analysis. Given that the majority of incidents involve unaccompanied dogs, these measures and the powers of identification inherent in DNA analysis provide and should substantially increase the ability of the police to identify the responsible dogs and their owners.

Link them to a particular incident and bring appropriate charges. And it is often the case that repeat offenders because these incidents. So the sort of powers should help enormously to prevent such repeat offences. I'm very supportive of the measures in the Bill, without reservation. Finally, whilst I welcome the bill, legislation is one way of approaching this problem. Essentially this is a problem of irresponsible dog ownership or the lack of awareness and knowledge on the part of some dog owners. A great deal can and is being done by way of information and education to the public and dog owners to reduce the incidents of the problem.

The NFU, in collaboration with the Kennel Club, provide free signage for farmers and other landowners to warn the public of specific risks or dangerous to livestock. There Mac dog or themselves. And to the risks of pathogens such as Neosporin. So let us hope that more information and public education, together with the strengthen legislation that is provided in this Bill will significantly reduce this shocking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

problem. May I start by thanking in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I start by thanking in congratulating Baroness Coffey for getting this legislation to the house. Not a lot of people know this, but she and I first met back this, but she and I first met back in 2007, when we were doing our candidate selection course in some candidate selection course in some hotel in Milton Keynes, I think it was. And ever since then, she has been a most wonderful parliamentary friend. And as everybody here friend. And as everybody here already knows, her career has advanced further and faster and more successfully than I could have ever dreamt of mine.

I congratulate and thank her for the friendship she has shown and in the same breath, can also extend my thanks to Black Rod, the clerks and the doorkeeper's for their patience and goodwill since I their patience and goodwill since I came here, just a few weeks ago. Having been away from the Palace of Having been away from the Palace of Westminster for a year and I did wonder when I return whether everything would be just the same or what changes I could expect, and like all good institutions, when I like all good institutions, when I got it I realised actually all of the things that were important have not changed at all.

And I thank them very much indeed for making sure
12:35
Lord Hart of Tenby Portrait Lord Hart of Tenby (Conservative)
-
-
very much indeed for making sure that is the case and continues to be so. Two Lord Brady and Lord Hunt, huge thanks for their support when I came here. Both of them have given me advice over many, many years, both in the Commons and here and I hope very much to continue to tap into that advice as time goes by. I did not realise this was going to happen today, but I'm particularly on A to B following Lord Trees in this debate.

Because for some time and in all of the aspects around animal welfare legislation that has come in this House and the other place over the years, I felt that we lacked sufficient sort of veterinary input. I always thought we were short of vets so I'm glad to see now actually we have many more vets than we once did. We have gone from zero to two in the House of Commons, that I think probably counts as progress. But one of the reasons that I always thought we needed more vets into bases to make the important distinction, which the noble Lord did just now, between suffering and cruelty.

Suffering that can be measured, cruelty that is generally subjective. In my previous existence, I do also remember the fact that we always used to say it was an adage that we preferred our evidence to be vetted, rather than doctored. And at least we know that when the legislation comes before this House and the other place, it is going to be vetted and it is going to be vetted to the highest possible standards. Students of Wikipedia might have noticed I have only one claim to fame in an otherwise sort of an interesting political career and that is I am the only Secretary of State for Wales to have been born in Wolverhampton.

And this is not something I made much of when I was in the Wales Office, you might understand. But I'm very proud of my West Midlands route. My mother actually put it down to a medical emergency, rather than a geographical preference. But I'm actually quite happy with that entrance. And in that... But that is also where that ended, all of my working life has been spent in West Wales, in Pembrokeshire. Known to many people here, in fact, my wife's family farmed there, my children were born there, I was an MP for a bit of the county of Pembrokeshire, for 14 1/2 years.

It is a county that is steeped in agriculture, tourism and energy production and luckily for me, also steeped in cricket and the countryside. Two things that have occupied much of my life. Those interests have led me to some interesting places. It led me to being able to become both Chief Executive of the chair of the Countryside Alliance for seven or 10 years and it is where in that role I met so many pick Members of this House and the House of Commons.

-- So many members. And in particular the noble Lord burns. He and I come and not a lot of people know this, crammed in the back of a Land Rover for six months in 1999, on the instructions of Jack Straw, in his pursuit of evidence to support the Burns Inquiry into hunting. -- Burns inquiry. A fascinating tour of those wonderful and interesting places, starting with a blank Afro foxhounds, at the time the most interesting journey in terms of its geography but also the knowledge we Its wire entered politics, its wire went to the Welsh Government and ultimately Chief Whip for Rishi Sunak.

And I wanted to return to finish on the animal welfare theme. Because I think we should be all could or... This statute book is littered with examples of very well-meaning but not necessarily effective pieces of animal welfare legislation and there is a reason for that. The reasons governments seem to be hesitant sometimes, which is either the proposals go far too far or they do not go far enough. So what we end up with is either a fudge or an ambush. And I really hope that the current government will, in what ever its ambitions as far as animal welfare may include, or what their ambitions for the countryside might include, will realise that you simply cannot separate different aspects of rural Britain.

Whether it is fishing, farming, field sports or forestry, you cannot separate these entities. They are as one. And previous governments have learnt painful lessons of trying to segregate different elements of rural activity. The good news is that the legislation before the House today is not one of those moments. It is a moment in which everybody, residents of the countryside, whether farmers, whether it is livestock managers, whether it is politicians or indeed anybody else from all sides of the political spectrum, it is something around which we can unite.

And I very much hope to be able to support this and other legislation of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

similar nature going forward. I declare an interest as a member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare an interest as a member of the Countryside Alliance. And I'm a retired member of the National Farmers' Union. Former Member the National Sheep Association. Retired National Sheep Association. Retired sheep farmer and I own a working dog. I think that clears that little problem up. It is a great pleasure problem up. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend, Lord Hart
12:40
Earl of Shrewsbury Portrait The Earl of Shrewsbury (Conservative)
-
-
to follow my noble friend, Lord Hart of Tenby, and I congratulate him on an excellent Maiden speech, delivered with great authority and knowledge about the subject. He is of course a former CEO of the Countryside Alliance and his knowledge about, experience of the countryside, its activities, the wider rural issues, is quite frankly, fast. In addition, my noble friend brings to your logic as his very considerable political experience, Chief Whip is the House of Commons former Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, former Secretary of State to Wales.

-- Brings to your Lordships' House. I know that the whole house will benefit from listening to his words of wisdom for many years to come. However, with the sort of Damocles hanging over myself and my fellow... Very sadly we have been robbed of the ability to share that expense. That will indeed be our considerable loss and I wish my noble friend well and offer him my congratulations. I also congratulate my noble friend Baroness Coffey for supporting this Bill in this House and my honourable friend...

Whose abilities, for sponsoring it in the other place. -- Whose real it is. From a livestock farmer's point of view, it is high time the 1950 act is brought up to date to suit the changing conditions livestock farmers are expensing in these modern days. I'm elated this Bill has received cross-party support in the other place and has the support of His Majesty's Government. For that, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister, whom I know is very supportive of all rural issues.

Whether the cost of sheep buying farmers is very considerable indeed, the impact of stress on animals is simply unacceptable. So indeed is the emotional strain placed on farmers, their families and their employees from such incidents. Of course the majority of dog owners who exercise their pets in the countryside behave in a very responsible manner. Treating both livestock and property with due respect. It is so sad that we must have to legislate to deter and prevent the small minority who do not behave.

But it is essential. This Bill is a golden opportunity to widen the scope of the 1953 act and I agree especially with the new powers contained in clause 4. And with the suggestions of the BVA and the RSPCA, I agree wholeheartedly with comments made by the Association of meat suppliers, when they state, "The definition of worrying should be extended to all farm livestock and to not just include the actions by dogs, also worrying by humans" The reason I say that because I live in the Staffordshire Moorlands, close to the Peak District.

And I have witnessed on numerous occasions first-hand such sheep worrying by humans. In conclusion, I strongly support this Bill and I wish it well in its passage for your Lordships' House.
12:43
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
Firstly, must I congratulate Lord Hart of Tenby on his Maiden speech and I support a lot away said and especially his passion for the countryside. As previously stated, I am a dog owner and have enjoyed the benefit of many years of walking in the countryside across livestock fields. And also I work and anime shareholder and veterinary practice. I too welcome this Bill and congratulate Baroness Coffey for continuing to get this Bill through Parliament over the last few years and extending the 1993 bill reflects a change in the number and the large increase in pet owners who may not know or do not know or have a great knowledge of livestock and how they react to dogs and also the number of livestock being farmed in the UK.

This Bill covers areas that have become concerned to the Vetin receptor in recent years and that being dog behaviour and it is very much reflected in the comments since the... And the aggression dogs have due to lack of socialisation. This is one area the BVA are taking an interest in and we hope to educate and share knowledge with the public. I welcome the update and types of farmers covered and livestock covered to include camels that are becoming a lot more common, as are being found, that we are aware of in our practice.

I have you consent to the bills and support itself and welcome the substitute section 2 of the 1993 act on seizure and retention of dogs. This change to allow police to seize dogs that continue to pose a threat. My concern with the Bill, as with the other debate, is enforcement of the Bill and the Costa police and local authorities. I know the change to help address this in the Bill at my expense of every client is that sometimes the dogs most likely to worry animals come from those who find it difficult to pay their bills.

-- Cost to police. So the ability of local authority and police recover debt will be an issue. Can I ask the noble Baroness the Minister, I know the Baroness Hayman the Minister is fully aware of the pressure on authorities dealing with animal welfare, it is under pressure, as APPG on animal welfare has had a discussion on this recently, to which she kindly attended. Hopefully this Bill will help educate the public on livestock worrying and support farmers to reduce attacks on farms in rural areas and it will be a good opportunity, if it passes, to really promote this to all dog owners in this country.

And also to encourage the education of her dog should be on leads when crossing fields with livestock and them and clearly define what a pet is when they are under close control. So therefore I under close control. So therefore I May I add my the May I add my the Lord May I add my the Lord Hart. May I add my the Lord Hart. I May I add my the Lord Hart. I have to admit dogs running through livestock, whether it is cows, calves or sheep is one of the things that keeps me awake at night.

I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Coffey for bringing this bill to your Lordships' House it is a bill with which I have some particular familiarity, since I was looking forward to supporting it, myself. Lordship's House before it fell at dissolution last year, in July. I find myself in full support of all its clauses, but in particular clauses 3 and four. This is as a result of a harrowing personal experience, the likes of personal experience, the likes of which I would not wish on anyone.

I received a call a few years ago from a neighbour who was reporting that dogs were attacking sheep on a
12:47
Lord Colgrain Portrait Lord Colgrain (Conservative)
-
-
nearby field. When I arrived there I nearby field. When I arrived there I found two dogs, with their muscles covered in blood, standing some distance from a flock of sheep which were huddled together in terror. In were huddled together in terror. In their number sum which had survived the attack, bloodied and in some cases with parts of their faces hanging off. And some with limbs are so damaged that they could barely so damaged that they could barely stand. On the grass across the field were those that had not survived.

The two dogs which had perpetrated this attack exhausted themselves and were standing stationary, hanging their heads. While policeman had arrived and was in the process of arrived and was in the process of gathering up one of the dogs and putting it in his van. Meanwhile, the owner of the dogs, who lived close by, caught the second dog and close by, caught the second dog and took it home, where it was presumably washed off to look presumably washed off to look innocent. Although there was no doubt as to the guilt of both that doubt as to the guilt of both that specific second dog and its owner, the single policeman present and did the single policeman present and did not have the authority to enter the House and take away the second offending dog.

This has resulted in offending dog. This has resulted in the very real fear that such an incident may re-occur. Sadly history shows this to be a very real probability, once a dog has acted in this way. Clause 4 of this bill would address such an injustice, by creating new powers of entry and search. Clause 3 would also have enabled further action to take place, after the event. It provides the opportunity to take samples from the dog, or an impression from livestock, which might provide conclusive evidence, to identify and thus detain a dog, where there is a suspicion of its culpability.

As opposed to the certainty that was the case in my personal example. This is a positive improvement in the terms of the bill, which means I have no hesitation at all in supporting these two clauses in the bill in particular and the whole bill in its entirety and I am delighted that it has cross-party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support. I would like to welcome the and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to welcome the and I would like congratulations to my noble Baroness Baroness Coffey and noble Baroness Baroness Coffey and others who have participated in the proceedings and a very warm welcome to my noble friend, Lord Hart and congratulate him on his excellent
12:50
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I declare my interest as associate of the British veterinary Association. I think this afternoon we know why this bill is needed and that gap in the current legislation. The changes since 1953 in the original act are dramatic. The number of livestock have doubled, dog ownership astounds at 12 million, one in three households own a dog. There have been 35 There have been 35,000 incidents of dogs running sheep a year. During which 15,000 sheep have been killed by dogs, annually.

This causes great concern and distress to the farming community. The countryside code also has a role to play here. It demonstrates the weakness of the countryside code. Also where we've seen the number of wildfires and the nature of wildfires more, causing great concern in Yorkshire. Farming is not a charitable undertaking. Farmers care greatly for the animal livestock. They cherish them, they nourish them. It is a huge personal loss and causes extreme grief to them, not just economic laws, when sheep die in the circumstances we've heard about.

As a result of a dog worrying incident or a dog attack. It shows in my view gross lack of respect for the countryside and the farming community, as well as a sheep and others livestock. It also, we should also take note of the contribution of the farming community and livestock industry to the food and drinks centre which stands at the moment 453 £453 billion -- hundred and 53. I have two small questions to put to the noble Lady, the Minister if I may.

Of those animals that are covered. I welcome the introduction in the bill of camelid's, I think that will cover alpacas, llamas and other such. In my former constituency in North Yorkshire there are what can be described as petting farms and other areas and petting zoos. My question is will these be covered if the dog attacked or worrying incident took place, with a be covered in those circumstances? And then, is my understanding correct that the provisions of the bill will that the provisions of the bill will lap, in 2034? Because the problem will not just disappear at that time.

I give very warm welcome to the bill. I welcome Baroness Coffey, each and every one of the provisions that I would like to support, given the police at the authority and the circumstances described by Lord Colgrain, the dogs run free. I give a warm welcome to the bill and wish it the best on its passage but would like answers to those two brief questions, if I may.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill introduced by the noble Baroness Lady Coffey offers us an Baroness Lady Coffey offers us an excellent opportunity to modernise the legislation which has been left standing for far too long. The Dogs
12:53
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
standing for far too long. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock act 1953. This act belongs to a bygone age of farming and dog ownership. Similar laws have already been updated in Scotland, where penalties are now significantly higher and more species are protected. Dog ownership has surged and with it has come an increase in preventable tragedies. Farmers have spoken of sheep mauled, cattle panicked and livelihoods threatened. Beyond the immense financial impact, a 2025 a survey by the National Sheep Association found that a very high proportion of farmers, four in five had experienced a dog attack on their flock, in the past year.

The balance here My Lords is crucial. We want the countryside to feel welcoming and safe everyone, but it can't be safe if laws from 70 years ago or expect did to deal with life as it is today. The deal with life as it is today. The current 1953 act for example defines livestock and narrowly and limits that the offence to agricultural land, this new bill sponsored in the by an MP extent roads and paths and the definition of livestock to include animals such as llamas and alpacas.

What I particularly welcome is this measured approach. It strengthens police powers for evidence gathering which is critical, a lack of evidence is often where these prosecutions fail. These new powers will be supported by advances like canine NDNA recovery projects, which are still developing best practice for recovering DNA from the docks responsible. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for an offence, which is extremely welcome, thus creating a much stronger deterrent. The devil as ever, as previous peers have mentioned has been the detail of enforcement.

I look forward to hearing more on that from the noble Lady the Minister. Many people simply do not understand just how quickly their lovable dog, whilst gentle at home can cause panic and injury. Research suggests that most incidents arise when dogs are simply incidents arise when dogs are simply not kept on a lead. Education as others have mentioned remains just as important as enforcement and stakeholders agree that while legal reforms are essential, education, and responsible ownership are key to reducing these incidents.

For our part the Liberal Democrats see this more than narrow crime bill. This has wide, cross-party support and is welcomed by the NFU and the RSPCA and others. So I thank the Neville Baroness Coffey for her determination in bringing this forward again. I congratulate the noble Lord heart of Tenby for his excellent maiden speech and his expert insight and look forward to hearing more from him come in the future. This bill has all-party support and is effectively the same one that the noble Lady introduced in 23 which fell with the general election was called.

This bill is long overdue it is carefully crafted and it deserves and easy passage. From these ventures we will support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it wholeheartedly. Is a former chief whip I'm pleased to follow the convention of pleased to follow the convention of congratulating my noble friend Lord heart on his maiden speech. He has demonstrated his long experience of the countryside and rural affairs the countryside and rural affairs and the House looks forward to his future contributions. The House may be relieved to know that I do not be relieved to know that I do not be relieved to know that I do not have a T-shirt on worrying of sheep.

I do congratulate my noble friend Baroness Coffey on her persistence, in being a leading advocate of this bill in the Commons and are now pioneering through this House. There pioneering through this House. There is not much I need to say, since she has clearly set out excellent provisions and the Official Opposition is pleased to support it.
12:58
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Opposition is pleased to support it. I hope we can get it onto the statutory book. Like Lord Trees I look to the National Sheep Association, conducting since 2013. There were 305 respondents, 70% of respondents had a sheep worrying incident. 95% of those between one and 10 sheet. Almost 70% of cases it was a single dog killing or injuring multiple sheet. Still concerns over education and responsible dog ownership and only 14% of respondents were alerted by the offended dog owner, with the majority left to discover the evidence later on.

So, it is right to make a opposed to just worrying animals. It plays down the damage of the doll's computer sheet, pregnant ewes, chasing them around the field, causing their babies to die and then also. She doesn't have to die to kill it. There will dogs running round, they do not care what damage they do. I suspect that many do not realise that the dog or dogs chasing sheep can result in their deaths. Noble Lord trees, I wonder sometimes if townies had seen sheepdogs herding sheep and think it is OK for their dogs to chase sheep around as well.

Ignorant townies, because it well. Ignorant townies, because it many years ago I attended a young farmers event in the city of Carlisle, my rural constituency surrounded. The idea was that the young farmers would take a bit of the countryside into the city and let townies see what they did. One demonstrating was sheep shearing. I stood beside one child aged 12 to 13 which said look at that awful manner cutting all the hair of that poor beast. Yes, it is disgusting, do not look, let's go.

For a politician I was absolutely speechless and could not believe that complete disconnect between Town & Country and that level of ignorance. It may be similar ignorance, people who do not see the dangers of the dogs running wild in a field of animals. Those same people who like those disgusting disposable barbecues that they leave behind and set the place on fire. I note that the bill now includes camelid's. I said to the noble Lady the Baroness, I've seen herds of alpacas and llamas around Penrith, perhaps in West Cumbria she's got some camels as well.

I think they would make a rather short shift of any dogs and dogs attacking them. Whilst the bill is absolutely excellent my worries about enforcement. The police even rural police need to give it the effort that it deserves. They may not bother prosecuting and the funds will end up derisory. I wonder the culprits would be long overdue before they turn up to seize the dog. The National Association survey showed that 86% of farmers found out about the attack and the dead sheep Even if the police when the worrying Izium progress, there may be health and safety concerns meaning they cannot intervene.

-- Is in progress. If the police may not jump into a pond to save a drowning child, then they may not interfere to save an attacking dog. There are examples of police failing to spend to a Baggaley. The average police response time for burglary was nine hours eight minutes. Some rural forces were amongst the worst, Northamptonshire, 28 hours two minutes. Durham 26 hours, big sheep country South Yorkshire... Cumbria was one of the fastest, at a little over an hour.

Without labouring the point further, the point I'm making is that if the police failed to turn up expeditiously for burglaries, there may be little hope that they will rush out to sheep worrying attacks. Yes, taking examples... Taking samples is an excellent innovation but I did a Google search this week and the cost of a court admissible DNA test is between £300-£400. Let me be clear, I'm not criticising the Bill, it is an excellent bill. But I urge the noble Lady the Minister, the noble Baroness the Minister, to write to all rural forces after this Bill became law.

Stressed to them that they must enforce the provisions in clauses 2 and three in investing, taking samples and for seizing dogs, making the owners pay. And I want to stress that the police must take this seriously. And possibly of even more importance, so must the courts. The current laws are level 3 fine of up to £1000, which may be just a fraction of the cost of the killed sheep. The Bill simply states that it will be a fine with no level attached and in theory, that could be an unlimited fine.

With, and most in this House would agree with that, but I want to determine the actual level. -- Who will determine the actual level? It may be a council that Parliament had to intervene the last few months, to pass a law to stop them undermining the laws that will only pass with their laughable sentences. I think the justice secretary announced this week that the government will take Parliament to overrule their guidelines. Why stop there? It is hardly a democratic organisation, so should be abolished.

I have been in Parliament for 42 years and most every single year and every government we have voted to recover sentences for a whole range of crimes, then behind our backs, the Sentencing Council make sentencing recommendations which only give a maximum sentence in a very rare case. So I welcome the fact that in this Bill we have the possibility of large fines. But I'm afraid the courts may be advised to make derisive in penalties as urban-based judges, council members may not have a real appreciation of the damage caused to the countryside.

So again I urge the Minister to get her officials to look at any guidance by the Sentencing Council will may be produced in the future and if that guidance seems to undermine what we in this chamber today are expecting from this bill, then I hope she will notify the justice secretary and get it overruled that guidance as well. So I repeat, this is a good, it is an excellent bill, and I hope it becomes law as soon as possible. But as the noble Lady the Baroness said in her windup to the last bill, she said, I think, "Any new legislation is only as good as the enforcement of it." So this Bill must be in.

By the police, the CPS and the courts. I want assurances from the noble Lady the Minister that she will, pardon me, doggedly how those bodies to make sure they do what we in Parliament have maintained -- mandated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Lord Macdonald, I thank the honourable member for introducing honourable member for introducing this important bill in the other place and for taking it through so elegantly. And also express my elegantly. And also express my thanks to the noble Lady Baroness Coffey for assuming responsibility Coffey for assuming responsibility for the Bill in this House and I would like to recognise her long would like to recognise her long commitment on this issue. But I am delighted to speak and to confirm the Government's support for this the Government's support for this Bill and thanked all noble Lords for their contributions and for their support.

I would particularly like to thank the noble Lord Hart of to thank the noble Lord Hart of Tenby for his eloquent Maiden speech and look forward to his further contributions and welcome him warmly contributions and welcome him warmly to our house. As we have heard, dog ownership has drastically increased ownership has drastically increased since the passing of the 1953 at and so has the number of livestock kept so has the number of livestock kept in the UK. The noble Lady, Baroness in the UK.

The noble Lady, Baroness Grender, notice this -- mention the survey that be carried out by the National Sheep Association on the National Sheep Association on the number of dog attacks that are now being experienced by farmers, 87% on sheep in the last 12 months. With 96% saying they experienced between one and 10 cases of sheep worrying every year. The noble Lord Colgrain spoke about the particularly harrowing attack, which demonstrates why this Bill is so needed. And personally, a few years ago, our neighbour had some sheep on our top field and unfortunately, there was a dog attack there.

Luckily no sheep died it still is horrendous when it happens and I think unless you have seen it, it is difficult to truly imagine the damage and the stress. Because the scale of these attacks really is concerning now. Which is why the Government is so strongly
13:07
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
supporting the bill. Because we do need urgent measures to protect our farmers and their animals. We have heard about the devastating consequences as I said, injury or consequences as I said, injury or death of animals, aborted lambs, flocks of birds being smothered, all of which are appalling to the farmers who own the livestock. As we farmers who own the livestock. As we heard, the national sheep survey showed clearly the concerns the showed clearly the concerns the farmers have raised.

And they also agree there is a need for additional agree there is a need for additional police powers. So we must go further to protect our agricultural sector from this, which is why we so strongly support the bill. Livestock worrying, as we have had, does not just have an emotional impact, it also has... Places a large financial strain on farmers. 2025 survey carried out by the National Farmers' Union and the total cost of Union and the total cost of livestock worrying across the UK livestock worrying across the UK reached £1.8 billion.

In England, the Midlands was the worst hit region by cost. With dog attacks on region by cost. With dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £452,000. This clearly shows how detrimental this can be full farmers detrimental this can be full farmers livelihoods. So the Bill is going to address farmers concerned by strengthening police powers, these include extending powers of seizure, modifying powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Under current legislation, the police can only sees a dog found and suspected to have attacked worried livestock for the process of identifying an owner.

Under the Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe there is a risk that adopted attack or lorry livestock again, they will have the power to seize and detain the dog. -- That a dog may attack or worried livestock again. If proceedings are brought forward to an offence until those proceedings have been concluded or John. The police can only enter the premises for the purpose of identifying a dog, the police powers will be extended to allow the police to enter and search premises to seize a dog and take samples if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed.

Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and dental impressions from a dog or livestock when they have reasonable grounds to believe the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that the sample impression might provide evidence of the offence. These powers give the police the tools they need to bring offenders to justice and will help ease the worry that so many farmers feel when it comes to dog attacks on their livestock. And to better deter livestock worrying offences, the Bill will also increase the maximum penalty, a fine of £1000 to an unlimited fine.

This is a measure that reflects a severe consequences these incidents have on livestock, their keepers and the significant resources required by the police to investigate. I noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about guidance on Grantchester asked about guidance on these penalties. The courts will determine the appropriate fine amount and that will take account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. And the level of fine will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive. There are also further questions around enforcement that I will come to in a moment.

Furthermore, this Bill will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and parts and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are current -- commonly found. It also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying, so attacking livestock is separate from worrying livestock. Reframing the attack with the act so the term attacking is distinct from worrying better highlight the violent nature of incidents involving attack of livestock.

So just it comes to some of the questions around enforcement, the noble Lord Lancaster are some questions around. -- Lord Blencathra. I understand concerns around enforcement, there is no point in legislation if you do not enforce it. As the noble Lord Blencathra said clearly demonstrated it has not been working effectively enough at the moment. Another reason for bringing in the bill. Because it improves enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying and attacks much more effectively.

And it should help the police to take each report more seriously. We have engaged with the police on the measures in the Bill and we know that the police are very keen for it to go through and get onto the statute. Most livestock worrying incidences are resolved out of court through the community resolution process. This usually includes compensation, paid by the offender to the livestock owner. There is also a separate regime for farmers to obtain compensation, section 3 of the animals act 1971 provides that anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes damage, killing or injury of livestock may be liable for the damage.

Farmers can also obtain and claim on the insurance in relation to losses occurred because of livestock worrying incidents. When cases are taken through the courts, as I said, the courts will determine the appropriate fine, taking in account of the seriousness of the offence. The number of people prosecuted, the average number of livestock worrying prosecutions every year is 23. This is based on figures provided from the Ministry of Justice on the number of prosecutions from 22 to 24. The average number of people convicted and subsequently sentenced per annum is 20.

Again, that is based on the same figures from the MoJ. Because of the measures in the Bill, we would expect the number of prosecutions each year to increase. The noble Lord Clifford also asked about enforcement as well. And just looking at the police recovering costs from seizing and detaining dogs because one of the issues is it going to be expensive to enforce, how is that going to affect the ability of the police? And what the Bill will do is it will make it easier for the police to reclaim any costs.

Before any dogs found or an owner charge they can be seized by police and can be detained until the owner has claimed it back and paid all expenses incurred as a result of the seizure and detention. Police have also got the power to dispose of or destroy a dog if the owner fails to pay these expenses within seven days of seizure. If the dog is seized and detained due to proposing a continuing threat to livestock, the costs incurred can be recoverable if the owner is subsequently convicted.

The Bill will enable the courts to make an order requiring the owner to pay whatever sum the court determines to be reasonable for the costs associated with the seizure and detention of the dog. And the magistrates' court will also have powers to enforce these orders. So the government takes this very, very seriously, we do not want to see extra costs on the police. There is also a question around microchipping, that might of been Lord Trees... At the moment there are 23 databases that operate independently of DEFRA that provide microchip databases.

And if you include the dog's microchip number in any evidence, that constitutes the processing of personal data and would give rise to a number of data protection issues, particularly given the provisions of the Bill require the register to be made publicly available. The Bill requires the police keep a register of all dogs seized in the area and must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and whether the dog was disposed of and how. That register must be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the public free charge.

It has also been mentioned that this is an issue of responsible We have brought back the responsible dog ownership task force. We've asked them to do work in a number of areas, because it is important that people understand what their responsibilities are, when they are owners of pets. For example, it is very frustrating when people say nobody wants to play. There is a complete misunderstanding of the importance of keeping your dog under control, in areas where there are livestock.

The noble Lord also mentioned socialisation, which is important. Many dogs were left without this, during Covid. Again, it is an important part of ink educating owners on how best to look after their dogs. The noble Lady Baroness McIntosh, just to finish up, after a couple of particular questions. First and petting zoos, it is going to be for the courts to decide whether a petting farm is agricultural land, based on the facts of each case, as it goes to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. Would it make sense, when the regulations come forward to embrace regulations come forward to embrace all commercially produced animals, in the definition for the avoidance of doubt?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of doubt? I mean I am happy to take these issues away. I think for the moment issues away. I think for the moment it covers grazing land. The definition of grazing land is something again that the courts can look at. I think perhaps those definitions are something which we definitions are something which we can consider further. And her final point that the legislation is going point that the legislation is going to lapse in 2034. It is not going to to lapse in 2034.

It is not going to lapse in 2034. I am confident that it has been recognised here today that this bill is really necessary to protect our farms and our to protect our farms and our livestock. Can I thank you all for livestock. Can I thank you all for your time and available contributions. The robust measures that this introduces our long overdue and again I congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Coffey are noble Lady Baroness Coffey are continuing to pursue this issue, because we must pass this bill.

Without delay, to support our dedicated farmers who have long been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

calling for these measures. I would like to thank everybody

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank everybody who has contributed today and it is good to have that yet another bill that has a strong support, from all parties and no party, in order for this legislation to get through. The this legislation to get through. The noble Lord, Lord Trees mentioned One Mandala Dog I did watch that even Mandala Dog I did watch that even though I grew up in Liverpool. Perhaps it was a substitute for not having a pet animal at the time.

Now having a pet animal at the time. Now again I prefer TikTok, Shaun the again I prefer TikTok, Shaun the sheep manner with adventures of his animals. Worrying by humans. This legislation does not align with legislation does not align with that. The animal welfare act 2006 people can be prosecuted, humans can be prosecuted. The concern is that be prosecuted. The concern is that he has. The noble Lord Clifford, I he has. The noble Lord Clifford, I think had mentioned, I can't quite recall in the debate, certainly outside whether this apply to outside whether this apply to donkeys.

I'm now delighted to say that it does. The act includes horses are included in the horses are included in the definition of (BLEEP) and mules and (BLEEP) the correct term, name for a donkey for a donkey. Hopefully that is there. The noble Baroness Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It does mention arable medal or grazing land. -- Arable Meadow. I say to my noble friend that this really is designed around farmers and farm livestock, rather than perhaps a petting zoo.

As the Minister outlined, some of this will depend on the particular facility. In terms of, what I would say also is actually the striking speech and the reason we are here is really that put forward by my noble friend Lord Comrie, very measured way, he Comrie, very measured way, he explained why this is so needed and his own personal experience. I would like to thank my noble friend, Lord like to thank my noble friend, Lord Heart of Tenby. Perhaps a bit risky for the Lords, but dare I say it to for the Lords, but dare I say it to somebody who is now a Welshman talking about sheep, worrying.

They could have actually gone down could have actually gone down another avenue. Nevertheless, I'm sure he will, I know he has a sense sure he will, I know he has a sense of humour and we will continue to see that in the House in the future. see that in the House in the future. I haven't mentioned everybody who is a smoker but I would like to thank those who have contributed and I look forward, hopefully that this look forward, hopefully that this will make good progress through the House.

This will automatically House. This will automatically commence if this House passes it as commence if this House passes it as it stands today that would be good. I hope to get it in before the lambing season of 2026, but with that, my Lords, I beg to move. that, my Lords, I beg to move.
13:21
13:23
None Portrait Legislation: Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill – second reading
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move move that this bill be now read a second time. I'm grateful for the opportunity to present this bill to the House
13:23
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Portrait Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)
-
-
present this bill to the House today. It was guided through the House of commons by John Grady MP and my congratulations for his work as which have received cross-party support. The purpose of the bill is to amend the 2018 Space Industry Act in a way that should strengthen then investment in the UK is a space that. That is important for both the economic growth and defence of the United Kingdom. The nub of the matter is that under the 2018 act, anyone carrying out a spaceflight activity must indemnify the government, or indeed a list of bodies included in contact.

The uncertainty pace fazed by potential investors is at the alt state of an operating licence may specify a limit on the amount of licensees liability. That means potential investors not knowing whether there will or will not be a limit or cap to that. I understand that investors remain unwilling to invest in companies, that hold unlimited companies, that hold unlimited liability. Changes that made her a must is at the heart of today's bill. The bill would amend sections 12 and 36 on the Space Industry Act 2018, to provide legal certainty, that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of an operator's liability, under section 36 of the 2018 act.

There by ensuring operators are not exposed to unlimited liability. A result of much hard work, by my colleagues in the Conservative government, in recent years and now Labour's government, we are in the position where the governments and also in agreement and alongside organisations such as the UK Space Agency, that we have a firm foundation for the development of the space industry itself. There are currently two operational spaceport in the UK. Spaceport in the Shetland Islands, which is licensed for vertical launches and space Port Cornwall which is licence for horizontal space launch services.

It is based on a site adjoining aria from Morgan near Newquay. The space court is working closely with schools, colleges and higher education institution's, across the region to build the skills base to meet the needs of the space industry. The bill before us today should help lead to create economic growth, jobs and prosperity, for decades to come. Across the UK, from Cornwall to Shetland. The 2018 act was introduced to allow space activities, from UK spaceport's such as a satellite launches and some water orbital spaceflight.

These activities require a spaceflight operator licence. My Lords, international law places the responsibility of activities outer space on state, not on individuals. Launch states are liable for only any damage caused to earth and to aircraft flight. Damage caused by spaceflight activities could therefore result in claims against the UK government. To alleviate that eventuality, section 36 of the 2018 act provides for spaceflight operators to indemnify the Government, in certain circumstances. But the risk currently placing spaceflight operators is that the 2018 legislation does not require the government to cap operators liability.

The policy of Conservative government and the current government was and is that licences and liability to indemnify will be cap. That commitment is in a policy document. It doesn't not give the certainty of the provision included in statute law. My Lords, this is rather a long-standing this is rather a long-standing unresolved issue. I understand that during consultation exercises and discussions, with those involved in the space industry, a key request, from the industry, has been that there should be a legislative certainty that space flight operators will not face unlimited liability, not from the UK.

My Lords it is not possible that uncertainty to be removed via regulation powers. As there simply isn't such a power in the act itself in 2018. In fact, section 12, subsection 2 of the 2018 act, where there is no power to have a regulation. Therefore, the way forward, in the bill is before us, today, in the amendments I produce was that it would introduce certainty by amending the Space Industry Act 2018 as follows. Clause 1, subsection a would change the word need to master in a subsection 2 of section 12 of the 2018 act.

And my Lords, subsection D could change any, in the section 36 of the 2018 act -- subsection B. The title of the bill consistently with the terms of the 2018 act. I should note that the delegated powers and regulatory reform committee of this House reported on 18 July that there is nothing in this Private Members' Bill, which they would wish to draw to the attention of the House. The bill does indeed have a limited back story. It was passed by the House of Commons, early last year, when the sponsor was an MP and friend Jonathan Lord, who secured cross- party support.

For that bill. He is Friend, though Friend, though sadly Friend, though sadly not Friend, though sadly not a Friend, though sadly not a member Friend, though sadly not a member of Parliament. The bill made its way here and I was responsible. However, very shortly after the bill had received its first reading, in May, Mr. Right honourable friend Rishi Sunak decided to call the general election a little earlier perhaps some of us were expecting. So the bill simply is lost for lack of time. Today we have the opportunity to breathe life into the bill.

I hope the House will seize that opportunity. I look forward to hearing from the contributions from noble Lords today. My Lords I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move$$TRANSMIT Is that this bill be now read a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second time. Follow that never Lady Baroness only and congratulate her for having only and congratulate her for having laid out the purpose of the bill and
13:30
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
laid out the purpose of the bill and the skill with which she's done it and she has done it so well that I hope it is given the House every reason to know that we should give this bill our unanimous consent and I speak on behalf of the mass strengths of the government backed ventures. I word, myself, like to pay tribute to those members who, having played their part in getting the bill to the stage including Jonathan Lord, the formula member for Woking and the Member for Glasgow East in the other place.

I look forward to the contribution for the Minister, the pleasure of being driven in a double-decker bus. What I want to know is whether he might in future be able to steer satellites. I am sorry we didn't have more time to debate. Although I know the advisory time is four minutes, would you have until 3 o'clock. Anyway, the thing about this bill, the one change, in a section 12.2, from May to mast, there is nothing else to discuss. We cannot leave the bill to one side and in this debate, it to say what many of us want to say.

It stole the huge potential of the U.K.'s future in space. And of course I want to declare an interest in a wonderful interest to declare, a member of the special committee set up by the House earlier this year, entitled UK Engagement in Space. I am at the moment gazing across at the chamber and my noble friend if I can call it that, we all are on that committee that, we all are on that committee And will be to participate in today's debate.

Our inquiries and NESN. Often you have to wait ages for Parliamentary time to debate a report, we are now debating a subject before the report has even been published. This Bill is all about unlocking the potential of future investment in space by providing a more certain climate. I just want to highlight some of the brief areas, I do not have very much time. One is economic opportunity. The House of Lords notes for this Bill helpfully set out the fact that space is not just big, it is very big as this.

The figures in the House of Lords report indicates the sheer scale of the market. A satellite, estimated to be 50 billion of the market. A satellite, estimated to be 50,000,000,000 x 20 33 and the value already to the UK sector. I would like to say a word about sovereign launch capacity, a point that may be raised by others in this debate. Everyone knows that there are several military uses the space but we may not always be to rely on the United States in future.

Acid and I think there is an argument to be made about our own launch capacity, as was mentioned by the noble Lady. I don't want to pre-empt what our committee will say. And I know there are other potential sites available. We may hear some of the mentioned in this debate. But it is a point worth making. We have unique geographic advantages, forgive me of the House already knows this, but unlike some companies... Countries like Germany, we have this capacity little launch from places in the Shetlands and it is ideal from polar -- for polar orbit.

The more important it is to have a position where you can launch satellites in that orbit. Then there is space debris. The one thing you need to know about space above our Earth is that it is anything but empty. Most members might be staggered at the amount of space debris we now think there is. I think our committee was told there might be 30,000 tracked objects but they could be up to one million others untracked, some of which can be really tiny but if they punch a hole in your satellite or spacecraft it could ruin it.

And even now the International Space Station has had to manoeuvre itself to avoid known risks of collisions with others. And in our committee we have this wonderful example of a space satellite brought in to the committee room. And it has this little are that would reach out and grab a satellite at 24,000 miles an hour and then it would slow down considerably, so you then had to release it and it would for two. One of the things that most impressed itself on my mind was we are moving to a stage where the earth is experiencing a pollution sandwich, between pollution in the earth and on the sea and pollution in space.

Heavens, my time has already run out. The whip is looking at me, so I don't even have time to mention farming or insurance services as some of the other major areas in which our engagement in space. I would just end by saying I hope very much the House will give this unanimous support. And we look forward to having this Bill go forward with no amendments, so it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can safely reach the statute book in the course of this Parliament... Session. The topic of space makes us think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The topic of space makes us think about rockets, astronauts and
13:35
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
about rockets, astronauts and faraway places, but one of the great things about being a member of your Lordships BEIS Committee has been learning that there is a UK space company, it is vital to so many industries honour. -- Space committee. And so good at we are developing the relevant science and technology, our UK space industry has the potential to grow. As for any sector, especially a high-tech one such as space, growth requires investment. This Bill, sponsored by my noble friend, Baroness Ainsley and he ably introduced my head today, addresses a small but important gap.

Which are disincentive to investment, as my noble friend has explained. -- Introduced by her today. This serves to remind us that small things matter and I hope it is passed without amendment and onto the statute books without delay because it is important. But of course on its own it will not address the bigger challenge facing the UK space industry, which is getting the investment needed to scale UK businesses, so they are globally competitive and stay here in the UK. Noble Lords will recall we had a debate in June on the scale up challenge for the UK AI creative tech sectors, which most of our speaking today also contributed to, so sadly not going to rehearse what I said then.

-- Certainly not going to rehash. The scale of the challenge also applies to the UK space industry and it is argued be harder because so much of it relies on capital. To paint a bit of a picture, there are 1,700 space firms in the UK, which sounds great, but only 25 of them have an annual income of over £50 million. That is what needs to change. During our inquiry, which the noble viscount has already referred to, we had from a VC firm specialising in the sector who told us that while the UK ranks highly in terms of total private investment, third in the world, it is 17th in the world and 10th in Europe when you look at the average deal size.

And he said this shows the UK is identifying the right entrepreneurs and backing them in the earlier stages consistently underfunding those businesses which does not enable them to grow on the global stage. Just like our AA start-ups and spin outs that have the potential to grow and be hugely successful and deliver massively for our wider economy, the worry is that the UK-based space firms will be bought out or will move operations to other countries where capital raising is easier.

-- AI start-ups. We heard of Joshua Weston of an aerospace company based in Wales who told us that he was continually inundated with offers from Europe, the Middle East and Asia to shift HQ to another country. I know that the noble Lord Hendy is a minister for transport but what can he tell us today which would give us some confidence that the Government will make the changes necessary to incentivise growth capital investment in our space sector? There is much by way of recommendations the government could adopt, we have had many reports from previous committees and I have chaired one of them.

And in the debate we had in June, there were further recommendations that the government could adopt. Sadly I feel we are not getting the right signals from Government to incentivise the investment that is needed. And I know that all attention today will be on the resignation of Angela Rayner as Deputy Prime Minister but I was very sorry to hear earlier this morning that the noble Baroness Lady Gustafsson has also decided to leave government. And as the investment minister and somebody who has come into government having scaled up a tech business, losing her from the government, I think is something which we should be concerned to see.

I was also, I must say, bit confused by the Government's decision to abolish the UK Space Agency and I hope the Minister can give some explanation of the Government thinking on that. But maybe my noble friend Lord Willetts might have something to say when he follows me. But as to my noble friend bill, I'm pleased to support it and I hope its passage through this House is swift.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much welcome this Bill,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much welcome this Bill, which has already received support from across the house. And also I should say, looking around at noble
13:40
Lord Willetts Portrait Lord Willetts (Conservative)
-
-
members here this afternoon, I welcome the House of Lords space committee investigation as well and I'm sure if we keep on, we should listen to the wise advice we are already getting from members of the committee... I should declare an interest, both as the chair of the UK Space Agency and as chair of the regulatory innovation office. In light of that I would just like to make some quick comments. First of all, space launch is undoubtably a fantastic UK opportunity. We have already heard about our spaceport both in Cornwall, Newquay, and also up in Scotland, in the Shetland Isles.

Two fantastic opportunities for us. And we were right to get legislation on the statute book early on to provide a regulatory regime for space launch and indeed, I remember the debates in your Lordships' House almost a decade ago now. 2016, 2017, as this Bill went through. However, and it has been an advantage for us to have that legislation in place, however, there is this defect. And to be honest, the defect was understood at the time when we were debating this but it is possible that there were some bean counters in the Treasury who thought that they might be able to avoid an extremely speculative long-term liability without putting a clear obligation on government in the bill.

That defect is now widely recognised, it is tackled in this bill, and I strongly supported. And moving from NATO must is very important. It is a big difference, as every parent knows. So, it should be must. I would, however, just, if I may, very briefly to comment on a couple of other aspects of space. In particular, the reports of the abolition of the UK Space Agency. And I have to say, and I can assure the House that reports of our abolition are rather exaggerated.

Let me explain what is going on, as I understand it, though the ultimate decision is absolutely to the Ministers for who we are accountable. It was an arms length body. And what grew up over quite a few years was that one group of people sitting in the space agency doing our staff and another group of people sitting in the relevant department, DSIT, monitoring what department, DSIT, monitoring what Stuff.... And Stuff.... And our Stuff.... And our focus Stuff....

And our focus should Stuff.... And our focus should be Stuff.... And our focus should be on the science committee, bringing these two things together have great potential to deliver a more efficient, high-quality space agency and indeed Ministers have already decided and announced that this new entity bringing together the existing space agency and DSIT will be called the UK Space Agency. There is still a lot of work to be done on exactly how it will function, Ministers will be deciding on that, but I think, well and very much hope we'll see an end of this -- what I very much hope will see at the end of this is less tunnel processes and more time on strengthening the UK space industry and serving space science and I very much hope that the recommendations of the space committee reflect that ambition behind the changes that have just been announced.
13:44
Baroness Mobarik Portrait Baroness Mobarik (Conservative)
-
-
I commend the noble Baroness and the right honourable lady in the other place for introducing this Private Members' Bill. I welcome the Bill, which is short in text but highly significant in impact. It addresses a crucial point of clarity, by changing one word from me to must -- me to must, it make sure that every licence, including those launch activities will include a liability cap. This seemingly small adjustment is fundamental because without legal certainty and reliability, insurers are reluctant and investors hold back.

I guarantee a clear reliability framework we sent a strong signal that the UK is open for business in the space sector. Under international space law, particularly under the space treaty in the Liability Convention, United Kingdom is ultimately responsible for damage caused by space objects launched under its jurisdiction. This industry act 2018 give us a framework to licence launches but left indemnity caps to the regulator. This Bill removes that uncertainty and brings us in line with other leading space nations, which already provide operators with cap liability.

For the UK to compete globally, our framework must be both robust and The UK sector is already thriving. Contributing nearly 19 The UK sector is already thriving. Contributing nearly £19 to our economy and supporting tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs. I wish to make a few remarks about Scotland, which plays a leading role. Last go wielding more small satellites than any other city in Europe and Scotland accounting for almost 18% of all UK space jobs. Now, the noble Lord Viscount Stansgate pre-empted that Sutherland might be mentioned.

I would like to say from the Highlands space hub satellite on the peninsula illustrates the opportunity for regional regeneration. The project has planning consent with a number of lordships prepared for vertical launch to solar and synchronous ordinates. Ideal for climate services. Although development oversight remains a strategic option with strong community involvement. When investors assess whether to restart or scale projects like satellite, they look for regulated certain tea and this bill provides it. Alongside Sutherland, the UK is building out a broader launch ecosystem in Scotland.

In the Shetland Isles are now hosting the U.K.'s licence for a vertical space port and range of operations with launch and that licences are granted and first mission is preparing. However, we should not think in terms of a single site, but of a plurality of the site of a national capability, launch in order that operations and downstream data so that the whole of Scotland, from Glasgow to the north can share in the opportunity and beyond to Cornwall and across the UK.

Legislation alone is not the only factor, but it is foundational. This bill will put a mandatory cap into every operator licence, ending uncertainty, supporting the space regime, so that cover is available and affordable and signal global investors that the UK intends to be investors that the UK intends to be a stable, bankable place, to build rockets. Space reports, satellite and businesses that follow. My Lords, this is a practical pure investment measure to stop it strengthens our competitiveness, support high-value jobs from Glasgow to the Highlands and across the UK and underpins a set of vital to our economy and security.

I am pleased

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support the bill. My Lords, I rise today in support
13:49
Lord Ranger of Northwood Portrait Lord Ranger of Northwood (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise today in support of the Space risk management is also that our national ability to that our national ability to participate fully the next wave of technological process. I know my register of interests to have in the technology sector., Artificial intelligence, connectivity network such as 5G, 6G and the extraordinary opportunities presented by big data. We must be clear these are not stand-alone innovations, they are increasingly interdependent and at the heart of this independence lies at the space industry.

Every AI driven service that requires advanced streams of real-time data relies on satellites to collect and transmit it. Iconic connectivity networks which underpin a Monday commerce, defence and education is strengthened by satellite constellations which provide coverage result the ability to analyse big data and current climate agriculture, transport and health is fundamentally reliant on earth observation from space. Gives practical examples. In agriculture, AI models use satellite imagery to guide farmers on how to reduce fertiliser and water, increasing yields and producing -- reducing costs and emissions.

Rapid satellite data allows emergency services to direct help where it is needed most, with AI helping interpret the images in a near real-time. Even our ambitions of autonomous vehicles will be inseparable from satellite driven positioning systems and resilient connectivity networks. My Lords, this bill addresses a critical barrier to unlocking the future, because without it, the risks created by indemnity and insurance requirements written to become a handbrake on growth. Consider a UK satellite launch operator required to take on unlimited indemnity for third-party liability.

The result is predictable. Either they cannot secure formal insurance or investors will simply take their capital to countries where the rules are clearer, the risks are more proportionate. That means a lost investment, lost innovation and lost jobs for the UK. Take the example of a start-up developing in a new Earth observation service. If they face uncertain liability rules, even a minor satellite collision, or debris incident. The chilling event on venture funding is immediate. We are all well aware that it over competitive global economy capital is mobile, talented mobile.

Unless we create a framework that provides confidence, those opportunities will passers-by very quickly. This bill and the maid to mast -- mater must amendment it means operators can secure on a rational basis and it sends a clear message as the noble Baroness mentioned that we want to be the best place in the world to build launch and operate in space. Without this the ability to leverage AI, connectivity and big data those front two technologies that will define the coming decade and beyond will be constrained by some thing as mundane, but as fundamental as unbalanced indemnity as an unbalanced indemnity regime.

My Lords supporting this bill is about more ensuring Britain has a regulatory framework and their vision to lead in the vision of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tomorrow. I support the future. It gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord
13:53
Lord Evans of Guisborough Portrait Lord Evans of Guisborough (Conservative)
-
-
follow my noble friend Lord Grainger, when we become a little he followed me last time round. It is my turn at this time. I would like to thank barrenness anally for bringing this before the House. Also for the time she spent with me to contribute to the debate. Explaining what it was intended to achieve. Unlike a lot of the other people will, I'm not a member of the space committee. I do know a good thing when I see one.

This is an excellent bill. It encourages investment in a growing new industry to stop it looks to the future, it lifts a burden from business and it does it all, without increasing the volume of Statuette, as much as a single word. I am delighted to add my support. We have rightly heard in the debate much about Scotland and the contribution it makes to the space industry. My noble friend Baroness Mobarik very eloquently put the case forward for Scotland.

I understand the Glasgow and out rivals California as a base for satellite technology and no doubt in many other ways, as well. As a recovering Deputy Mayor of London, I always like to put in a word for our city and for the consequences of our legislation on it. We may not provide a platform for space launching in London. Our skies are already pretty full as the noble or the Minister will be aware from his time at Transport for London. Expansion of Heathrow Airport, trans-vocal opposition, I'm sure the Minister would not wish to venture down the road of launching rockets down the road of launching rockets from London.

However, we are well placed to provide innovation to the UK space race. Our universities in London are gearing up to play a leading part with Imperial city toasting excellence in this field. I boost to our financial sector, from this bill. Even though there is competition from around the world, it is 2nd to none still for raising capital for innovative projects. UK regulatory framework, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Is, by the admission of the Minister, in the other place, the most advanced and trusted in the world.

Which is a great place to start form. Of course that is a good news for London's legal sector. People who are never far from our thoughts, in this House. The insurance market will benefit from certainty this bill brings. It is impossible, of course for the sector to ensure against unlimited risk. The proposal to cap risks for each of these projects is a very welcome and will enable the industry to play its part. In my short time in the House I have become used to Friday mornings it being an excellent time to see debate on all sorts of subjects.

This morning has been no exception. We started early with voting arrangements in Scotland. We have moved on to discuss countryside issues, which have been a very interesting and very well informed and we have climaxed with a scene in a space, rather like one of those Bond films from the 1970s, starring Roger more. Some of you will remember those films, there was always a closing quip from on, using a double entendre. I'm looking forward to the noble Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response to the debate. The strong connection between AI
13:57
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The strong connection between AI and space technology, I declare an interest as an adviser to AI regulation. I do congratulate the noble Baroness anally for bringing because of the original sponsor John Brady MP. Making it through the House of Commons and as we heard today My Lords. Many are enthusiastic about being members of the engagement with the space committee, it has been a pleasure to hear some thoughts from members of the committee and no doubt a report later this year, we will debate, in this House as well.

My Lords, as I've heard this bill addresses the I've heard this bill addresses the fundamental barrier. It has been repeatedly raised from government over many years, with cross departmental consultations and reports dating back to 2020 and 2021, consistently highlighting an unresolved issue. The current Space Industry Act 2018 operators face uncapped or unlimited liability when indemnifying the government against claims arising from spaceflight activities. We've also had this situation has meant that investors have been reluctant to back space ventures when faced with catastrophic financial exposure.

I also know the capitalist tend to have a lower risk tolerance, compared to the US counterparts. Making this barrier more significant in the UK context. This is directly put the UK into serious competitive disadvantage, as competitive nations limit liability or provide state guarantee for launch activities, driving companies to choose other locations, with more favourable and regulatory regimes. Of course the noble Baroness Stoll, herself mentioned the scalloped challenges. Presenting challenges in itself. Many noble Lords today and it has been a pleasure to hear them today talked about the potential for our space sector.

We have seen the historical bit launch attempts from UK soil, such as from virgin orbit and Spaceport Cornwall, which were ultimately unsuccessful, demonstrated our national intent and capability. The Baroness has clearly shown herself to be a spaceport fan. More recently with vertical launch licences for sacs born, which the noble Baroness mentioned the UK is positioned to become Europe's leading destination for commercial space launchers. It was a pleasure to hear the noble Lord Willetts as well about his position and his ambition for the sector.

The U.K.'s expertise, in legal services in the city of London. The insurance underwriting capacity offer a significant opportunity for the UK to become space Law and arbitration, the influence regulation and standards and the noble Lord made the case extremely well, particularly universities, shared the Council of Queen Mary. I note London universities have considerable expertise in that respect. The noble Lord Ranger when he talked about the relationship between data and satellite technology and the potential for artificial intelligence, made a very good case.

This bill, I believe, will unleash opportunities in the insurance market, it will facilitate activities like the London Stock Exchange, bond issues and corporate finance. Further strengthening the city's role as a financial Concerning the fact that around 85% of satellites are not insured once they've been launched, making a stable and clear insurance framework even more vital. Beyond the immediate impact this bill does underpin the growth of an extraordinarily important economic sector. Public investment in space yields high economic returns, supporting advanced manufacturing and delivering very strong multiplier effect.

This bill is a strategic piece of legislation that will help cement the U.K.'s position in space technology and the space economy. I heard what Lord Willetts had to say about the relocation of the UK space agency are putting no higher than that, type would very much like to hear from the Minister just how he believes that the repositioning of the UK essay will actually help our space effort and our capacity in the space sector because many of us actually seen from the outside rather dubious about whether this is purely a cost-cutting exercise.

Whilst welcome by the industry, this bill does highlight concerning delays in our legislative response to sectoral needs and of course we have had this is all about going from May to must but it's taken seven years from identifying the original problem to affecting a solution, with six years passing since the space sector first identified the problem. We can't afford such delays when competing internationally. Our regular toy frameworks must evolve at the pace of technological advancement, not Westminster's traditional timeline.

Moreover while this bill addresses one crucial issue, broader regulatory challenges persist. The space economy is evolving rapidly, new business models like in orbit servicing and manufacturing, the noble Viscount mentioned the whole question of space debris, this will push the boundaries of existing regulatory frameworks. While welcoming the spell shouldn't receive regular Tory evolution but rather as one essential step in ensuring Britain remains competitive.
14:04
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
I thank my noble friend for introducing this bill which, although a Private Members' bills, received the support of the previous Conservative government and I understand has the support of the current government as well. I don't want to sound the slightest bit want to sound the slightest bit green she -- like the Grinch in the midst of such enthusiasm for space travel as has been expressed in the course of this debate, but it does I think Fulton me to ask you practical questions about how this measure is going to operate.

And indeed what the justification is for transferring this liability to the taxpayer who has not been mentioned so far by any of the speakers in the debate. On these benches obviously we welcome the prospect of space travel originating in the United Kingdom, and as Conservatives we particularly welcome the fact that private investors are expected to be the driving force behind this program, that is right and proper. For the large rewards that may flow to private investors, they are earned because of the risk they assume.

But if too much of that risk is transferred to the taxpayer then the balance is lost. This leaves me with some questions for both my noble friend perhaps and the Minister. First, it is implicit in the current arrangements that insurers are providing and are available to provide only limited cover for damage covered by operators. Is that correct? Is that insurance available for even on a limited basis? And is it the norm for current operators? Second, the government will in the future as a result of this bill be obliged to bear the liability above an agreed cap but we have no indication of how that cap will be determined.

How will the government ensure that it is not accepting an excessive or indeed unnecessary amount of risk on behalf of the taxpayer? Will the government charge a fee or a premium for the unlimited risk it is taking on? After all, the arrangement It in respect of my own motorcar. I have an excess but I have to pay myself -- that I have to pay myself and then an unlimited liability passes to the insurer in the event that I cause any damage but I have to pay quite a chunky premium for that.

Will the beneficiaries of this arrangement have to make payment akin to an insurance premium? Third question, if an operator can obtain free or nearly free top up cover from the government, what incentive will he have to maximise cover from the insurance sector? Surely the incentive would be to minimise expensive private insurance and maximise government indemnity. Fourth, risk affects not only balance sheets but also behaviour. Someone whose potential loss is fully covered may act more recklessly than someone who has more, if I can use this rather horrible phrase, more skin in the game.

The government confident that transferring a higher level of risk to the taxpayer will not encourage more insouciant attitude to safety on the part of operators? I say this with no disrespect in the CAA as the regulator but they can't inspect is going on inside boardroom heads. On the point of some detail which I am genuinely curious about I would like to draw attention to section 4 one of the Space Industry Act 2018 which provides that a person does not require an operator licence to carry out spaceflight activities in respect of which it is set aside -- certified by counsel that arrangements have been made between ERT kingdom and another country to secure compliance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.

It follows from this that at least theoretically and in certain circumstances there will be operators operating from the United Kingdom who will not have a licence because they do not require an operator licence under section 4 one. This bill, the bill before us today, seeks to moderate the current arrangements through the means of the wording of the operator licence. But in circumstances where there is no licence it's clear that this bill is going to have no effect. So my question really is whether such arrangements already exist, whether there are examples of such arrangements that have been certified by order accounts and what liability arrangements the Minister envisages in those circumstances, and will he confirm that those liability arrangements are going to remain unchanged? Would the matter be different if those arrangements were made with private company? Let us say it was not, imagine a circumstance.

Imagine a case. Our obligations under NATO are that which are international obligations, resulted in United States launching satellites from the United Kingdom. You can understand that happening. What if the United States were to contract that says to Mr masks operation, a very likely possibility. How does the liability work in those cases and will that change as a result of this bill? If so how does the government envisage that is in fact going to work? I have other questions I would like to ask, I think that's enough for the Minister to be going on with.

The enthusiasm we have for space is tremendous and I encourage it, I don't expect myself to see it, Chasiv Yar earth down there below me not in my time, but there are young members of your Lordships house no doubt, some behind me who have that prospect. I wish them well of it but in the meantime I would simply like to know that we have buttoned down exactly what it is this bill is leading to and that the taxpayer is not going to be given a large liability that should more properly be born by those who reap the benefits of space travel, financial and commercial benefits of space

**** Possible New Speaker ****

travel. I'm delighted that this bill has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm delighted that this bill has come before your Lordships house, I
14:11
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
come before your Lordships house, I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for bringing forward the short but crucial bill. I'm pleased to confirm that she has the full support of government and I thank all noble Lords for their comments and debate and for their support as well. And of course particularly pleasing to hear from so many noble Lords who are members of the space committee. Fry briefly outline why the government is fully supportive of this bill I would like to say a few words about the recent passing of Frank Strang MBE the driving force between the spaceport in the Shetland Islands, the U.K.'s first fully licensed vertical spaceport you died at the age of 67.

He was a passionate supporter of the UK launch program and a real force of nature. His loss is particularly poignant as we move ever closer to the UK first vertical launch of the spaceport. On behalf of the government I acknowledge a significant contribution and pass on my deepest sympathies to his family and colleagues. He will be dearly missed. As noble Lords will be aware, Glasgow builds more small satellites than anywhere else outside California. UK is now the second most attractive destination for commercial space investment after the United States.

This government has made it clear that growth is vital to rebuilding the UK and support high-tech jobs which unlocks investment and improve living standards across the country. living standards across the country. The space sector as noble Lords of herd is hugely valuable to the U.K.'s economy, it's worth over £18.9 billion directly employs more than 52,000 people. It supports over 126,000 jobs across the supply chain and at least 346 billion of UK GDP supported by satellite services such as navigation, meteorology, communications and earth observation.

It is now possible to launch satellites from UK spaceport rather than relying solely on overseas spaceport to launch UK satellites into orbit. In January 2023 virgin orbit conducted a historic first launch from the UK from spaceport Cornwall, and as noble Lords heard in December 2024 sacks aboard spaceport in the Shetland Islands became U.K.'s first licensed vertical spaceport. This year we had hoped to witness U.K.'s first vertical launch by German company rocket factory Augsburg. Government is investing in new Lodge companies such as all backs who have factories in Scotland creating hundreds of new jobs ready to take advantage of new opportunities that the government have created.

Other operators such as sky Aurora UK company based in Glasgow is also thriving and also indicated that it will conduct its first suborbital launch from the UK in near future. UK space industry already supports an industrial base of over 1,500 space companies, it provides high skill, high quality jobs across the UK with over 77% of employees holding at least a primary degree. Building on the success of the UK space sector the government will continue to support business through stable policy environment strengthening our economic institutions and giving investors the certainty they need to fuel growth.

The government recognises the important contribution of the space sector makes to ordinary people's daily lives. It's important that the UK builds or the current successes of a thriving and dynamic space sector. We will ensure through the measures this government is taking to deliver growth that UK becomes a leading provider of commercial small satellite launch in Europe by 2030, to achieve our ambition the government continues to support spaceport and launch operators to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and suborbital spaceflight. The government is committed to making improvements to both the space industry 2018 and space industry regulations to ensure our legal framework and regulations remain effective and internationally competitive and the government recognises the question of liability and insurance is of the utmost I will turn to points made by noble Lords in the course of the debate.

Turning firstly to the noble Baroness who asked about global investment, encouraging global investment in the space sector. And we are exploring financial tools and incentives for markets that promote sustainable activities and inward investment, and support a level playing field for UK companies. She referred to the resignation of my referred to the resignation of my noble friend Baroness Cass for family reasons. Her successor will write further to the noble Baroness about the points that she raises.

A number of noble Lords have raised the regional benefits of the UK, both in respect of Scotland, in Cornwall, or in London, both in academic and business terms, and the government strongly supports development of the space industry's for precisely those reasons. It has regional and national consequences. Noble Lords have also raised the issue of the merger of the UK Space Agency with the space directorate from 1 April 2026. But I am extraordinary grateful to Lord Willetts for his very optimistic explanation of what seems to us to be an efficiency move, without curtailing the activities.

And as he says, bringing the activities together will give more efficiency and get more done more quickly and more easily. I thank for his contribution in that respect which is more elegant than others on this subject in the first place. The noble Lords Moylan raised a number of questions not all of which I have that dexterity and speed to answer through technological means currently. But one of the points he raised was in the transfer of risk, and in the possibility that risk, having been transferred, operators would behave as a negligently or not in compliance.

The cap won't apply if that is the case. I will answer his other points. The government is comfortable that these arrangement are the right things to do, and in fact they are what the space industry has been asking for some time. He asked about operators certified by Order in Council, and the public liability of such operators and so forth. Currently there are no orders in place for third countries like the US. Even if they would be considered in future, we would want to assure ourselves that there is a comfortable regulatory framework and licensing structure with the hypothetical country, to our own.

The other country would be jointly and severally liable under the UN Liability Convention for any damage caused. We would anticipate any arrangement between the UK and other countries to make provision for financial liability. UK legislation will still require the operator to indemnify the UK government against any claim for damage or loss against the government arising from cooperators activities. The industry have made it clear that holding up limited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry.

They will advise to obtain insurance for an unlimited amount, and therefore impossible to obtain insurance to provide full coverage for liabilities to indemnify government with the liabilities uninvolved third parties. Furthermore potential liabilities of spaceflight are not easily quantifiable. If the government did not limit spaceflight operators, companies and investors would look to more favourable regimes in other countries where the government shares risks involved by offering state guarantee such as the US or France. As the noble Baroness has explained, the powers and that Space Industry Act limit spaceflight operators liability, that carry out spaceflight at from the UK.

The 2018 act enabled Martial space flight activities which include launching the spaceflight and operating satellite in orbit, and other activities such as the operation of spaceport management that have arranged to be carried out under licence in the UK. The 2018 act sets out the broad licensing and regulatory framework for carrying out such activities and underpins call details in Space Industry Regulations 2021. 2018 act currently provides powers to the regulator to specify a limit on the amount of operators liability, but the act does not make it mandatory.

Section 12, subsection two the act says the licensor must specify limit on the amount of the liabilities to identify under section 36. Current government policies that the regulation should use these powers and specify a limit, or operate a liability licence, so no operator will face unlimited liability. The government fully supports this bill for two he reasons. It is consistent with our policy that all spaceflight operator licences should have liability, and will not impose any additional risk liability on UK taxpayers compared to current policy.

The government also recognises the value industry places on having legislative certainty on this. The space sector continually expresses its concern about the use of the word "May" in section 12, subsection two of the act. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness to this bill which by amending this clause will meet a key request from the sector. We fully support this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. I am of course very grateful to all those who have participated all those who have participated today. And for the way in which they have expressed cross-party support have expressed cross-party support for this bill. It is right also to congratulate them for not only congratulate them for not only showing the way forward, which would
14:23
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Portrait Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)
-
-
showing the way forward, which would mean strengthening of investment within the space industry, but also give us the opportunity to show that the UK is indeed intending to be a leader in the development of all that technological changes that are about to come. My noble friend was rather coy about the facts of his age. He is young. I'm not staying I'm going to send him into space, I promise I won't do that ever, but I would say to him that we have the opportunity here to ensure we support the developers of technology.

He is right to ask the questions he did. I was intrigued by the question about clause 4 of the the question about clause 4 of the 2018 act. I will check again. I read the Hansard of this House to that bill, not fully as the Commons but mostly. I was not aware that there had been a question regarding that. So I thank him for asking that because it is now on the record, because the Minister gave such a good answer. Me saying that the Minister has given a good answer probably hasn't happened since last summer.

I can change occasionally but not often. This is an opportunity in all seriousness for us to be able to have this bill go through this house I hope with further support so this will go through in a timely manner. So those were willing to invest in what is a very important industry feel that they have been given the opportunity to do so, still facing risk but to know where the risk lies. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill now be read a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content".

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. That this bill be committed to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The question is that this bill be committed to a Committee of the committed to a Committee of the whole House. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House to adjourn.
09:30
14:31
09:31
14:31
09:31
14:32
09:31
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page