Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Daniel Kawczynski

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

May I just say for the record that I and my office have received more e-mails and letters on this issue than any other in the past few weeks? I hope that my hon. Friend agrees on the strength of feeling that exists on this issue among our constituents.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he highlights the reason that we have all had so much communication on this issue. It comes back to my point that puppies, kittens and other animals that we bring into our lives become part of our families. As the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said, we would not tolerate any harmful behaviour towards a human being in our family; many people feel the same bond with their animals and want to ensure that they are properly looked after.

As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), if one visits Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, or the Dogs Trust in my constituency, and sees some of the consequences of bad behaviour and terrible care, one cannot help being moved. The Dogs Trust in my constituency does outstanding work but its resources are limited. How many families who were faced with the situation that my wife and I were faced with with our dog Maggie would give up and give their dog away to the Dogs Trust or elsewhere? But let us be under no illusions: the chances are that on many occasions, that dog will be killed—“to put down” or “to destroy” does not have the same impact as “the animal will be killed.” That is why we need to ensure that families offering love and care do not find themselves in a position where they simply cannot care for the animal.

Many constituents have raised this issue with me, but they specifically raised an issue about a pet supermarket in Leeds called Dogs4Us. Petitions have been submitted to Leeds city council, asking it to remove the pet supermarket’s licence, and the city council has looked into the matter. I went further and did the research and looked at the Dogs4Us website, on which it makes reference to an internet campaign and refutes the allegations. The truth will lie somewhere in the middle. I have no primary evidence that these activities are going on, but I do have a lot of secondary evidence.

That points to a bigger picture: what the public are looking for is faith in the inspection regime and licensing system. If that faith existed, people would believe that local authorities would be able to track down and stop what was going on in puppy farming. I urge the Minister to consider closely the suggestions that the licensing and inspection system be renewed, refreshed and redefined so that the public have faith that poor practices, criminality and downright cruelty can be eradicated.

A dog is loyal, rewarding and life-saving; it promotes a healthy lifestyle through exercise and becomes an integral member of the family. As a dog lover, I have focused on dogs, but I know that cat lovers would say the same about their pets. We must do all we can to eradicate the cruelty and harm that can kill puppies and kittens, and to prevent loving and caring families who go out expecting to bring in a new member of their family ultimately experiencing heartbreak, because of a con at the beginning.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Daniel Kawczynski

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the conflict in Bahrain. Does he share my concern that Iran was partly responsible for intervening and trying to destabilise the existing regime there?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Yes, I absolutely agree. Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make about what would happen if Iran went down the road and became a nuclear-armed country, because where else does its influence lie in the middle east? It lies with Hezbollah, certainly, and there is even evidence coming forward about some of the military equipment finding its way to Hamas. My point is simply this. We cannot just make the argument in foreign affairs that says, “Let’s not take any military action against Iran because we don’t want to cause the deaths of innocent people.” I absolutely support that point; but we also need to ensure that negotiations work, and that is why we should be involved, because we could cause the death of innocent people by doing nothing. Those proxy wars are important.

I am worried about the rhetoric on military action against Iran that was coming out three months ago. If we were to take such action, what would happen? Another western-led invasion of middle eastern land would certainly serve as a recruitment tool. Such action would also lead to the deaths of innocent people, not only those who were under the bombs when they landed, but those whose infrastructure we would probably take out along the way as part of any military campaign, leading to a degradation of the standard of living of those people. Indeed, tens of thousands of people have died in Iraq as a result of the loss of such infrastructure. Negotiations are absolutely vital, and we must ensure that we use the support of Russia and China to make a deep impact on Iran.

Moving on to international aid, there is a lot of criticism in the country at large about retaining our aim to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international aid. People say that we cannot afford it, but one of the great advantages of having a statement of how our taxes are spent would be that they would be able to see that the proportion being spent on international aid is actually tiny. I do not care if I get criticism from some of my constituents for saying that this is a moral, Christian obligation that we have to carry out and achieve. We simply cannot stand by and let innocent people die through a lack of the most basic infrastructure.

The problem with the international aid budget related to where the money was going before, but the actions taken by the Secretary of State in the first two years of this Parliament have gone a long way to restoring people’s faith in the process. Some £100 million-worth of projects in 16 countries have been closed because they were not delivering and the funds were not getting to where they were needed. Money is no longer going to countries such as Russia and China that have developed and moved forward. I can look my constituents in the eye when they say, “You’re just giving money to Robert Mugabe”, and tell them that that is exactly what we are not doing. The money that we spend on international development is going to ensure that the lives of people in the developing countries get better.

I ask hon. Members this question: if we had spent millions of pounds in 1990, when the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, to ensure stability in that country, would we now be spending billions of pounds and suffering the loss of more than 400 of our servicemen trying to defend the area? I do not believe that we would; the investment that we make in international aid and development saves us money in the long run and helps to protect innocent lives.

I was going to outline some of the areas covered by our international aid programmes, but my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) has already done so. I believe that the House can get behind a lot of the projects that we take part in. They are relatively cheap and they bring stability to the countries concerned. That reduces pressures on our borders, and it is vital to carry on moving forward in that way. It is my core belief that this is a fundamental moral responsibility. We are a developed nation; we are, in the grand scheme of things, a wealthy nation. We cannot ignore the plight of our neighbours, because if we do, they will come to our doorstep. This investment is not only a moral obligation but the sensible thing to do if we are to ensure the long-term prosperity of our country as well as theirs.