Groceries Supply Code of Practice

Christina Rees Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 643216, relating to the Groceries Supply Code of Practice.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Murray. The petition asks the Government

“to amend the Grocery Supply Code of Practice (GSCP) to require retailers, without exception, to…Buy what they agreed to buy…Pay what they agreed to pay…Pay on time”.

The petition also states:

“Almost half (49%) of a panel of 100 UK fruit and veg farmers fear they will have to give up their farm within the next 12 months, and many raised concerns about the behaviour of supermarkets, with 69% agreeing that tougher regulations are required to redress the imbalance of power between farmers, processors and the supermarkets.

The current GSCP contains provisions that are meant to protect suppliers, but allows supply agreements to be varied in certain circumstances.”

The petitioners

“believe a stronger, clearer code of practice is needed to make sure that all supermarkets stick to fair practices when dealing with farmers.”

There are complex perspectives on the code and the issues raised in the petition that need to be unpacked, but it is worth beginning with an overview of the salient facts and how the situation came into being. The groceries supply code of practice was introduced in 2009, following an investigation by the Competition Commission, in a bid to strengthen the food supply chain and improve relationships between growers and retailers. The Groceries Code Adjudicator, or GCA, was established by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013, and is responsible for enforcing the code.

Despite its success and the best intentions, the code has faced criticism from farmers and academics. The main issues are that the code does not cover the relationships between farmers and any processor or intermediary, that the code does not cover of pricing, that there is an imbalance of power and risk, that the GCA is under-resourced, and that the GCA is both adjudicator and arbitrator. I want to unpick each issue in turn, but let us first recognise the integral role that farmers play in our society: they are the stewards of our land, custodians of our food security and backbone of our economy. However, the code’s structure often leaves farmers vulnerable to unfair trading practices, and places them at a significant disadvantage in negotiations with powerful retailers.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her introductory remarks and welcome the debate. The last few years have been very difficult for farmers, with inflation in the wider economy increasing their input costs substantially: we need only to look at fertiliser for one example. The reality is that they are very exposed in the supply chain, so we need to look at how we can strengthen support for our primary producers.

[Christina Rees]

My hon. Friend is a champion for the farmers in his constituency, and I hope to come to those issues later in my speech.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for her excellent speech on this important topic. Does she agree that farmers such as those in North Devon have a huge role to play in our green transition and that supermarkets have a duty to ensure that farmers are getting a fair and just price for their produce, otherwise they have no hope of producing it sustainably?

[Christina Rees]

Definitely, and I will come on to that. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate not only for those constituencies with many farmers, but for urban constituencies such as mine. Many constituents have written to me about this important issue and have signed the petition, because it matters so much to have good fresh produce and fair terms and conditions for growers. We in Putney are shocked that half of British fruit and veg growers now fear that they will go out of business. We would like supermarkets to use their power to support small-scale farmers, not to undermine them. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

[Christina Rees]

I agree completely with the points made by my hon. Friend.

The first significant issue to explore is that of intermediaries within the food supply chain. The code has brought many positives, including the removal of back-door illegal practices. Although the code has overseen improved practices, it does not cover the relationships that intermediaries have with either farmers or retailers. Its explicit purpose is to regulate supermarket behaviour to bring value and choice for consumers; it is not, and was never, about producers. The use of intermediaries has the potential to allow retailers to circumvent the code.

When I was preparing for the debate, I heard directly from farmers and about how such practices create problems for them. They rarely have a written contract, so a request for 100,000 lettuces during the first week of September could turn into a downgrade to 70,000 lettuces if the sun suddenly disappears and salads become less favoured than soups. That leaves the farmer with 30,000 unpurchased lettuces and a considerable threat to their business. There are perfectly sensible reasons for intermediaries to exist—in particular in the meat supply chain, where a farmer would not sell a whole carcase to a single retailer, and therefore a processor or intermediary sells different parts to different customers—but the potential for unfair and unsustainable practice is significantly increased without regulation.

A second issue to consider is pricing. Much of the criticism of the code centres on the fact that it does not cover pricing in the food sector, and the issue is exacerbated by the frequent misconception that it does. However, pricing was never covered by the code and the legislation does not allow for its regulation. Coercion by retailers has also had an impact as the cost of a product is squeezed beyond break-even as retailers put pressure on farmers to reduce their prices to allow them to factor in costs such as packaging, marketing and overheads. Instances of such practices have declined, but still pose a problem in achieving a fair price.

We must also look into the imbalance of power and risk. Pricing can illustrate the problem of unequal power and risk within the food supply chain. In 2008, the Competition Commission inquiry found that grocery retailers were transferring excessive risks and unexpected costs to their suppliers. Furthermore, examples such as the one I mentioned previously—when the size of a produce order is suddenly scaled back—illustrate the inequitable distribution of risk, with the grower shouldering most of the burden while the retailer can quickly adapt an order according to market forces without the same risk.

The response to that was the creation of the code and enforcement by the GCA. Several mandatory reviews by Government, as well as supplier surveys, have shown significant improvements in supplier-retailer relations during the past decade or so. Despite that fact, fear remains in the industry. Many call on the GCA to make greater use of its powers to issue fines.

Some suggest that the GCA is hugely under-resourced. It is widely recognised that the cost of a single investigation is greater than its entire annual budget. The result is a perception that the GCA is toothless. The GCA’s opinion is that it is effective within the current parameters of the law, and it is not for it to say whether those parameters should be expanded. However, it is acknowledged that additional funding and powers would be needed to expand the remit of the GCA. The most common criticism of the code and the GCA is that they do not cover the whole supply chain, which means that they apply only to direct suppliers of the 14 biggest retailers, including Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Aldi. That leaves indirect suppliers unprotected, including many small farmers and primary producers. The Competition Commission predicted that problem back in 2008 and suggested two responses: to extend the code and the GCA to cover indirect suppliers or to introduce complementary codes to cover intermediaries and primary producers. Both options, though, ignore the issue of how such codes and regulators are funded so, finally, we must explore the issue of a regulator being both adjudicator and arbitrator.

The GCA is funded via a levy on 14 retailers. This is not uncommon for sector regulators, which are almost always funded via the organisations they oversee. However, that can leave them open to criticism of unfair practice and of not being hard enough on retailers. Although collaboration and arbitration are often useful ways of working, it can be argued that such circumstances pose a challenge if a situation requires the regulator to become an adjudicator and enforce fines. The GCA’s opinion is that the code is flexible enough to deal with a range of issues, including online sales, and that amending it might make it too rigid. When farmers are direct suppliers, the three issues raised by the petitioners are clearly covered and regulated.

What reforms are needed? It can be argued that the criticism levied at the code and the GCA is somewhat unfair as most issues, such as pricing and intermediaries, are simply not covered by the existing legislation and procedures. However, that does not preclude the fact that the issues exist and need to be dealt with. To that end, several reforms have been suggested and need exploring, including expanding the number of retailers covered by the code by lowering the threshold for compliance from £1 billion in turnover to £500 million, preventing retailers circumventing the code by purchasing through intermediaries, increasing the powers and remit of the GCA to cover issues such as pricing and processes, and setting up separate regulators with separate obligations.

The groceries supply code of practice is a vital tool that can either support or hinder the wellbeing of our farmers. It is our responsibility to advocate for reforms that ensure fairness, transparency and sustainability in the supply chain.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Like many other Members here, I was not aware of this issue until several constituents contacted me. Does the hon. Lady know whether there is any mechanism whereby small farmers and other suppliers can report it to the regulator when they are put in this difficult situation as a result of promises to make purchases not being kept? I do not see how the regulator can regulate if they do not have adequate information about where suppliers are being let down.

[Christina Rees]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Applications are made to the adjudicator, but there is a certain amount of confidentiality involved, and sometimes the farmers reporting want to remain anonymous, so some reporting is done behind the scenes. However, I thank him so much for his intervention; as always, he makes a very valuable point, and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister says about it.

By advocating for reform, we not only support our farmers but contribute to building a more resilient, ethical and sustainable food system for generations to come. Furthermore, a reformed code should prioritise sustainability and ethical practices. Our farmers are not only responsible for feeding the population but for stewarding our environment. It is imperative that the code encourages and rewards environmentally friendly and sustainable farming practices, which could include provisions for fair compensation for using sustainable farming methods, and penalties for practices that harm the environment.

Additionally, the reforms should incorporate measures to address the issue of market access. Farmers, particularly small and local producers, often face barriers that limit their ability to access a diverse range of markets. The groceries supply code of practice can be reformed to encourage retailers to seek out and support local farmers, fostering a more diverse and resilient agricultural system.

In conclusion, although the groceries supply code of practice was established with good intentions, it requires significant reform to provide better support for those who toil tirelessly to bring food to our tables. It is imperative that we acknowledge the challenges faced by our farmers and work towards creating a more equitable and supportive system. We must reform the code to ensure a fair distribution of power and risk in the supply chain. This could be achieved through the establishment of a transparent and accountable framework, possibly involving a new regulator, separate from the GCA, that promotes fair pricing, timely payments and equitable contractual relationships. By empowering farmers with the tools that they need to negotiate fairly, we can foster a more balanced and sustainable agricultural sector. Let us stand together in solidarity with our farmers and work towards a future in which their invaluable contributions are acknowledged, respected and fairly compensated.

While I was preparing for this debate, I met the petitioners and many stakeholders, and I would be pleased if the Minister could explain his Government’s position on the code and give his opinions regarding the issues I have raised. I also invite him to meet me and the petitioners, so that we can explore these issues in greater depth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable, thought-provoking contributions and for their support for the petitioners, who have been sitting in the Public Gallery. I thank the members of the Petitions Committee and their Clerks for all their hard work.

I thank the Minister for his positive response, and I am sure that the petitioners look forward to meeting him in the near future. I thank you, Mrs Murray, for chairing this debate with your usual aplomb.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 643216, relating to the Groceries Supply Code of Practice.

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Christina Rees Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

It is always an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Caroline.

It is a privilege to speak in this debate on e-petitions 624876 and 643611 relating to legislation in respect of dangerous dogs, and so admirably led by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on her appointment as Chair of the Petitions Committee.

Currently, four breeds are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: the pit bull terrier; the Japanese tosa; the dogo argentino; and the fila braziliero. However, following the rise in the number of attacks and fatalities, the Government have added the XL bully to the list of banned breeds. From 31 December, strict conditions will need to be complied with and from 1 February 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own an XL bully in England or Wales without a certificate of exemption.

Dogs suspected of being of a prohibited type are assessed against a standard that describes what a particular type of dog should look like. However, the number of characteristics is not a guide and neither is the way in which the assessment should be conducted, which results in many legal breeds and crossbreeds fitting the standard, regardless of the dog’s behaviour.

I am shocked and saddened by the appalling reports of attacks and deaths that have dominated the news recently. Obviously, I share the public’s concerns and agree that current legislation has not prevented these serious dog attacks. Urgent action is clearly needed, but breed-specific legislation is not the answer. The Dangerous Dogs Act has failed to protect the public since it was introduced, and dog bite incidents have risen since then.

Animal welfare, and particularly dog welfare, is an issue close to my heart. During the past five years, I have worked closely with Vanessa Waddon of Hope Rescue in Llanharan, which is a dog rescue centre that often takes in dogs that have been seized from illegal breeders. Since the ban was announced on 15 September, it has been inundated with calls and messages from worried owners asking for advice, and especially from those who are not sure whether their dogs meet the standard because it is so wide.

Hope Rescue is receiving up to five calls a day from owners in all areas of the UK asking it to take in their XL bully. It is concerned that, as the date approaches, there is a risk that some dogs will simply be abandoned. The rescue holds several stray dog contracts, so there is a chance that those dogs will enter it as strays. Capacity is already under huge pressure due to the current animal welfare crisis, which has resulted from the increased number of dogs purchased during the pandemic and the subsequent cost of living crisis. In fact, the centre is over capacity and is having to pay for overflow kennelling to ensure that it can meet its stray dog commitments to local authorities. The likely abandonments will put additional pressure on a system that is already broken due to a lack of kennel capacity.

Hope Rescue has already seen an increase in the number of large bull breeds coming through the stray dog system—again due to the breadth of the standard. The predicted increase in the number of dogs coming through the system is likely to impact the centre’s ability to help other dogs urgently in need, especially through its work supporting local authorities with dogs seized from illegal and low-welfare breeders. That could lead to dogs being left to suffer longer in poor conditions, as there is nowhere for them to go. The centre is proud of the much-needed support it provides to licensing teams in Wales, and it is heartbreaking that it may not be able to help in the future.

Hope Rescue is also hugely concerned about the XL bullies currently in its care that it does not yet own. They have been seized from illegal breeders but have not been signed over through the section 20 court process. These are young, rehomeable dogs, and the centre has worked hard with them to prepare them for their new homes. It is worried that the court process will not be completed in time to rehome them before the ban comes in and that it will have no choice but to euthanise them. Hope Rescue is also worried about any XL bully types that come into its care as the 31 December deadline gets nearer. As a responsible rescue, it takes Hope Rescue time to properly assess a dog for rehoming, but after that date it will not be able to rehome them.

The wellbeing of staff is a huge and legitimate concern. These passionate and caring individuals have chosen a career in animal welfare because they want to make a positive difference to the lives of rescued dogs. Things are already tough for the staff due to the animal welfare crisis and the number of dogs coming into their care. Being forced to euthanise healthy, rehomeable dogs, which may never have put a paw wrong, will be devastating for them.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)]

I have listened intently to the debate because, like many Members, I feel conflicted about it. My interest was piqued last summer when three women who were walking their dogs in a park in Newton-le-Willows in my constituency were attacked by an XL bully. Their dogs were badly injured, and they were injured and have been traumatised too. It is important to make the point that many who are in favour of the Government’s proposals are also dog lovers, and they and their animals deserve our consideration and protection as well.

[Christina Rees]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I really respect his view, which he put in a measured way.

On behalf of Hope Rescue, I urge the UK Government to consider letting rescue centres rehome XL bully types that, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a rescue centre.

[Wayne David]

The hon. Member and I visited the Hope Rescue centre in Llanharan a few months ago, where we saw and heard many moving things. I was particularly moved by the number of deformed dogs that the centre had taken from illegal dog breeders, many of which would otherwise have had to be put down. That brought home to me how illegal breeding is such a menace and really needs to be clamped down on. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Christina Rees]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Not many people know this, but we were in school together many years ago at Cynffig Comprehensive School, so I always listen to his views, and I do agree with him on this.

On behalf of Hope Rescue, I urge the UK Government to consider letting rescue centres rehome XL bully types—that, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a rescue centre—subject to the exemption process and being assessed for suitable rehoming.

A friend of mine, Professor John Cooper KC, will be taking the legal challenge to the Government if the ban is not halted. Between 2016 and 2017, John and I served on the Bach commission, which was chaired by Lord Willy Bach and which provided detailed proposals on establishing the right to access justice as a fundamental and enforceable public entitlement. John has always been a staunch advocate of animal welfare both in and out of court, as well as being relentless in his representation of people who find themselves in the most vulnerable of situations. His work with dogs includes advising on the reform of the Dangerous Dogs Act—particularly the flawed breed-specific legislation regime—and advising on and drafting proposals for a more effective sentencing regime for pet theft. A former columnist for Dogs Today, John has a rescue lurcher called Lawrence.

Professor Cooper KC has stated:

“This is knee jerk legislation, which has neither maturely reflected on the wealth of evidence which is available or taken the time to reasonably consider the best ways to protect the public and act rationally in relation to the dog. It simply will not work.

Any proposed ban is no more than putting a sticking plaster over the issue as unscrupulous breeders simply move on to the next dog.

The answer according to the government’s own previous reports is an effective licensing regime, responsible ownership and stricter penalties and sentencing powers in the courts.

The law, maturely and carefully considered, can protect the public. This, tragically, goes nowhere near that.”

I cannot agree more with Professor Cooper’s words. Nor can I disagree with the heartfelt plea of Vanessa Waddon and her wonderful staff at Hope Rescue. For those reasons I call on the Government to halt the ban’s implementation, support responsible rescue centres, review the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation and carefully consider how to properly protect the public from serious and fatal dog attacks.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

I call the Chairman of the EFRA Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Christina Rees Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right to say that a clear majority of people in this country—opinion polls show between 80% and 90% support—want to see this legislation go through. The people of this country care passionately about conservation and the environment, and protecting endangered species. It has taken a long campaign by many people, from many different backgrounds, to ensure that this legislation has come before Parliament. I reiterate my hope that that will be heard across Central Lobby, in the other place, when this legislation leaves this House later this morning, as we hope it will, and goes there for consideration, because time is of the essence to help protect endangered species.

There are many excellent private Members’ Bills before the House today, so I do not want to take any more time and delay them. I am grateful to everyone who has supported this legislation—

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

rose—

[Henry Smith]

Just in time—

[Christina Rees]

Timing is everything in life. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in commending Eduardo Goncalves for founding the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting and revealing the sordid world of killing sentient animals for entertainment? There is massive support in my constituency for the Bill and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I rise also as the Member for Southend West, not only to extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for his brilliant leadership in bringing this important Bill to its final stages in the House of Commons, but also to remember the late Sir David Amess’s decades-long advocacy on this issue. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his contribution and what he said about Sir David.

I know Sir David would have supported this Bill and he would have been cheering my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley on at every stage of its passage. It has been my huge honour to support the Bill at every stage, not just in Sir David’s honour and legacy, but because it is the right thing to do.

[Christina Rees]

Sir David was very kind to me from the first day I came into Parliament and he encouraged me to work on animal welfare matters. It is very appropriate that Eduardo Gonçalves’ latest book, “Saving Sally: Trophy Hunters, Secrets and Lies” is dedicated to the memory of Sir David.

[Anna Firth]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for that contribution, which I will pass on to Lady Amess and the family.

Through this Bill we are asserting that these wonderful, magnificent animals—elephants, lions, rhinos, leopards and so on—some of them on the brink of extension, are worth so much more than a mere trophy on the mantelpiece. Trophy hunting is a relic of the past. It has no place in modern Britain. We are standing up as one in this House against those who seek to destroy wildlife and asserting our leading role as an advocate for wildlife protection.

Shark Fins Bill

Christina Rees Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 20th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.

I am delighted to present the Bill for its Third Reading, and thank all Members who have supported it so far, as well as all the non-governmental organisations that have advocated for this ban. I am pleased that the Bill has broad support across the House, and I am grateful to the Members who are present for helping to put in place this vital addition to UK legislation to improve global shark conservation.

This small but very important Bill proposes the banning of the import and export of detached shark fins and shark fin products. Sharks are already at great threat from overfishing, driven by demand for shark products. In the United Kingdom, shark finning has been banned for nearly 20 years. It is a highly wasteful practice and a huge barrier to effective fisheries management, and it is so cruel: fins are removed from a live shark, and its finless body is returned to the water where the shark dies as a result of bleeding or suffocation. It is therefore not surprising that a strong opposition to shark finning and trade in detached shark fins was rightly amplified by respondents to a call for evidence run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

A thought has crossed my mind. Welsh Members of Parliament represent 6% of the total membership of the House, but I am proud to say that, as two Welsh Members have presented Bills, they represent 40% today. That bears testimony to the vibrancy of Welsh democracy.

May I ask the hon. Lady what exactly shark fin products are used for in the UK? Obviously I am thinking about cutting off the demand, but I would also be interested to know what products are involved and for what purposes they are used.

[Christina Rees]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—and I really like his maths.

Shark fins are a traditional delicacy used in shark fin soup, mainly in Asian communities. We do not intend to ban that; we intend only to ban the imports. If the shark is ethically landed and the fins are removed when it is dead and then made into soup, that is fine. However, to ensure that we are not inadvertently fuelling unsustainable practices abroad, it is crucial that we ban the import and export of detached shark fins and shark fin products. Only sharks landed with their fins naturally attached will be available for sale. That is widely accepted as best practice for the enforcement of shark finning regulations, requiring that fins remain naturally attached to the body until it is brought to land.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way on that point. I remember speaking on Second Reading of this Bill and applaud her for getting it through to Third Reading.

Currently, to be crystal clear, those involved in shark finning get sharks when they are very close to the boat and pull them on. They cut off their fins in a horrific way and then throw them back into the water. With no ability to swim, the shark effectively becomes a torpedo, drowning as it falls to the ground, which is just so cruel and abhorrent. The number that this happens to is incredible—the figure is literally in the millions. Does the hon. Lady agree that, by ending that abhorrent act through the Bill, we will be ensuring that the ecosystems in our seas and oceans are much better supported?

[Christina Rees]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on Second Reading and today. His graphic description is absolutely right. It is an abhorrent practice. The stats show that 73 million sharks would have to be killed each year to match the volume of fins illegally traded on the global market. That is between 1 million to 2 million tonnes, which is unbelievable.

The import and export of detached fins has already been banned in Canada, India and the United Arab Emirates. It is time that we followed suit. As a nation that cares deeply about the sustainability of our oceans, we must not be left behind on this issue. On Third Reading today, I hope that we can agree that the Bill will deliver a significant improvement to safeguard the future populations of our sharks. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees]

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank everyone here today for their contributions to the debate. Notably, I thank the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for his graphic description of the abhorrent shark finning procedure. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for highlighting the banning of the 20 kg personal allowance, which will also apply to businesses. I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes)—I really like his maths when it comes to our Welsh Members of Parliament—for allowing me to clarify the shark products issue. Finally, I thank my friend the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie)—such a beautiful constituency, probably as beautiful as Neath; I did not know that she worked for “Animal Magic” and had been swimming with sharks. It is amazing what we learn in these debates.

I thank all those hon. Members who are not here today, but have supported this important Bill in its previous stages on Second Reading and in Committee. I could not close the debate without again thanking all the organisations that have campaigned for and supported the Bill. They have all contributed to developing and progressing the Bill so far, and I am sure they will continue to support its progress in the other place. Most of them are in the Public Gallery today.

I thank the Minister for her continued support and for her contribution to the debate, which is much appreciated, and the shadow Minister for his support. I thank all the Clerks and the DEFRA officials for their advice. I also thank again the wonderful team in my office, who have worked so hard to make this happen, and give special thanks to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for making Friday sittings a success and for the personal support she has given me.

I look forward to seeing this Bill on the statute book and thereby continuing to drive up standards of global shark conservation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations, Christina Rees—the Welsh are doing well today, aren’t they? I declare an interest.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Christina Rees Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

I note what my hon. Friend says, and refer him to what the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection say: they note rampant abuse of the pets travel scheme by illegal traders; we need action on that. Laws that had the good intention of allowing families to take pets abroad are being abused to allow very young and pregnant animals to come to Britain for sale. I think everyone would agree, despite what my hon. Friend says, that those rules in particular need tightening up. No-one wants the UK market for pets to be flooded with unscrupulous sellers, commercially importing animals through the back door.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Justin Madders]

I am popular today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and is a champion for animal welfare. Does he agree that the measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill to reduce puppy smuggling would also have a positive effect on online puppy sales, which are the subject of the campaign otherwise known as Reggie’s law?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill places a limit on the number of cats, ferrets and dogs that can be transported, which is an issue that we need to look at closely, and it includes provisions on mutilation, minimum age and pregnancy. It builds on work from over the past decade. Before we stray too far down that path, there are other matters I wish to talk about, particularly the concerns raised by Chester zoo.

Hon. Members may not be aware that Chester zoo forms part of my constituency—obviously, not the main part, because that is in Chester, but parts of its land are in Ellesmere Port and Neston. Lots of my constituents work there, and it does a lot of great work with schools in my constituency. Chester zoo is a world leader in conservation work. It works with over 100 partners in more than 20 countries to recover threatened wildlife and restore its habitats. It is developing a master plan to halt or reverse the decline of around 200 highly threatened plant and animal populations, and has a target of improving 250,000 hectares of landscape for wildlife in at least six locations around the world. Chester zoo continues to be England’s most popular paid-for visitor attraction outside London, and much of that success can be attributed to its visitors wanting to be a part of that conservation mission. Of course, those visitors help fund that conservation.

Chester zoo welcomes the Government’s ambition to further enhance conservation standards across the sector. Zoos across the globe contribute more than $350 million annually to species conservation programmes in the wild, making them the third largest contributor to species conservation in the world. UK zoos alone make up 10% of that total—that is impressive and something we should be proud of in this country. Most of that amount comes from the large charitable zoos, which receive no direct public subsidy and generate their funds by being popular tourist attractions; Chester zoo is a good example.

UK zoos support over 800 projects in 105 countries, providing direct conservation action for 488 animal and plant species. It is vital that their commitment to conservation is not hampered because a Secretary of State has greater powers and flexibility, but does not use them in a way that would help their efforts. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to specify different standards depending on the type of collection. A larger zoo, for example, will have a different type of collection from an aquarium. Ellesmere Port and Neston also has an aquarium: the Blue Planet at Cheshire Oaks. It is important that the power and flexibility that the Secretary of State seeks to have in the Bill are used in a way that enhances the conservation efforts of zoos.

I understand that the Bill will undergo a number of amendments, which will set standards for a broad range of conservation activities, and that zoos will be incentivised to maximise the impact of those activities, which is something that we all want to see. Does the Minister acknowledge that the amendments will raise the issue of how we ensure that conservation work is maximised? Could he give any assurances of what the final outcome will be? It is essential that the Government’s zoo standards reflect a broad and expansive definition of conservation that recognises the length and breadth of work carried out by places such as Chester zoo. Much of that work takes place in the zoo. It includes the world-class care given by the keepers, feeding, bedding, veterinary attention, the facilities, scientific development and the carefully planned and co-ordinated breeding programmes, which are an essential component of a holistic, planned approach to species recovery. I visited Chester zoo over the summer with Mr Speaker, and we saw some of the new species being brought back into circulation. I could not actually see them, because they were very small, but I was assured that they were there somewhere. We need to ensure that there is a broader understanding of zoo conservation in the revised standards.

Chester zoo has been working with the Ignite Teaching School Alliance to enable schools to build their curriculum around conservation. It is working with around 80 schools so far. I recently had the pleasure of listening to pupils from St Bernard’s Roman Catholic Primary School in my constituency about the work they have been doing with the zoo on conservation. I have no doubt that it is valuable work—it helps children to increase their understanding of the world around them—and I hope that that very important contribution to the next generation’s understanding of conservation will be supported.

Our primary concern is that if we remove the conservation requirements from primary legislation and give the Secretary of State greater powers and flexibility, there will not be the same parliamentary scrutiny that we have enjoyed to date. While the Government have consulted on the reviewed standards of modern zoo practice, there will be no statutory requirement for Ministers to consult on any further updates. We believe that there should be a requirement for consultations on any future changes. Hopefully the Minister can answer this: if there are changes in future, what will Parliament’s role be in scrutinising the standards, and ensuring that they are maintained?

Finally, the Bill puts no statutory requirement on future Ministers to involve the Zoo Experts Committee in any review of the standards, or indeed to formally respond to any of its guidance. The Zoo Experts Committee and Ministers should be made more publicly accountable for their advice and decisions, so that there is greater transparency, just as there is for the Animal Sentience Committee; it publishes independent advice, to which Ministers are obliged to respond.

In conclusion, the Bill will lead to the most significant changes for zoos and aquariums in decades. There is concern that removing conservation requirements from primary legislation, and powers consequently being handed to the Secretary of State, will make it harder to ensure the appropriate scrutiny and transparency of future changes. It is not, I think, an unreasonable proposition that different types of zoos should have different conservation requirements, but how that will work in practice is clearly of significant concern. The debate has shown so far that there is a great deal of support for the Bill. I hope that when the Minister responds, we get a clear timetable that shows when we will see it again.

Shark Fins Bill

Christina Rees Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 1, in schedule, page 6, line 23, at end insert—

“(7) In this paragraph, references to the First-tier Tribunal, in relation to a decision of the Scottish Ministers, are to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland.”.

That the schedule be the Schedule to the Bill.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I thank hon. Members for joining me on the Committee to discuss this important Bill today.

I am pleased to bring forward a Bill that will advance this country’s standards for the long-term conservation of sharks. The Bill proposes to ban the import and export of detached shark fins, including the import into the United Kingdom and export from the United Kingdom of all products containing shark fins, as a result of their entry into or removal from Great Britain.

As we heard on Second Reading, sharks play a crucial and intricate role in the marine ecosystem, yet they are being killed in huge numbers around the world. Sharks desperately need our help and protection.

The international shark-fin trade is a significant driving force behind the overfishing of sharks. Shark finning is an extraordinarily wasteful and harmful practice in which only 2% to 5% of the shark is even used. This important and timely Bill will make it illegal to import and export detached shark fins, which will help end practices that are forcing sharks closer to the brink of extinction. The Bill will be a significant step in helping to restore the balance of our ocean.

The inclusion of the import and export of detached shark-fin products in the Bill, for example tinned shark-fin soup, will also address concern about the provenance of shark-fin products, as only domestically processed products from sharks landed with their fins naturally attached will be available for sale.

It is important to note that the Bill does not ban the sale or consumption of shark fins. If a shark fin is removed from a shark after it is dead and the shark is caught in line with existing legislation, I do not see why the fin should not be used. In fact, it would be wasteful not to use the whole carcase. Banning the sale or consumption of shark fins that have been obtained ethically would also disproportionately impact communities where shark-fin soup is considered a delicacy, which is not what I seek to do.

The Bill will showcase the UK as a best practice example to other countries, encouraging them to follow suit and adopt similar important measures for sharks.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. The Bill is targeted at the immensely cruel practice of taking a living shark, cutting its fin off and then throwing it overboard to die a long, slow, unpleasant death. That is the core of what the Bill drives at, rather than at the products.

[Christina Rees]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that exceptional intervention. He puts what the Bill is about succinctly and clearly. It is a terrible practice. When it was first brought to my attention, I could not believe that it was happening. As a lifelong vegan, I find it absolutely abhorrent.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady, my friend, on introducing this important Bill, and of course congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on resuming her place at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the hon. Member for Neath agree that the trade in shark-fin products has a detrimental impact not just on the sharks, but on marine ecosystems and, eventually, the commercial fisheries and countries’ economies as well? This is not just about animal welfare but about protecting commercial fisheries, which this country, very importantly, relies on.

[Christina Rees]

I thank my friend and fellow sports-mad person for an excellent intervention and for her support throughout. Again, it is the whole balance of the ecosystem throughout the ocean that is affected. Sharks have been much maligned. If I sing, “Dur-duh, dur-duh, dur-duh,” you will get it. Ever since the film “Jaws” came out, people have been terrified of sharks, but they are really wonderful creatures.

Clause 1 sets out the prohibition on the import and export of detached shark fins. Subsection (1)(a) makes it an offence

“to import shark fins, or things containing shark fins, into the United Kingdom as a result of their entry into Great Britain”.

Subsection (1)(b) makes it an offence

“to export shark fins, or things containing shark fins, from the United Kingdom as a result of their removal from Great Britain.”

Subsection (2) refers specifically to where the prohibition does not apply to fins that have not been removed from the body of a shark. The prohibition does not apply if a shark fin is naturally attached to the body of a shark and the body is substantially intact. This means that the head and internal organs of a shark can be removed, and some damage may have occurred to the body in transit, but the body should still be substantially intact. This is to prevent the permitting of trade for fins that are attached to small parts of the shark body, while the rest of the body could have been discarded, which still poses ethical and sustainability concerns.

There is only one exception to the ban. Outlined in subsection (3) and the schedule, it is where imports or exports will support greater conservation of sharks—for example, through education and training. I had better mention at this stage that there is no exemption in this Bill for what was allowed previously, whereby individuals could import up to 20 kg of dried shark fin for personal use. The Bill closes that loophole.

Importantly, strict processes are in place to assess applications for exemption certificates, to ensure that they do not undermine the overall ban. The exemption process is clearly set out in the schedule to the Bill, which I will come to. A very strict application process is followed: the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers can issue an exemption certificate only if the shark fins will be used for purposes connected with the conservation of sharks. This will allow important conservation and educational activities, such as improving shark identification skills, to continue where needed.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Neath, a fellow Welsh MP, for introducing this important Bill. She mentions education, and this is a really important part of the Bill—shining a light on this absolutely dreadful practice. As many hon. Members know, I started my working life looking after dolphins, working for Terry Nutkins of “Animal Magic” fame, and part of that involved educating people about marine life and our ecosystems. I have also been a BSAC—British Sub-Aqua Club—diver for decades. And I pay tribute to all the marine work that Bangor University does. This important Bill shines a light on this dreadful practice, so I congratulate the hon. Member.

[Christina Rees]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. The thing about this Bill is that I have learned all sorts of things about Members of Parliament that I could never have thought of. I know the great work that the hon. Member does on Ynys Môn. I always take every excuse to go there, because it is one of the most beautiful parts of Wales. Perhaps when I come up there next, she can show me all her good work. That would be brilliant.

The exemption process requires applicants to provide certain information to the appropriate authority to take a decision. The appropriate authority can revoke the exemption certificate if information supplied by the applicant is inaccurate or incomplete. Where someone has deliberately provided inaccurate or incomplete information for an exemption, the Secretary of State can impose a monetary penalty of up to £3,000. That will ensure that the exemption process is not abused. The Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend the upper limit of that penalty by regulations.

Subsection (4) defines shark fins as

“any fins or parts of fins of a shark”

except for pectoral fins, which are part of ray wings. “Shark” means

“any fish of the taxon Elasmobranchii.”

Taxonomically speaking, Batoidea is a super-order of cartilaginous fishes, commonly known as rays. Batoidea has four orders, including Rajiformes, which includes skates. That definition is consistent with definitions included in the UK’s “fins naturally attached” regulation, in which skates are also considered under the definition of rays. Therefore, their pectoral fins are not included in the definition of shark fins. I am glad I got through that bit of my speech! [Laughter.]

Clause 2 amends the existing shark fins regulation 1185/ 2003, which forms part of the retained EU law. The version of the regulation retained in UK law includes the subsequent amendments made by regulation 605/2013. As the retained EU law stands, the removal of shark fins, retention on board, transhipment and landing of shark fins could take place by another country’s vessel in UK waters. That was not the intention of the changes made by the EU exit amending regulations. The amendment to the Bill would rectify that position and its effect is twofold. First, it is to ensure that shark finning is not undertaken by any other country’s vessels fishing in UK waters. Secondly, it is to ensure that any UK vessel is not undertaking shark finning wherever it fishes.

Clause 3 sets out the extent, commencement, transitional and savings provisions and short title of the Bill. They are the practical parts of the Bill necessary for it to function properly. The Secretary of State will set the commencement dates for clause 1 and the schedule to the Bill by statutory instrument. For clause 2, amendments to the existing shark finning regulation 1185/2003, which forms part of the retained EU law and includes amendments in regulation 605/2013, will come into force at the end of the period of two months, beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed. Clause 3 will come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed.

Amendment 1 clarifies that appeals in relation to decisions by Scottish Ministers should be heard by the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. Applicants who wish to appeal decisions where Scottish Ministers are the appropriate authority will do so to the First-Tier Tribunal for Scotland, as per paragraph 9 of the schedule. Scottish Ministers are the appropriate authority in relation to entry into or removal from Scotland of shark fins or things containing them. This is a technical amendment to appropriately reflect Scottish devolved competency within the Bill. For completeness, there is currently no similar and separate equivalent in Wales to the First-tier Tribunal. The Welsh Government have therefore indicated that a similar amendment is not necessary at this time.

On the schedule, there is only one exception to the Bill, which is where imports or exports of shark fins will be used for purposes connected with the conservation of sharks.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

That point about conservation has to be put into the context that as many as 273 million sharks are killed every year; on a figure of just 100 million, which is the lower estimate, that is about 11,000 sharks killed every hour. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the Bill before the House. Does she agree that it will send a message to other countries to end this barbaric practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees]

I thank my hon. Friend for another superb intervention. I thank him for his support in coming to the Committee today, which is much appreciated. I really hope the Bill sends a massive message that the practice should not go on and that, if it does continue, serious action should be taken.

The schedule outlines the strict processes in place to access applications for exemption certificates to ensure that they do not undermine the overall ban. Paragraph 1 confirms that the prohibition in clause 1 on the import or export of shark fins or things containing them does not apply if the appropriate authority has issued an exemption certificate. The definition of appropriate authority is outlined in paragraph 9.

The process for applying for an exemption certificate is set out in paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 permits the appropriate authority to revoke or issue a revised exemption certificate if, before the import or export takes place, any information provided in connection with an application is or has become inaccurate or incomplete.

Paragraph 4 provides for a civil liability, where the appropriate authority can impose a penalty up to £3,000 if the applicant provides inaccurate or incomplete information or a document that contains an inaccuracy in relation to an application. This power provides a strong incentive for applicants for exemptions to be truthful and ensures that the ban will not be undermined. The process for monetary penalties is outlined in paragraph 5.

Paragraph 6 defines what information must be included in an initial penalty notice and a final penalty notice. A final penalty notice may also provide for interest or other penalties to be payable in the event that payment is not made within the period specified by the notice. Applicants who wish to appeal against decisions will do so to the First-tier Tribunal. Appeals in relation to decisions by Scottish Ministers, as I have already said, should be heard by the First-tier Tribunal in Scotland, reflecting the devolved competency within the Bill. Paragraph 8 provides information for when a person does not pay the whole of or part of a penalty.

I thank all hon. Members again for coming here this morning. I hope we can agree that the Bill will deliver a significant improvement to our shark conservation standards and make us a global leader in shark conservation and sustainable fisheries. I am delighted to commend the Bill to the Committee.

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath on introducing this vital Bill. It is a great step forward in the preservation of this wonderful species. I have absolutely no issues with the Bill and sincerely hope that it will go a long way to prevent further deterioration of such poor practice in the removal of shark fins, and will help us to conserve the species. I hope the Bill starts behavioural change on this loathful practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course, and I thank my hon. Friend for that good point. We have a paragraph in the schedule about the way the penalties work and the appropriate authority can revoke the exemption certificate if the right information is not supplied. The penalties are up to £3,000—actually, that is for providing inaccurate information about what they are doing. Of course, the whole system will be enforced by ensuring that Border Force and others know what to look for.

I want to highlight that it is leaving the EU that has enabled us to have this opportunity, and we have probably moved much more quickly than we might have done because, had we been in the EU, we would have had to get the agreement of all member states. That would potentially have been slow, so at least we have been able to get this matter taken forward in an individual Bill.

We have had widespread support for the Bill from non-governmental organisations. Organisations such as the Shark Trust, Shark Guardian, the Blue Marine Foundation and the Wildlife Conservation Society have done a great deal of work, for which I thank them. They have spoken to many of our MPs.

To wind up, I am so grateful to the hon. Lady for her work on this important Bill and, of course, to the Committee. The Government will do all that we can to support the Bill’s passage through both Houses and get it on to the statute books so that we can protect this iconic and critical species for generations to come.

[Christina Rees]

I am blown away, as they say. Committee members cannot know how much their support means to me—I am getting quite emotional.

I will go through the greatest hits of thanks. I want to thank everyone present for their contributions and interventions. I also want to thank the Members who are not present but who spoke on Second Reading and enabled us to get to Committee. I thank all the organisations the Minister mentioned—welcome back, Minister; it is great to see her in her place again—which, I am sure, will continue to support this Bill as it goes through, because it is so important to them. I also thank you, Mrs Cummins, for chairing superbly today.

We could not have done it without the Clerks, who work tirelessly and have managed to get me on some sort of straight line, and the officials, who never get thanked and are absolutely brilliant. I thank the Minister and the Government for their support. I look forward to getting the Bill on the statute book—I will probably be even more emotional then. Thank you again.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Exemption certificates

Amendment made: 1, schedule, page 6, line 23, at end insert—

“(7) In this paragraph, references to the First-tier Tribunal, in relation to a decision of the Scottish Ministers, are to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland.”—(Christina Rees.)

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Shark Fins Bill

Christina Rees Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

I welcome the new Minister, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), to his place. Having recently spent about six weeks with him in Committee, where he was absolutely superb, I am sure he will be just as successful in his new role as he was in his old role. I thank all Members across the House for their support. I thank the Clerks, civil servants, officials, parliamentary counsel, the Whips—nobody ever thanks the Whips—and my staff. I am delighted to promote this Bill.

I will start by explaining why a ban on the import and export of detached shark fins is crucial to sharks’ long-term conservation. Sharks are truly incredible animals. They have been around for over 400 million years—long before the dinosaurs. As top predators, they tell us a huge amount about the health of our ocean and play a vital role in marine ecosystems. Many species of sharks live in UK waters, from basking sharks to blue sharks and even Greenland sharks. The basking shark is the UK’s largest fish, growing up to 11 metres long and weighing up to 7 tonnes—about the size of a double-decker bus.

These fascinating species face many threats, the greatest of which is overfishing. Out of 500 shark species, more than a quarter are listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, ranging from “vulnerable” to “critically endangered”. The international fin trade is a significant driving force behind shark overfishing. Shark finning is an extraordinarily wasteful and harmful practice in which only 2% to 5% of the shark is even used. Once a shark’s fins are cut off at sea, the shark is tossed back into the water to slowly drown. Researchers have found that at least 73 million sharks would have to be killed every year to match the volume of shark fins that are traded in the global market, which is a whopping 1 million to 2 million tonnes a year. While not all of these sharks would have been killed through the shark finning practices, it is likely the fin trade is a significant driving force behind those numbers.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward such an amazing Bill; I would love to be in her position. When reading up in advance of this debate I discovered that I had not realised the extent to which European countries are involved in facilitating this trade. The market is in Asia, but Portugal, Netherlands, France, Italy and, in particular, Spain are significant players in supplying that market. Does she agree that we should absolutely not countenance that?

[Christina Rees]

My hon. Friend has always been a doughty champion for animal welfare. I will come to her point later in my speech, but I agree wholeheartedly. If we can get the Bill into law, we in the UK will be the leaders in Europe in banning shark finning.

Sharks desperately need our help and protection. I am an animal lover; I have been privileged to open Westminster Hall debates about animal welfare as a member of the Petitions Committee, and it is a privilege to introduce the Bill today. I grew up near the sea. I spent most of my childhood with my granny, who lived in Porthcawl, a beautiful seaside resort in south Wales. When I was 10, I joined the junior lifeguards and became a surfer. My love and respect for the sea and the marine creatures that live in it has stayed with me throughout my life.

My close encounter with a shark about 10 years ago is typical of the many stories that I could tell about my crazy, unpredictable, funny life. One day, my wonderful daughter Angharad said, “Mum, we haven’t had a holiday since I was 10”; she was 26 at the time. I said, “Oh dear, time flies—go ahead and book one,” so Angharad booked 10 days in Australia followed by 10 days in New Zealand. It completely cleaned out my bank account; I was a poorly paid squash coach at the time and had foolishly thought that she would book a weekend in north Wales.

On the Australian leg, we stayed a couple of nights on Green Island, an absolutely beautiful and remote island off Cairns. One day, I was snorkelling in the shadows off the deserted shoreline. Angharad was standing on the rocks and keeping a lookout for stingrays, because we had been warned that they were prevalent in the waters. When I came up for air, she shouted, “Mum! Shark!” I thought, “Yeah, very funny, Angharad.” She was pointing out to sea, so I turned around—and I absolutely froze.

Swimming towards me was one of the most beautiful creatures that I have ever seen: a shark about 2 metres long, looking like a small, sleek submarine. By now, Angharad was shouting her head off, so I came out of my brain fog and ran out of the sea as fast as my little legs would carry me. We stood on the rocks and watched. We were mesmerised, absolutely gobsmacked and many, many other adjectives by how lucky we were to see that wonderful wild creature up close before it majestically swam out into the sunset. That was my encounter with a shark.

Shark finning has rightly been banned in the UK since 2003 and is illegal in many other parts of the world, but it still happens, so we must now ensure that shark fins are not being imported from places where finning practices still occur. This important and timely Bill will make it illegal to import and export detached shark fins. That will help to end practices that are forcing sharks closer to the brink of extinction. The Bill will be a significant step in helping to restore the balance of our ocean.

Clause 1 will ban the import and export of shark fins or items containing shark fins into or from the United Kingdom as a result of their entry into or removal from Great Britain. The ban applies only to fins that have been removed from the body of a shark. Clause 1 also contains a provision for exemption certificates and clarifies some key definitions. More information about the provision for exemption certificates is set out in the schedule. A very strict application process is followed whereby the appropriate authority can issue an exemption certificate only if the shark fins concerned will be used for conservation purposes. This will allow important conservation and educational activities such as improving shark identification skills to continue where needed.

The appropriate authorities for imports and exports of shark fins are the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland and the Welsh Ministers in Wales. Where someone has deliberately provided inaccurate or incomplete information for an exemption, the appropriate authority can impose a monetary penalty of up to £3,000, which will ensure that the exemptions process is not abused. The Bill contains a power for the appropriate authority to amend the upper limit of the penalty by regulations.

It is important to note that the Bill does not ban the sale or consumption of shark fins. If a shark fin is removed from a shark after it is dead, and the shark was caught legally and sustainably, I do not see why the fin should not be used. In fact, it would be wasteful not to use the whole carcase. Banning the sale or consumption of shark fins that have been obtained ethically would disproportionately impact communities where shark fin soup is considered a traditional delicacy, and that is not what I seek to do.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. After reading the Bill’s explanatory notes, I am aware that there is a separate exemption for individuals to import up to 20 kg of dried shark fin to the UK for personal consumption. Is that because it is about using the whole shark? I wonder whether something more could be done through the passage of the Bill to ensure that the 20 kg comes from the use of the whole shark, rather than from a shark killed only for its fins.

[Christina Rees]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that valid point. I am sure that the issue can be thrashed out in Committee, should we reach that stage. I have looked into the research and there are gaps in the data regarding how much personal usage is being allowed, but I know that Border Force does look at that.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am a little concerned about what has just been said about allowing importation for use—for example, in the restaurant trade—provided that it can be shown that the shark was killed for other reasons. To what extent would people be able to check that that was the case, or would they see it as a loophole, and pretend that the shark had died by other means and that they were using the whole carcase? It is odd to me that someone would kill a huge shark just for its fins, but we know that that is mostly what happens. What safeguards will there be to ensure that people do not exploit that rule?

[Christina Rees]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. We are both lifelong vegans, so I have thought about the issue greatly. I have never bought a tin of shark fin soup—I wouldn’t—or any other tins of soup with bits of animals in, but I am sure that where the content had come from and how it was farmed would be written on the label.

[Kerry McCarthy]

When I raised the issue a long time ago—I think in my early years in Parliament—I received some pushback from the restaurant trade, but I also learnt that a lot of the shark fin soup sold in restaurants is not real shark fin, but because it is seen as prestigious and luxurious, restaurants did not want to admit that it was not the real thing. It was bizarre that people were consuming something that was far more ethical than they thought it was. I am therefore not quite sure whether labelling would work, because a lot of the product being sold turns out not to be shark fin. That is probably another issue to be thrashed out in Committee.

[Christina Rees]

I am grateful for another superb intervention from my hon. Friend, and I bow to her wisdom. Sometimes we do not get what is written on the tin.

Clause 2 amends article 1 of the shark finning regulation 1185/2003, which forms part of retained EU law, to make sure that shark finning cannot take place by any vessel fishing in UK waters, or by any UK vessel fishing in non-UK waters. That ensures that our domestic protections are of the highest standard. Clause 3 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when or how each provision comes into force. As the Bill relates to devolved matters, legislative consent will be sought from the devolved Administrations during the passage of the Bill, but I understand that they are supportive of taking action against the cruel and unsustainable shark fin trade.

I would like to thank stakeholders and colleagues who have contacted me on this important matter, particularly members of Shark Guardian and Bite-Back Shark & Marine Conservation, who have been instrumental in throwing a spotlight on the issue of shark finning for many years—some of them are watching from the Gallery today. Since 2004, Bite-Back Shark & Marine Conservation has been at the forefront of successful campaigns to end the sale and consumption of shark fins and shark products in Britain. In recent years it launched its “No Fin To Declare” campaign—I love the name—exposing Britain’s contributions to the global shark fin trade. The charity argues that a decision to ban all import and exports of detached shark fins will establish Britain as a global leader in the conservation of sharks and, ultimately, inspire other countries to introduce their own bans and join the UK in the protection of this keystone marine species.

In 2021, Shark Guardian, a charity based in Nottingham, launched a petition on Parliament’s website to ban the British shark fin trade, which secured more than 115,000 signatures, showing the depth of support for my Bill among a passionate and caring British public. Shark Guardian believes that if my Bill is passed into law, that will have a huge and positive knock-on effect on the continent, because the European Union will have to take note of our legislation, and take steps to pass a similar EU law to ban the import and export of shark fin through its borders too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East mentioned. That is important because Spain is by far the single biggest exporter of frozen shark fins to Hong Kong, a city that has, for many years, been the epicentre of this cruel and unsustainable trade. If the supply chain to Hong Kong, and, by extension to China, can be cut, global shark populations that are threatened with extinction today can be offered a new lease of hope tomorrow.

This Bill is crucial to ensuring the long-term survival and recovery of vital shark populations. It is an important step for the UK to demonstrate its leadership and commitment to shark conservation. I therefore urge all Members to support the smooth passage of the Bill through this House and onto the statute book.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees]

With the leave of the House, I am grateful and privileged to have cross-party support for the Bill. All hon. Members made important points. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) said that we must protect animals from extinction—definitely. I loved the story of how the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) rescued the shark, which tops mine. It is wonderful that she saved it. The ex-salesperson, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), brought so much humour to the debate. If the Bill gets to Committee, he ought to be a member, so he can entertain us all the way through.

The hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is my friend in many ways, highlighted that this is a small and perfectly formed Bill. He said that it does not need any more and that it strikes a balance. I am grateful for his comments. The hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) highlighted that we work together. She said that many of her emails were about animal welfare, so she makes it a priority. She said that her constituents would support the Bill, for which I am grateful. How could I ever forget the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who now has the nickname “Jaws”? It is true that sharks drown or bleed out, which is absolutely tragic.

There were superb interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for West Ham (Ms Brown), for which I am grateful. I am also grateful for the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on the Labour Front Bench. I thank the Minister again for his support. He said that he has two coasts to look after—I could not think of anyone better to do that. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on achieving the Second Reading of her Bill.

Breed-specific Legislation

Christina Rees Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 603988, relating to breed specific legislation.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. The prayer of the petition states:

“We are not satisfied with the response to previous petitions making requests relating to breed specific legislation, and the recent report by Middlesex University, commissioned by the Government at a cost of £71,621, has now cast doubt on one of the core assumptions of the Dangerous Dogs Act: that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more dangerous. The Government should therefore immediately repeal breed specific legislation.”

Four breeds are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. They are the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro. Dogs suspected of being of a prohibited type are assessed against a standard, which describes what a particular type should look like. For example, pit bull terrier types are compared with a 1977 American Dog Breeders Association standard, and the dog is expected to approximately amount to, be near to or have a substantial number of characteristics described by the 1977 standard. However, the number of characteristics is not defined, and neither is the way in which the assessment should be conducted, which results in many legal breeds and cross-breeds fitting the standard regardless of the dog’s behaviour.

The petition that we are debating this afternoon was created by Anita Mehdi and, when I last checked, had attracted 114,557 signatures, including 113 from my Neath constituency. The closing date is 21 June, so those figures may increase. The House considered e-petition 300561, which called for reform of breed-specific legislation, on 5 July 2021. I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with that debate, so I intend to focus on the specific issues raised by Anita, whom I was fortunate to meet before this debate.

Anita told me that her dog, Lola, had been seized by the police in August 2019 because it had been brought to their attention that Lola could be of a banned breed. The dog legislation officer identified Lola as a pit bull type, based on her appearance, and a destruction order was made. Lola had never shown any aggression towards anyone and had never been involved in any incidents. Anita sought a court order so that she would be allowed to keep Lola. The court considered evidence put forward that Lola was not a risk to the public, and it agreed that Lola could stay with Anita, subject to the conditions that Lola was neutered, microchipped and always kept on a lead and muzzled in public.

Anita told me that before Lola was seized, she did not know anything about breed-specific legislation, and she was horrified to discover that dogs were being destroyed because of their appearance and not because they had harmed anyone. Anita believes that there should be legislation to take action in respect of dangerous dogs, but that it should not be breed specific. Many dog owners have contacted her about the adverse effect on their mental health when their dogs have been seized, and about the practical difficulties of owning a dog that has been exempted by court order. Anita wants to see breed-specific provisions repealed and the Dangerous Dogs Act amended to focus on dogs that are dangerous and on owners who mistreat their dogs, with increased penalties for offenders and possibly the reintroduction of dog licences.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is clear that breed-specific legislation does not achieve its intended purpose, which is to reduce the number of serious attacks on humans by dangerous dogs. Does my hon. Friend agree that a fundamentally different approach is required to tackle all kinds of dangerous dogs, to look at the issues of licensing, which she has mentioned, and training, and to make sure that the illicit sale of dogs is prevented and that proper controls are introduced? That requires a totally different approach to legislation.

[Christina Rees]

As usual, my hon. Friend has covered all the points that I am coming to in my speech. There is no collusion here, but I completely agree with him.

Before the debate, I met representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the dog control coalition. The coalition was formed in 2019 with five members: the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association and the Dogs Trust, whose operations of rehoming and promoting animal welfare had been detrimentally affected by section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Kennel Club subsequently joined the coalition. After 30 years of breed-specific legislation in the UK, those organisations joined forces to raise awareness of the ineffectiveness of the legislation in protecting public safety, and of its negative impact on dog welfare. They told me that breed-specific provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act must be repealed because evidence shows that its approach to public safety is fundamentally flawed.

The progressive global trend is to repeal breed-specific legislation. The Netherlands introduced breed-specific legislation in 1992 and abolished it in 2008, after a study found that commonly owned dogs were responsible for more bites than breed-specific dogs. Italy introduced breed-specific legislation, which banned 92 breeds, in 2003 and abolished it in 2009 for similar reasons.

Using breed as a predictor of aggressive behaviour is not reliable. Human behaviour, including poor management and the inability to provide for a dog’s needs, are more likely to cause dog to be dangerously out of control. The method by which banned dogs are identified is inconsistent and can be subjective, because the degree to which a dog needs to match the characteristics of a banned type is not clearly defined. The RSPCA has looked at the science around incidents involving dogs that are dangerously out of control, and found that dogs of a banned type are not more likely than other dog types to be a risk to the public. It wants the UK Government to improve data collection regarding the UK dog population and incidents involving dogs that are dangerously out of control, in order to make evidence-based decisions.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is outlining a fantastic evidence-based approach to this discussion. It is important that we look at the correct risk factors, but the more that the Government focus on breed-specific regulation, which has been shown to be unscientific in outcomes, the less likely we are to look at the real risk factors, such as puppy farming, trauma, abuse and lack of training, which need to be addressed to protect the public. That is the route that we should be taking.

[Christina Rees]

The hon. Lady makes a really good point. I know that she is an animal lover and a champion of the cause, and I thank her for her intervention.

A 2021 independent report by Middlesex University, commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, found that dog bite data is lacking and is inconsistent. However, it was used by the UK Government to underpin a breed-specific approach to public safety, which casts doubt on the evidence that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more dangerous. Breed-specific legislation means that dogs identified as a banned breed cannot be rehomed and strays of these breeds must therefore be put down. The RSPCA has put down 310 dogs in the past five years because of breed-specific legislation. Reforms would allow dogs that are not a risk to the public to be rehomed rather than put down.

Breed-neutral legislation that contains measures to effectively protect the public from dangerous dogs is needed. This would consist of a single dog control Act that consolidates the current complex legislative framework in a breed-neutral way. Dog control notices should be used proactively to help prevent incidents involving dangerous dogs, and there should be stronger penalties for irresponsible owners.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just these four breeds that are dangerous and it is not just this section of the Dangerous Dogs Act that needs amending? If another breed of dog kills someone’s dog, that owner is not liable for any form of prosecution, unless the dog is an assistance dog or unless another human being or the owner fears injury themselves.

Dog-on-dog attacks should become a criminal offence and that owners should be criminally liable if their dog attacks and kills another dog. The case for this was painfully demonstrated to me by an incident in my constituency at Christmas, when a beautiful, tiny Bichon Frise—a little white dog called Millie—was torn apart in Chalkwell Park by two boxer-style dogs, which is a breed not on the list of dangerous dogs. The owner did not fear any injury for himself, because it was clear the dogs were going for the tiny dog and not him. He had no choice but to carry his dog with its guts hanging out to the vet, where the dog was put down.

Understandably, Michael was traumatised by this event, as many dog owners are up and down the country. We hear about these dog-on-dog attacks pretty much on a weekly basis. Would the hon. Lady agree that section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be amended to make it a criminal offence if an owner allows their dog to kill another, irrespective of whether that dog is an assistance dog or whether injury is anticipated by the owner? The discrepancy between five years for a dog theft—

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making an important point, but I think she needs to take her seat. An intervention is not the same as a speech; interventions should be short and to the point. The hon. Lady has made her point and asked her question, and I am sure that the hon. Member who moved the motion will respond accordingly.

[Christina Rees]

I am very sorry to hear of the hon. Lady’s constituent’s trauma. I am an animal lover and a dog lover. When something happens to someone’s pet, it is very traumatic. The hon. Lady made a lot of valid points, and I am sure the Minister was listening.

As I was saying, we need a single dog control Act that consolidates the current complex legislative framework in a breed-neutral way, and we need to use dog control notices proactively to help prevent incidents involving dangerous dogs. There should also be stronger penalties for irresponsible owners.

Dog welfare is compromised on a daily basis as a result of breed-specific legislation. Dogs are put down, kept in kennels for long periods, especially when a decision about whether a dog is a banned type is challenged, or subject to restrictions after the granting of an interim exemption order. Under such orders, which are recommended by DEFRA, the dog owner is assessed as being a “fit and proper person” and the dog is assessed to be of good temperament, allowing the dog to be returned to its owner under exemption conditions. The dog must be microchipped, neutered and kept on a lead and muzzled while in public spaces until the case is heard in court.

There should be new provisions to ensure that the welfare of dogs kept in kennels is safeguarded. The UK Government’s responsible dog ownership steering group is welcomed. It is hoped it will lead to useful changes around education, data and enforcement, but it is disappointing that breed-specific legislation is not included. Such legislation is ineffective at protecting public safety and results in the unnecessary suffering and euthanasia of many dogs. It should be repealed and replaced with positive interventions that do not compromise dog welfare.

There is no mandatory requirement to report dog bites, but research suggests that people are more likely to report a bite from a suspected prohibited type. The Office for National Statistics lists 78 deaths from dog bites in England and Wales between 1981 and 2015. The RSPCA found from media reports that, of the 34 fatalities between 1989 and 2017, only nine involved pit bull types. Of the 35 reported and registered dog bite fatalities in the UK between 2005 and 2013, specific breeds were reported in 11 cases, but only two involved pit bull types. Between 1992 and 2019, only 8% of dangerously out-of-control dog cases involved banned breeds.

The coalition believes that identifying certain types of dogs as dangerous can create a false sense of security by over-simplifying the situation. Aggression in dogs is a complicated behaviour, involving a range of factors such as breeding and rearing, experiences throughout a dog’s lifetime and, for some dogs, being continually kept on a lead and muzzled in public, which can inhibit natural behaviours and, in some cases, increase aggression.

I also met with Jayne Dendle, who set up the south Wales charity Save Our Seized Dogs to help owners who have had their dogs taken from them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Jayne started her charity after she came across a story about a therapy dog that had been seized as a potential pit bull type without being involved in any incidents. The owner was a local authority tenant who discovered, after her therapy dog was assessed as an exempt dog, that she was not allowed to keep her dog in her property. Jayne got involved because she wanted to help.

Jayne told me that the costs of challenging a decision about a dog being a pit bull type are prohibitive, so her charity can help only a small number of owners. The legislation requires the owner to prove that their dog is not one of the four banned breeds, which is an onerous reversal of the burden of proof. When a dog does not conform to the proportional measurements and appearance of a banned breed, Jayne recommends that the dog owner obtain an independent assessor’s report. Such reports are comprehensive and run to several pages, while police evidence is often one paragraph setting out why they think the dog is one of the four banned breeds. The cost of an independent assessor’s report is between £800 and £1,500, but it is often the only method that will save a dog.

Unfortunately, when an owner declares that they will pay privately for a second opinion, the option of an interim exemption order is often withdrawn, and some police forces do not even use the interim exemption order scheme. However, there are many benefits of an interim exemption order: kennelling costs are kept to a minimum; kennel space is freed up for dogs that are of genuine concern; a dog is not away its from home for a long period; there is less pressure on courts to provide a hearing date, and I am sure that Members know about the massive backlog of court cases; and breed-specific cases are of low priority.

Jayne found cases where police forces had encouraged an owner to sign over their dog, which had been identified as being of a banned type, so that the dog could be put down and the owner could avoid facing criminal charges. She believes that training for dog legislation officers is insufficient and should focus more on identifying banned breeds.

The welfare of seized dogs is of great concern. When they are returned to their owners, they are often underweight, have sores from sleeping on concrete floors, have damaged teeth from chewing on the bars of the kennel cage, and have parts of their tails missing from wagging them in an enclosed space. The police keep their kennel and vet costs to a minimum, which leads to poor welfare of seized dogs. Jayne has dealt with several cases in which young dogs that were previously healthy were found dead in police-approved facilities. Puppies are often seized when they are under eight weeks of age because there is a suspicion that one or both of their parents may be of a banned breed, but how can the assessment be accurate when good practice suggests that adult dog maturity is only achieved at around nine months of age? Jayne recently dealt with one such case where the puppies were released at eight months, having been declared to be not of the banned breed type. The puppies were under-socialised, not familiar with living in a household environment, and very scared. Jayne suggests that puppies could be allowed home on a similar scheme to the interim exemption order scheme until they reach maturity, when they could be properly assessed.

In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. Will the UK Government commit to implementing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s recommendation that there be an independent evidence review to establish whether the banned breed types are an inherently greater risk than any legal breed or cross-breed? Will the Government ensure that all dogs affected by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 have their welfare needs met and safeguarded? Will they ensure that all police forces use the interim exemption order scheme? When police forces do not use the interim exemption order scheme, the Government must protect dogs by developing and applying evidence-based, up-to-date kennelling standards.

Will the UK Government allow the rehoming of all dogs seized under the Act by responsible, reputable, rehoming organisations that are assessed through robust procedures? Will they permit independent assessors to review the welfare of dogs that are being kept in kennels pending a court hearing? Will they ensure that there are no contingent destruction orders, and no requirements placed on exempted dogs, such as a requirement to be muzzled in public, when it has been established that a dog seized under the Act does not pose a danger to the public? Will they explore alternatives to breed-specific legislation? Those could range from promoting and fostering responsible dog-ownership communities and allowing for early and preventive interventions, such as dog control notices, to imposing severe penalties on owners who use their dogs to frighten or intimidate. Finally, I should be very grateful if the Minister would meet the petitioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees]

We have had a very good debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their excellent, thought-provoking contributions. There is agreement that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not fit for purpose. I thank the Minister for her response, and I urge her—I know she is very magnanimous—to continue reviewing the legislation comprehensively and to act on expert evidence in order to find a middle ground that works, because it is not working at the moment. I think we need breed-neutral legislation that protects the public and safeguards dogs and responsible dog owners.

Finally, I thank the petitioner, Anita, for raising this very important matter and for her determination in campaigning to repeal breed-specific legislation and reform dangerous dogs legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 603988, relating to breed specific legislation.

Greyhound Racing

Christina Rees Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before we start, if anybody is in any doubt, the person with four legs in the Gallery is a registered PAT dog—Pets As Therapy—and she is there with the Chairman’s consent.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 554073, relating to greyhound racing.

It is always a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Sir Roger. The Petitions Committee has asked me to open this debate. The petition closed on 30 April 2021 with 104,885 signatures. It asks that the UK Government

introduce legislation to abolish greyhound racing, via a managed shutdown of activities, and ensure the welfare of redundant dogs through a levy on the industry.

The petitioner wishes to remain anonymous; the words I speak this evening are his/her words. The petitioner asserts that the welfare of greyhounds is not adequately protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, GBGB—the Greyhound Board of Great Britain—or any independent body, and that greyhounds endure unavoidable suffering on dangerously configured tracks, are raced in extreme weather and are housed in kennels that have not been independently inspected.

An early-day motion was tabled on 16 December 2021 acknowledging and supporting the petition. The UK Government responded to the petition on 26 November 2020. The petitioner told me that greyhound racing uses thousands of greyhounds as a global, online betting shop commodity, and that spectators at racing tracks are not needed, because racing is livestreamed.

Pressure from animal welfare charities and campaigners resulted in GBGB being required to publish annual data of greyhounds injured, rehomed and euthanised for humane or economic reasons. However, the Dogs Trust and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have questioned the accuracy of the data, because different datasets have been used for different years, making direct annual comparisons difficult. The data is not broken down to track level, preventing remedial action if required at a particular track.

The total recorded number of GBGB greyhounds injured annually since 2017 is 4,837 in 2017, 4,963 in 2018, 4,970 in 2019, and 3,507 in 2020. The number of those put to sleep on humane or economic grounds is 605 in 2017, 566 in 2018, 472 in 2019, and 224 in 2020. The petitioner found that greyhounds that were recorded as being in rescue centres or as rehomed as a pet were actually still racing. The dual system of having GBGB-registered tracks and independent tracks does not work, because greyhounds are raced at both tracks.

GBGB data records some greyhounds as retired, but the petitioner says that some of those are sold or given away to race on the three independent tracks. The petitioner spoke to me about insufficient enforcement of the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 by local authority trading standards departments due to lack of welfare inspections at tracks, because many councils are under-resourced and because schooling tracks and breeding facilities fall outside these regulations.

The petitioner believes that the GBGB reform programme, greyhound commitment, does not go far enough. GBGB statistics reveal a minor fluctuation, rather than a sustained improvement, in the percentage of racing dogs being injured. The figures were 1.19% in 2017, 1.16% in 2018, 1.21% in 2019, and 1.12% in 2020.

The petitioner referred me to section 3.1 of Dr Andrew Knight’s “Injuries in racing greyhounds” report from 2018, with which I am sure Members are familiar. The salient point is that races are run anticlockwise, so most injuries occur on the left foreleg and the right hind leg, because when negotiating a bend in the track, the left foreleg is used as a pivot, with claws digging into the ground, whereas the right hind leg moves in an arc, providing the primary propulsive force. The greyhound skeleton adapts by reabsorbing calcium from other bodily areas, resulting in spongy or honeycombed bone composition, which contributes to track injuries.

On the suggestion of the petitioner, I visited Hope Rescue, a centre run by Vanessa Waddon, so that I could listen to the practical realities of rehoming injured and surplus greyhounds. Hope Rescue is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who wanted to be here but has parliamentary duties elsewhere. Vanessa is in the Public Gallery this evening. We also have with us Suzy the greyhound, who has already been mentioned by you, Sir Roger, and who is representing Greyhounds as Pets and Pets as Therapy—I hope I have got that right.

Hope Rescue is named after Last Hope, a greyhound found abandoned on a Caerphilly mountain in 2004, having been shot with a captive bolt gun. Both his ears had been hacked off to hide identifying ear tattoos. Last Hope was still alive, and his finder reported that he was still wagging his tail, but he had to be put to sleep. This cruel story inspired Vanessa to become involved in greyhound rescue, and she set up Hope Rescue, which is an all-breed rescue centre.

Move forward 17 years and Hope Rescue is supporting the UK campaign, and the campaign in Wales, to ban greyhound racing because of welfare concerns and the prospect of increased greyhound racing when Wales’s only independent track, Valley track, becomes a GBGB track. Hope Rescue started its Amazing Greys project at Valley track in April 2018 in order to provide emergency rescue spaces and vet care for injured and surplus greyhounds before they were transferred to one of Hope Rescue’s partners—the Dogs Trust, Greyhound Rescue Wales and the Forever Hounds Trust—although some dogs were rehomed directly from Hope Rescue. Between April 2018 and August 2021, the project took in over 200 greyhounds that had been surrendered because their owners or trainers had links with Valley track. They included over 40 greyhounds that had sustained serious injuries—mostly fractures—through racing at Valley track. Sadly, five greyhounds did not survive their injuries. Many greyhounds had old, undiagnosed injuries, lameness, other health problems such as dental, skin, fleas and worms, and behavioural problems such as anxiety and fear.

After publicly sharing the petition, Vanessa was told that Hope Rescue was no longer welcome at the Valley track, so the fate of current surplus and injured greyhounds from Valley track is sadly unknown. Although Valley track is an independent track, Vanessa told me that her project revealed the strong links between the regulated GBGB sector and independent tracks. Some 67% of injured greyhounds at Valley track were GBGB greyhounds. Vanessa and the project’s volunteers were heartbroken to witness those greyhounds in so much shock and pain when receiving emergency treatment from Hope Rescue’s vets. There were no vets at Valley track.

The majority of the injuries were broken legs, including snapped bones going straight through the skin. One dog had the skin degloved from her leg, down to the bone, when she collided with the hare, and more fractures to her skull, face and ribs due to the collision. Sadly, she did not survive.

Valley track advertises its “eye-watering sharp first bend” on its website, and Vanessa witnessed most injuries occurring on that first bend. However, the greyhounds try to continue to the end of the race, because that is what they are trained to do. Vanessa believes it is unacceptable that the risk of these beautiful dogs suffering an injury—or even dying—is disregarded by the industry as collateral damage. As she can testify, behind every injury and death statistic is a beautiful, sentient dog, which will have endured immense suffering.

Vanessa told me that animal welfare charities are currently experiencing unprecedented demand and pressures due to the huge surge in pet ownership during the pandemic. On the day I visited, Hope Rescue had 216 dogs in its care, including some seized from illegal breeders, stray dogs, and dogs surrendered by their owners. Rehoming surplus greyhounds is an additional pressure on rescue centres, in both cost and capacity, created by the welfare deficiencies in the greyhound racing industry.

The dilemma facing rescue centres is that they do not want to stop taking in racing greyhounds, even though it would free up thousands of additional rescue spaces and improve welfare for the wider dog population and their owners, because who would otherwise look after the greyhounds?

Vanessa recognises that GBGB has introduced some recent financial schemes, including the injury recovery scheme, which provides a 50% grant, up to a maximum of £2,000, for certain injuries, and a £400 retirement bond. However, those financial incentives cover only a portion of the true costs and resources necessary for rehoming surplus and injured greyhounds as companion pets. Vanessa believes that the need for an injury recovery scheme speaks volumes about the welfare issues caused by greyhound racing. Resources should not be needed to fix broken legs, because legs should not be broken in the first place.

Hope Rescue launched a petition to ban greyhound racing in Wales in September 2021, and within a week it had secured the 10,000-signature threshold to be considered for a debate. The petition had cross-party support in the Senedd from Jane Dodds, leader of the Welsh Lib Dems, Luke Fletcher of Plaid Cymru, and Carolyn Thomas of Labour, along with support from rescue centres across the UK. The petition closed on 1 March 2022 with 35,101 signatures, and was discussed by the Senedd’s Petitions Committee on 7 March. The Committee agreed to proceed with a call for evidence, to be followed by a debate in the Senedd.

The petitioner stresses that public attitudes to greyhound racing are changing. In the UK, there were once 77 GBGB-licensed tracks and 200 independent tracks; today, 20 licenced and three unlicensed tracks remain. Greyhound racing to satisfy the needs of, and create profits for, the betting industry is being recognised as an animal welfare and gambling addiction problem. Some 99% of British greyhound bets are placed online or at betting offices, so it is unlikely that that money remains in the local economy.

Increased regulation may offer a temporary solution and may marginally increase the welfare of greyhounds while they are racing, but the significant number of injuries, deaths, and surplus greyhounds needing rescue spaces requires a long-term strategy. A sustainable solution to the welfare problems is needed. The petitioner and Vanessa strongly feel that a ban is the only solution. A ban can be achieved immediately in Scotland and Wales due to the low number of tracks, but in England a ban should be phased in to ensure that displaced greyhounds can be accommodated and the infrastructure will be dismantled over time.

Hope Rescue recently commissioned a YouGov poll, which showed that 45% of the public support a ban, 17% oppose a ban, and 38% are unsure or do not support either option. The foundation of any welfare strategy is that prevention is better than cure. The petitioner and Vanessa humbly request a meeting with the Minister to discuss how the UK Government can progress the proposal to abolish greyhound racing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I will go on to talk a bit more about the national welfare strategy that is being worked on, which is very appropriately called, “A Good Life for Every Greyhound”. The point that my hon. Friend raises will be dealt with in the strategy, and rightly so.

The hon. Member for Neath mentioned that the stats—on the injuries, and so forth—were queried. However, those stats are independently verified in a manner approved by DEFRA. On data and stats, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), asked for a GBGB database; there is already a central database run by GBGB.

GBGB has also developed, with welfare groups—including the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Battersea, and the Dogs Trust—independent standards and a code of practice for trainers’ kennels. GBGB trainers’ kennels are now independently inspected against those standards. Before the end of this year, GBGB should be accredited as an enforcer of them.

Responding to the EFRA Committee in 2018, GBGB introduced its greyhound commitment, which set out further welfare reforms, including its injury recovery and retirement schemes. As I said, GBGB will shortly produce and launch its national welfare strategy, which will look across a whole range of issues, but will genuinely focus on welfare throughout the dog’s life, not just during its racing career. I think that will address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton.

I was concerned to hear the comments about the Valley track, which I believe is in Caerphilly. As I understand it, that is the only greyhound track in Wales and it is independent. Greyhound regulations are devolved, and, unlike England, Wales has no specific greyhound regulation—nor indeed does Scotland, I believe, although I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) said. However, I believe that Welsh Ministers have recently announced that greyhound racing and its licensing will be considered as part of their animal welfare plan for Wales. Independent tracks in England have been required to be licensed since 2010, and the 2010 regulations apply to all tracks in England, including independent ones.

[Christina Rees]

The Minister has put her finger on the problem. The Valley track is in Ystrad Mynach, near Caerphilly, and is an independent track—although it is soon to be a GBGB track. The petition heard in the Senedd will be debated and will form part of the plan, so the Minister is quite correct. However, I would be interested to know what she thinks of the transformation from an independent track to a GBGB track.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments, but that track is in Wales and the matter is still devolved. If she wants more detail on the transition to a GBGB track, I am happy to write to her.

[Christina Rees]

To be clear, what circumstances would the Minister consider important in the specific case of an independent track—say, in England—becoming a GBGB track?

[Rebecca Pow]

We only have one independent track in England, which I have named, just now, and as far as I know, it does not have any desire to transfer. However, if it did, it would have to adhere to all of the correct standards, exactly as all other tracks do. I am sure that if the hon. Member wants further detail, we can get back to her with that.

Bookmakers have also been encouraged by the Government to pay their fair share to fund GBGB welfare. However, consistently, about 95% of all licensed betting offices—including those online—are now contributing to the voluntary greyhound levy. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the betting industry must be responsible in its contribution to funding welfare, addressing injuries, rehoming and so on. However, betting policy is led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, so I urge him to raise that point with DCMS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Animal welfare is always very emotive, but this has been a very respectful debate. Again, I ask the Minister if she will meet with the petitioner, Vanessa—perhaps at Hope Rescue? Maybe the Minister can answer that in the few seconds remaining.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for putting me on the spot. We in DEFRA are always pleased to hear if people have views about animal welfare that they want to communicate with us. I am not actually the Minister responsible for this issue; she currently has covid. I will pass on that message and, if she would like to meet the petitioner, I am sure she will be in touch.

[Christina Rees]

Again, I thank everyone for contributing to this debate, and I thank you, Sir Roger, for your excellent chairship as usual.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 554073, relating to greyhound racing.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Veterinary Agreement

Christina Rees Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House, or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of securing a veterinary agreement in the Northern Ireland Protocol.

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your auspices, Ms Rees, and I am delighted to speak on this really important issue.

I want to go back a little over two years and quote what the Prime Minister said when asked about form-filling as a result of the Johnson protocol, which he paraded as a triumph of his negotiating skills. He told the world:

“If somebody asks you to do that, tell them to ring up the Prime Minister and I will direct them to throw that form in the bin…There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”

Two years have gone by. If it were two days, perhaps we would all say, “Let’s just wait and see.” If it were even two weeks or two months, we might say, “We’ll give the Prime Minister a chance to negotiate a solution.” But two years is outrageous.

This debate is not about the Johnson protocol, about which I know those hon. Members present have different views. I say to my friends in the Democratic Unionist party that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are in favour of the protocol, but I know that there are serious doubts about it. This debate is not about the protocol but about the operation of the protocol, an issue on which there is widespread agreement in Northern Ireland.

The situation in Northern Ireland at the moment is quite dangerous. It is building up tensions and concerns, and is possibly being manipulated to the extent that the loyalist community in particular fear for their future. That is why it is irresponsible that, two years on, we have no solution.

The sanitary and phytosanitary controls, which will come fully into operation at some point, are already having an impact, but it is important to acknowledge the very welcome grace periods for chilled meats and medicines. Lord Frost told the Lords last week that he expects those grace periods to continue at least until the end of the year and beyond if negotiations are constructive. Does the Minister expect the grace periods to continue? That really does matter.

Export health certificates have already come into operation for goods being transported from Great Britain to the European Union, and from GB to Northern Ireland. Aodhán Connolly, convenor of the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, told both the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the International Trade Committee that there is no food shortage—that has to be acknowledged—but that not everything is perfect. Big supermarkets in Northern Ireland usually stock between 40,000 to 50,000 lines; in the worst case there was a shortage of 600 lines, but in better cases the figure is in the tens. Therefore, there is no food shortage, but there are some specific shortages. A friend told me recently that she could not get flour or vanilla. Such things are important for some people, and we ought to acknowledge that there are shortages.

Of course, trade volumes are down. Earlier this year, pork sales from GB were down some 70%, and piglets were going to be slaughtered because farmers simply could not sell them on the open market. That was some time ago, but can the Minister provide an update on how trade has been affected. Even with the grace periods, and even though the export health certificates have come into operation only recently, the reality is that the volume of sales has gone down. I have heard very different estimates, so it would be helpful if the Minister could update us?

Under the SPS regime there is a need for forms and documents. Vets have to certify the fitness of animals, either live or slaughtered, and there is a certification process for food products as well. Vets also have to check the registration number of vehicles, to guarantee that they are the same ones that originally carried the food. We do not know exactly how that will work for GB to Northern Ireland. We do know, however, how it works for GB into the European Union, because at the port of Dublin there are physical checks on 4% to 5% of goods, and documentary checks on up to 30%. That is a major barrier to trade for GB producers.

The chief veterinary officer for Northern Ireland says that they need 27 vets to do the checking work that will now be required at the ports, but only half that number are available. There is a real question for the Minister about the number of vets available—not simply at the ports in Northern Ireland, but across GB—to ensure that GB producers can sell to Northern Ireland.

There is already a cost to us in Great Britain and to the EU, and this does not just apply to Northern Ireland. Welsh lamb and Scottish fishery products are also affected, as are the processed foods that the whole of Great Britain sells in considerable numbers. There are, however, real questions, which my Northern Ireland colleagues will want to hear addressed, about whether GB producers will consider it worth selling to Northern Ireland in particular. Supply chains already face challenges and the biggest issue is that of uncertainty. I do not know how much of an answer the Minister will be able to give us but, two years on, producers still have uncertainty hanging over them and are asking whether it is reasonable for them to sell to a relatively small market in Northern Ireland when the alternative is simply not to go through the hassle involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Jim Shannon. I think we are all grateful that you shortened your remarks by at least two minutes, because Christmas is coming, I have been told.