Importation and Sale of Foie Gras

Giles Watling Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the importation and sale of foie gras.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to have secured this important debate about the dreadful and totally unnecessary cruelty to animals in creating a so-called delicacy. I wish to make it clear that, while today’s debate is about the importation and sale of foie gras, I understand that we cannot ban a product. Instead, we can deal with the process through which it is made. In this case, the product, foie gras, is produced by forced feeding.

I wish to offer my thanks to Abigail Penny from Animal Equality UK, who should be shortly joining us in the Public Gallery. I can proudly say that she hails from the sunshine coast and resides in Clacton, which is a place of animal lovers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. There was an Adjournment debate on this matter in the Chamber some time ago. I supported the principle referred to by the hon. Gentleman. He probably shares my frustration that, although Government have made it clear that the production of force-fed foie gras raises serious welfare concerns, unfortunately no steps have been taken. What does he feel that the Minister and the Government need to do to make that happen?

[Giles Watling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I raise the matter here today precisely because I do not think enough action has taken place since that previous debate.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first vote. If there are subsequent votes, it will be 10 minutes. Then, as soon as the mover of the motion and the Minister are here, we can proceed, so I ask hon. Members to go quickly as possible, please.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Giles Watling]

After the interruption, I am pleased to say that we now have a full house in the Public Gallery. I pay tribute to and thank Abigail Penny from Animal Equality UK for her hard work on this cause. I can proudly say that she comes from Clacton, the sunshine coast, and Clacton is a place of animal lovers, which is probably why I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare. Her charity has provided a brochure, which colleagues are welcome to take back with them, highlighting the issue in further detail.

Foie gras results from the process of forcibly putting a tube down a goose’s throat into their stomach and pumping food until their liver swells. The liver is then cut out and sold to the markets. I am sure that many meat eaters are present. One of my twin daughters champions the vegan cause, and I have to admit that I am not quite there. The point I wish to make is that the normal kinds of meat that the average consumer buys are not created in this barbaric and cruel fashion. We have strict laws in this country on how our industry produces meat and other animal products, avoiding unnecessary suffering where at all possible. Sadly, that is not the case with the production of foie gras.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Labour attempted to ban the importation of foie gras during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020. The Conservative Government voted our proposals down, but Labour is committed to introducing a ban on these imports as soon as we can. Can we count on the hon. Member’s support?

[Giles Watling]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention; I am not sure whether she was here earlier when I answered another point of a similar nature. One of the reasons why I am bringing the debate today is that there has been inaction. I would like to see action on this issue, and very soon.

I could quite easily go on regarding the emotional argument against foie gras and for animal welfare standards to be improved, but it seems impossible to have a reasonable method of producing foie gras. Instead, I shall raise a more practical argument. There have been many recorded incidents of disease outbreak in France. As we have seen with the growing bedbug issue, we are not safe from disease and pests just because we have the English channel. The crowded conditions of the farms act as a breeding ground for disease, much like any other form of intensive farming. As a representative of a constituency that has vast areas of rural land, I would not want to endanger my local farmers. We must be especially alert to that risk and not accelerate another potential pandemic given the serious consequences of covid-19. Although bird flu has not yet jumped to humans, I understand that scientists are concerned that it could mutate.

Foie gras is an expensive luxury item. By defending foie gras sales or not acting on the trade during times of spiralling financial hardship across the country, I fear that we risk appearing to be totally out of touch with the British people. If I were to stand on Christmas Tree Island in Clacton and take a poll of constituents who have ever purchased foie gras, I can only imagine the response. This is especially important to keep in mind with the looming general election ahead. It is a low-hanging fruit for the Government, so we should move on it.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate; I had a similar debate on the banning of the importation of foie gras on the Floor of the House of Commons a while ago. Does he agree that if we deem foie gras too cruel to be produced in this country, we should also agree that, by definition, it is too cruel to be imported?

[Giles Watling]

I absolutely agree that it is too cruel. As with the much-desired ban on trophy hunting, which is a ridiculous sport, we should ban such imports. From Abigail and Animal Equality UK, I understand that the petition to ban foie gras by force-feeding was signed by no fewer than 280,000 people. That is an enormous amount of people concerned for the lives of these birds and the way they live them, and it is impressive to see.

I can confirm that e-petition 608288 to ban the importation and sale of foie gras has been signed by 6,878 people, including six of my constituents in Clacton, and e-petition 609129 to ban fur and foie gras imports has been signed by 528 people. There is a case to be made that public opinion is now moving in a very clear direction.

However, colleagues and viewers of this debate alike might ask why it is focused on the importation and sale of foie gras produced by force feeding. It is because, as we have just heard, producing foie gras by force feeding is already outlawed in the UK. Nevertheless, despite the cruelty that goes into the production of foie gras, we still allow it to be imported. When applying the law, judges consider how consistent it is; in this case, in my view, the law is not very consistent at all.

As my hon. Friend the Minister might mention—I do not wish to take away any of her thunder—the Government have successfully ended the imports of whale meat, seal fur, elephant ivory, and cat and dog meat; I personally ran a campaign against cat and dog meat, to end its production globally. If personal choice is a valid reason for failing to ban the import of foie gras, why have other bans been introduced?

I also think it is prudent to note the Government’s support for the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on the importation of hunting trophies, which I mentioned earlier. If you will excuse the pun, Mr Pritchard, there is clearly an appetite in the Government to go down the route of banning cruel imports.

Lastly, foie gras has been banned in royal residences since last year. I will not break any protocol by speaking here, but I think it prudent to mention that this place is a royal residence and still belongs to the Crown as a royal palace. Like all colleagues, I am a humble and obedient servant of the Crown, and I have sworn an oath of allegiance. Although it is my understanding that foie gras is not on any menus on the parliamentary estate, a strong act of symbolism would be to ban the product here, too—something that I will raise with Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I am not going to disagree about the horrible cruelty—that is why we have banned the practice in this country. I think he makes the point exactly.

Those are the manifesto commitments but I would like to list the things that we have already delivered, to make it clear how seriously we take animal welfare: we have increased the penalties for those convicted of animal cruelty from six months to five years; we have passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which has just been referred to, and we have launched the dedicated Committee to work on it; we have made microchipping compulsory for cats as well as dogs; and we have announced the extension to the Ivory Act 2018, which came into force last year, to cover five more endangered species—hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus.

On top of our manifesto commitments, we published our ambitious and comprehensive action plan for animal welfare in 2021. The plan set out the work that we are focused on pursuing, to deliver a better life for animals in this country and abroad. The commitments in the action plan last through this Parliament and beyond it. Our action plan relates to farmed animals, wild animals, pets and sporting animals, and it includes legislative and non-legislative reforms. In addition, we have provided for penalty notices to apply to animal welfare offences; introduced new police powers to tackle hare coursing—that needed tackling and we have worked hard to bring forward a better crackdown on hare coursing; we banned glue traps; and we have supported the private Members’ Bills to ban the trade in detached shark fins and to ban the advertising here of low-welfare animal experiences abroad.

This debate, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, deals specifically with foie gras. As hon. Members will know, the production of foie gras by force-feeding is banned in the UK because it is incompatible with domestic legislation. Foie gras production is covered by the general provisions in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which make it a criminal offence to allow an animal to suffer unnecessarily and place a duty on people responsible for animals that requires them to do all that is reasonable to ensure the welfare of their animals. That includes an animal’s need for a suitable diet and to be protected from pain, suffering, injury, and disease.

While we have domestic restrictions on the production of force-fed foie gras, it is of course possible to import foie gras from abroad—clearly, there is a market trading in that. It is absolutely vital that we develop any future policies on the basis of robust evidence in line with the Government’s commitment to improving animal welfare standards as set out in the action plan for animal welfare. We are committed to building a clear evidence base on foie gras to inform our future decisions, and we are looking at what other countries that have banned it do. As my hon. Friend will know, a certain number of countries have banned the production of foie gras just as we have—Germany, Italy and Luxembourg. As he will also know, the EU does not have an overall ban. We are also looking at how the World Trade Organisation operates if a ban is introduced.

All those things need to be considered carefully. One of our strongest levers is the work that we do on the international stage to influence the strengthening of animal welfare standards across the globe recommended by the World Organisation for Animal Health and other global organisations and applied to different countries. As my hon. Friend will know from his work on dog meat—we did some work on that jointly as Back Benchers—that is a strong way to influence and encourage other countries not to use these methods. All that will be looked at in the evidence base, and we will work with relevant Departments on disease—he mentioned disease and avian flu—as part of the evidence building.

I am standing in for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, and I will make sure that comments made in the debate are passed on to him, as he was unable to attend. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton will know that some supermarkets have banned foie gras and, as he said, King Charles does not allow it to be served. Customers already have a choice not to buy it and certainly not to eat it—I would certainly never buy it.

[Giles Watling]

On that very point about banning the product and its import, many businesses in the private sector have banned the product and refuse to sell it. Fortnum & Mason—a short walk from Parliament—banned it from its shelves in 2021. By allowing restaurants and retailers to sell foie gras the United Kingdom, we are permitting animal torture and suffering. It is time to take an ethical stance, because those who still sell foie gras have a business advantage, as it is still legal and possible to do so.

[Rebecca Pow]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will certainly pass on his comments. I have made the point that we have a choice as to whether or not to buy the product if we do not support those methods of production. The evidence base is being established to inform future decisions, and I want to conclude by reiterating that animal welfare is a huge Government priority. We recognise the massive contribution that animals make to our planet. We are proud of what we have achieved on animal welfare.

Import and Sale of Fur

Giles Watling Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the import and sale of fur.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. As Members are aware, the welfare and protection of animals is an issue that our constituents care deeply about. In this country, we have a proud track record of leading the charge on the international stage in animal protection law. Only last year, we marked the bicentenary of the UK’s first animal protection law—indeed, the first national animal protection law in the world—the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, known as Martin’s Act. We in the UK lead the way.

In our ever-more connected world, British people are both informed about and concerned by the plight of animals, not just in this country but overseas, and we are rightly and especially concerned when animals suffer overseas to be turned into products that eventually reach the UK as a consumer market or important trading hub. Today’s debate is about our current double standard. In the UK, fur farming is banned on the grounds of ethics and welfare, but we continue to allow the import of farmed fur from animals that have suffered overseas. The debate is about recognising that when it comes to protecting the welfare of sentient animals, it is not enough simply to prevent cruelties occurring in our own backyard. We must look beyond our shores and ensure that we do not perpetuate the infliction of cruelty overseas by trading in cruel products such as fur.

The Government’s 2021 action plan for animal welfare pledged to explore action on the UK fur trade. It noted that although it is illegal to import seal, cat and dog fur,

“it is still possible to import other fur from abroad”.

In June 2021, the Government conducted a call for evidence on the fur market that received almost 30,000 responses, although they have not yet released a summary of those responses or a policy position. I hope we might have some progress on that point, and to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about it today.

Today’s debate on the UK fur trade might be seen as a debate about an animal welfare problem. Indeed, animal welfare will feature significantly in my remarks. However, it is also a debate about the trade in an unsustainable product that causes great environmental harm and the production of which carries significant and extremely concerning human health risks through a strong association with the spread of zoonotic diseases, including covid-19. But let us begin with the animals themselves and their experience in the global fur trade.

Fur farming has rightly been banned across all nations of the UK since 2003. We were the first country in the world to ban it and we blazed a trail that 18 countries have followed, with legislation for fur farming bans currently progressing through the Parliaments of Romania and Lithuania. The shrinking list of countries that continue to allow the farming of animals for their fur includes Finland, Poland and China. Across all countries where animals are farmed for their fur, the conditions are broadly similar.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate on an important issue that our constituents care deeply about. He talks about other countries that have continued to farm fur, but of course here we have a ceremonial hat worn by the King’s Guard that is made from the pelt of Canadian brown bears. Is it time to look for alternatives, given that right in the centre of any big parade we have that symbol of cruelty to animals?

[Giles Watling]

I am glad the hon. Lady mentioned the fur cap. I think it takes one bear to produce one cap. A lot of the caps are ancient and historic, but we now have alternative products that are very effective and hard wearing. There is no reason why we cannot move to that. We will need to talk to the Ministry of Defence about that and take it further. It is something I would be glad to pick up, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

Let me return to the condition of animals on fur farms, including foxes, raccoon dogs, mink and chinchillas, which are kept in wire battery cages that typically are no larger than 1 square metre, according to the industry’s own literature. They spend their short lives—typically around eight to nine months—in such cages. They are never permitted to run, dig, swim or hunt, or to engage in any of the other behaviours known to be vital to their physical and mental welfare.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing such an important debate. He is making extremely powerful comments, but what does he make of the comments of Mike Moser, the former chief executive officer of the British Fur Trade Association and former director of standards at the International Fur Federation? Mike Moser spent 10 years defending the fur trade, but he now dedicates his life to being an anti-fur campaigner, and he confessed that

“neither welfare regulations nor any industry certification scheme, would ever change the reality of these animals being stuck in tiny wire cages for their entire lives.”

Do not those comments add to the argument that there is no such thing as humane fur farming?

[Giles Watling]

I could not agree more. In fact, I shall use that very quote later in my speech. The hon. Member will find that we agree wholeheartedly on the issue.

Specifically in the case of mink, of which an estimated 20 million a year are farmed in tiny wire cages, veterinarians and welfare experts point out that as they are naturally solitary and wide-ranging animals in the wild, being kept row upon row, just centimetres from their equally unfortunate neighbours, is doubtless very stressful for them. Such an environment, and such cramped and barren conditions, comprehensively fail all scientific measures used to ensure that animals are kept in conditions that meet their welfare needs, such as the five freedoms of animal welfare and the five domains. Unsurprisingly, such conditions lead to physical and psychological suffering. The suffering in those cages is ubiquitous, and the fur industry builds into its so-called welfare assurance schemes an ambition to keep the percentage of animals suffering from diarrhoea, purulent discharge from the eyes, obvious skin lesions, and severe gum or tooth infections to less than 10%.

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

I echo the comments of colleagues in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he share the concerns of some about the impact of fur farms, which become reservoirs of disease, on human health? We need only look to our experience of the recent pandemic in that regard. That experience is another good reason for the UK Government to take the steps the hon. Gentleman is advocating.

[Giles Watling]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, although we seem to be on a repeat cycle as I shall refer to those very issues later in my speech. I think he will be glad to hear my remarks.

Such health problems are widespread on fur farms and are the result of the grossly inadequate conditions in which the animals are forced to live. Investigations by organisations such as Humane Society International, to which I am incredibly grateful for its support during my preparation for the debate, repeatedly show the mental suffering of those wild animals, including a high frequency of stereotypical behaviours such as pacing and rocking as well as self-mutilation and cannibalism. Despite what the fur trade might like consumers to believe, there is no such thing as humane fur farming. Industry-led assurance schemes of high welfare fur farming permit a wide range of cruel practices, including the use of battery cages and cruel traps, such as leg-hold traps and even drowning traps for beavers.

At the end of their tragic lives, mink are typically gassed to death—veterinarians tell me that that is aversive to them, which of course it is, and that it causes suffering, which of course it does—while foxes and raccoon dogs are mostly anally electrocuted. Sickeningly, investigations, including one by Humane Society International in 2020 in China, show that animals are crudely beaten to death with metal poles and even skinned alive.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a fine speech. What brought the issue home to me was something that happened at school when I was 14 or 15. Our physics teacher, Mr Thompson, took an amber rod and showed us that rubbing it would produce a positive charge, but what he rubbed it with shook me to the core. It was a pussycat skin. He had a box of skins. He said, “It is all right; they came from abroad.” The hon. Member mentioned wild animals; that was a domestic moggy, somebody’s cat. That is what put me right off. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), I have had numerous messages from constituents on the subject.

[Giles Watling]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right: it does not matter where these skins come from, we should take it very seriously and consider legislating heavily against it.

Could fur production be made humane? The simple and truthful answer is “no”, because the fur trade’s economic model remains completely reliant on battery cages. There is no humane alternative to the fur trade’s model of intensive confinement. When the Governments of Germany and Sweden brought in laws requiring that foxes be given digging substrate and, in Germany, that minks be provided with swimming water, the respective segments of the industry in those countries closed down, as it was no longer economically viable to meet the requirements of those sensible laws.

It is not only animal protection organisations, such as the HSI and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, that are calling time on the fur trade. The former CEO of the British Fur Trade Association, Mike Moser, who was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), resigned after 10 years defending the fur trade. In September 2020, he publicly pledged his support for the Fur Free Britain campaign to ban fur sales in the UK. It is worth reading his statement again:

“Over time I realised that whatever soundbites we devised to reassure consumers, retailers and politicians, neither welfare regulations nor any industry certification scheme, would ever change the reality of these animals being stuck in tiny wire cages for their entire lives.”

That is a good point, well made. An estimated 95% of fur traded—the majority—is from animals kept on fur farms.

Let us move on to wild animals. Wild animals trapped for their fur suffer different but similarly awful plights. In countries including the USA and Canada, such animals are frequently caught cruel leg-hold traps that have been banned in the UK since the 1950s. Animals such as coyotes and racoons can suffer for days in those traps before they eventually succumb to the elements or dehydration or are killed. Horrifically, it is not uncommon for animals to rip or chew off limbs in a bid to escape. Such suffering is impossible to imagine, all for the purpose of a sentient creature ending up as the trim on a jacket hood or fur cap.

The case against the cruelty of the fur trade is straightforward. Less commonly understood, perhaps, is that fur farms can act as a reservoir for viruses and present a risk to public health, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned earlier. More than 480 fur farms across Europe and north America have been affected by outbreaks of covid-19 over the past three years, with six countries confirming spillover events from fur farms back to humans. Some 20 million animals were culled to protect public health, but mink farming continues in several countries across Europe and beyond.

An outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza on a mink farm in Spain last autumn further raised pandemic fears, with virologists from Imperial College, London, writing that it is “incredibly concerning” and “a warning bell” for humanity. A recent statement by the World Organisation for Animal Health warns:

“Some animals, such as mink, may act as mixing vessels for different influenza viruses, leading to the emergence of new strains and subtypes that could be more harmful to animals and/or humans. Recently reported infections in farmed mink are a concern, because infections of large numbers of mammals kept in close proximity of each other exacerbate this risk.”

By importing animal fur, we are importing cruelty, and we are facilitating a trade that could very well be the source of the next pandemic.

Lastly, let me outline briefly a final, compelling reason for the Government to act to end the UK fur trade: its sizeable environmental footprint. A new report published by Humane Society International has found that among the eight materials considered, fur from minks, foxes and racoon dogs had the highest air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and water pollution per kilogram. The carbon footprint of 1 kg of mink fur was found to be 31 times higher than that of 1 kg of cotton, and the water consumption in fur production was found to be five times higher than that for cotton, with a kilogram of fur requiring a staggering 29,130 litres of water. The fur trade is bad news for animals, bad news for human health and bad news for the environment. An import ban, as they say in the vernacular, is a no-brainer.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that very good point about the fur caps that the military wear. I am sure he agrees that there are also more cost-effective ways of producing that fur.

[Steven Bonnar]

It is on the record that there are far more cost-effective ways of doing that, and faux fur caps last a lot longer too, so I am absolutely behind that. Nobody wants to take away the pomp and pageantry. Some people like it, and we respect the fact that it matters to people here, but there is no need for animal suffering.

The early-day motion states that the continued use of bearskin from wild bears impedes the UK Government’s efforts to strengthen animal welfare legislation and improve animal rights. That cruelty and maltreatment must not continue unabated, given that faux fur is a cruelty-free and more cost-effective alternative, as the hon. Gentleman has just outlined.

Despite all that, and despite calls from the length and breadth of the UK to protect animals and choose the humane option, the MOD has not moved. In June, the Government stated:

“The use of faux fur products for future requirements remains under review.”

That is not good enough. The Ministry of Defence uses not only bear for ceremonial caps, but black fox skin, and rabbit, beaver and hare fur, for various other items of uniform. We believe that the Ministry of Defence has serious questions to answer, and so does the Department for International Trade.

As the regulation of international trade remains a reserved matter, this is a decision that the UK Government must take on behalf of all nations of the UK. The SNP urges the Government to make the right decision, listen to the people and to morality, and prohibit the import of any new fur products. Furthermore, we call on the Department for International Trade to introduce a ban before it negotiates and signs any more free trade deals with fur-exporting nations. The challenges we face must not be used to oppose a ban, as is currently happening in some quarters. We also do not want to find ourselves bound by the terms of any trade agreement that makes a fur ban more difficult to introduce, so we must have guarantees that such terms will never be used as a bargaining chip in any negotiations.

I remind those who argue that this issue is insignificant compared with other pressing concerns that our treatment of animals speaks volumes about our society. The way we treat the most vulnerable among us, including animals, reflects our collective character. By banning fur imports, we would reaffirm our commitment to empathy and compassion, and foster a society that values the inherent worth of all sentient beings. The time has come for the United Kingdom to take that bold step and ban the import of animal fur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I regard that to be an incredibly low risk—nigh on impossible—given the interest that we have already had from Members looking to pursue such private Members’ Bills. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman encourages Opposition Members to apply to take a Bill forward. I can guarantee that officials in DEFRA will work incredibly diligently, as they always do, to support Members with their private Members’ Bills to ensure that they are robust, evidence-based and make the necessary progress across both Houses.

[Giles Watling]

I, like many others across both sides of this House, was disappointed when the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was dropped. I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries when he made that announcement. My understanding is that parts of that Bill will be going through as legislation. I ask the Minister how many parts will become legislation and will the Bill eventually go through in its entirety?

[Trudy Harrison]

My hon. Friend allows me to say that there were six measures listed in the manifesto, and all six will be acted on through various legislative means, including primary and secondary legislation, regulation and reforms with the industry. I will be happy to meet with my hon. Friend to provide further detail, and to encourage him to submit an application in the ballot after the King’s Speech later this year. I reiterate that officials across DEFRA will provide support to ensure that Bills are delivered successfully, swiftly and in the best interests of animal welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her very positive words. At the end of her remarks, she mentioned the animals we all know and love, and share our lives with. I have been a lifelong animal owner of one sort or another. Humphrey and Herbie are my current companions, and I say that just so that I can get them into Hansard. They have wonderful fur that is much better on them than anywhere else. I have had many dogs.

I think it is worth touching on a couple of points before the debate ends. On a positive note, it is good to remember that the UK fur trade, once prolific, is now almost dead as far as the high street is concerned. We have come an awfully long way, but there is much further to go. I think all Members agree that banning the import and sale of fur is a low-hanging fruit for the Government, and I therefore implore the Government to move on it. A survey found that 70% of British people would like to see a fur ban, and 1.1 million people signed a petition. The Government should listen. This is an easy win that will be appreciated by all sides and all constituents across all our four nations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the import and sale of fur.

Marine Management Organisation

Giles Watling Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will call Giles Watling to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as he will know is the convention for these shorter, 30-minute debates.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Marine Management Organisation.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am thrilled to have this opportunity to stand up for coastal communities, particularly my own in Clacton—a place that I have been a part of and lived in for over 55 years and have represented both locally and nationally since 2007. I have seen at first hand what works in our environment and what does not. Our extraordinary coastline has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. It is home to a Ramsar site and is a site of special scientific interest; it is a salt marsh, with superb beaches, cliffs and backwaters.

Recently, I tabled a private Member’s Bill that seeks to put in place a pilot to devolve many functions of the Marine Management Organisation to local authorities. The MMO is a group that I have increasingly come to see as not fit for purpose. It lacks experience and is flippant in respect of the needs of local communities. Indeed, I have been told that we once had turn up to look at a marine development in the backwaters two officials from the MMO who seemed to be surprised about tidal range and direction.

More recently, the Naze Protection Society waited 13 weeks for a licence from the MMO to undertake vital coastal works that involved protecting a sewage farm from incursion by the sea. Every tide that came and went and every storm that happened made those works more difficult and more expensive. The Naze Protection Society contacted me in desperation, as it had the money, the materials and the contractors standing by but was held up for want of a simple licence from the MMO. I made a couple of calls to the Minister and the Secretary of State, and the licence was issued almost immediately. It should not take a call to an MP to get this simple stuff done.

In my opinion, the MMO is failing. For that reason, I have worked with my excellent local authority, Tendring District Council, which has offered to put in place a pilot that it will run, absorbing and discharging the licensing and management duties. I want to see that happen for three core reasons, which also illustrate why I felt this debate was needed. First, it seems rather odd to me that we allow the MMO so much centralised power. We have seen planning and licensing become core parts of local authorities’ action plans. Councils are accountable and, by their very nature, have a deep understanding of local issues and the local scene. We need to look to a slimmer MMO, more devolution and a non-executive directors board of experts with real-life experience, holding the MMO to account.

Secondly, we should really be moving past all these organisations with people who just seem to collect non-executive directorships. We have spoken a lot in this place about how expensive distant and unaccountable quangos can be.

[Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I share the same Marine Management Organisation group as my hon. Friend and have not found them as problematic as he has, but his assertion that we should move closer to local government is quite compelling. I was surprised that some relatively small works on a café on Southend pier had to go via the MMO, which is very centralised. It would be much more appropriate for Southend-on-Sea City Council to look at those issues, and I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend’s local authority could look into Southend also being involved in the pilot to bring those functions closer to the public and democratic accountability.

[Giles Watling]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is wise to mention that we should devolve those powers. In the end, that is exactly what this is all about. I am suggesting certain pilots, and my own local authority is happy to pilot them. I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that he should go to see his local authority and get it to agree to do a similar project. I think he might get some success.

The MMO is an example of the fact that His Majesty’s Government are sometimes happier going after lower-hanging fruit. For example, we scrapped the dreaded development corporations in 2010, because everybody saw them as bodies that did not care about local feelings towards development while still not achieving the revolution in house building the nation needed. It was a bloated public body that was ripe for the plucking, but just because the Marine Management Organisation’s offences are against fewer people and therefore less easily seen, they do not seem any less egregious. If local government can take on such duties, why should such an accountable body as Tendring District Council not do it? That is the correct argument that the Government executed in respect of development corporations.

Finally, and most pertinently, the MMO has displayed a flippant and unaccountable culture. When Members do things in this House, it should matter. If we criticise a public body for how it treats our constituents, that body should reach out and seek to offer reassurance on what it is doing in our communities. After all, nobody has a God-given right to spend taxpayer cash or to public power and authority. Sadly, since I tabled and spoke to my private Member’s Bill, I have not heard from the chief executive officer or chairman of the MMO—not a dicky bird.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I want to make two points before my hon. Friend concludes. First, I hope he recognises that although local authorities are good at making local decisions, some decisions on the management of seas and oceans can have an impact on other local authorities down the coastline, particularly in respect of coastal erosion. Does he agree that there needs to be an authority to oversee the multitude of decisions that are made?

On his second point, I will organise a meeting with the chief executive officer directly with my hon. Friend and myself, so that he can speak to him directly.

[Giles Watling]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There should of course be a central overseeing body to oversee all this. I am seeking to devolve some of the powers to the local authorities because it makes sense: they understand exactly what is happening on the local scene.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the benefits of the whole of East Anglia, working right down the coast from Great Yarmouth to his constituency, is that our local authorities —the county councils and the district authorities—work together closely on the issue of the East Anglian coastline? They face challenges in dealing with the MMO. For example, Great Yarmouth Borough Council has been frustrated in developing the operations and maintenance hub, a new area for renewable energy. It has seen delays of six months and eight and a half months to its progress because of the MMO’s slow decision making. Speeding that up—or, indeed, allowing the local authority to have more authority to get on with the works, given their knowledge from working with enabling authorities—would give us a faster and better way to deliver more jobs and a better coastal community.

[Giles Watling]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we get decisions much more quickly, before more damage happens to our coastline. I have heard nothing from the MMO and have not had any comment from it about how it proposes to devolve its functions to local government. This debate is publicly on the Order Paper, yet the MMO has not reached out to discuss it. That suggests that it either thinks that a House debate on its performance is irrelevant or does not even check to see what is happening in this place and whether it needs to keep abreast of debate. Either way, it shows an arrogance that is not becoming in a public body.

What I find so sinister is that there is a private Member’s Bill to possibly radically alter how the MMO functions, and it feels that warrants no action. It is so seemingly content that it has the unrestricted right to gobble up taxpayer cash and play judge and jury in our communities that it has not bothered to articulate publicly why it should not be broken up. It clearly thinks that it is above reproach; well, no public body, including the MMO, is above this House. We often speak of the bonfire of quangos, and I think I have found another log for that fire.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the debate and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for securing it. I sense his frustrations and I am sympathetic to them; I will try to assist and alleviate some of them. My hon. Friend said that he has not heard from the MMO and that it has not engaged in the debate; it has sent a rather brilliant Minister to respond on its behalf. [Interruption.] Yes, unfortunately he could not be here so I have taken his place.

This is a timely debate: the MMO is due to publish its annual report next week. It comes ahead of the Second Reading of my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, which is due in February. Alongside its marine licensing duties, the MMO covers a broad range of activities, including fisheries management and the management and regulation of marine protected sites. Many of these also interact with the MMO’s responsibilities as the marine planning authority for English waters, which my hon. Friend referenced. It has teams based in 15 locations around the English coast. It is responsible for engaging with the full range of local stakeholders, signposting to relevant MMO guidance and, where relevant, making introductions to other parts of the MMO in relation to specific activities.

When it comes to marine licensing and the process, the MMO is the appropriate marine licensing authority for English waters. The scope of responsibility and function held by the MMO ensures not only that marine licensing applications are assessed on an individual basis, but that marine planning activities are placed in a wider context so that conservation work on protected sites and species and compliance, monitoring and inspections are taken into consideration.

The MMO aims to determine 90% of marine licence applications within 13 weeks. Some cases are more complex and take longer because of the detailed technical and complex environmental assessments that may be required. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton referred to an individual case that he was working on and the fact that when he engaged with Ministers, he got a response very quickly. It is my understanding that that was purely coincidence—that a lot of work was going on in the background to gain access to that information, and the intervention of the Minister at the time coincided with the MMO pulling the information together and it being ready within a matter of hours.

I am aware of the circumstances around the licence application made for the sea defences at Naze. My understanding is that this licence has not been straightforward to determine. Supplementary information and assessments had to be sought from the applicant after the initial application was received in July 2021. This included a required water framework assessment and further information from the applicant to update the methodology of the works. The MMO also had some difficulty ascertaining whether Tendring District Council’s planning department was dealing with the planning application for the works as an environmental impact assessment application, and whether there was scope for working through the coastal concordat on the case. The potential for coastal concordat working was raised with the council on 2 August 2021, but it took seven weeks for the council’s planning department to reply, confirming its position. There was also a 28-day consultation period for interested parties and stakeholders to express their views on the licence application. I hope that my hon. Friend has some sympathy with the fact that there is a process to go through. Whether it was with the MMO or the local authority, there would be hoops and challenges to get through to ensure that we get to the right decisions.

Following the consultation period, the MMO identified that a habitats regulations assessment would also be required. Agreement was reached with the applicant on the fees only on 22 March, ahead of the MMO progressing the final determination and issuing that on 14 April. I am aware that an application for a licence variation was then received in July this year and I understand that it has been held up while the MMO has awaited the submission of an environmental impact assessment screening request from the applicant. That was received by the MMO on 3 November, and the MMO will move to consider the licence variation as soon as possible.

I understand that the time taken to determine some marine licence applications is sometimes frustrating. This case is an example of the complexity of some marine licences and of how careful consideration is paramount.

[Giles Watling]

We are talking here about potential flooding—flood risk. The area around Jaywick in my constituency flooded in 1953, with the loss of some 90 lives, so when we see floods no one hangs around; people have to be fleet of foot. That is what I am asking for: fleetness of foot. The case that I identified earlier was one where, with every succeeding tide, the damage worsened, threatening to flood a sewage farm and poison the backwaters

[Mark Spencer]

I wholly acknowledge the necessity of speed to save his constituents and to ensure that no environmental damage is caused around Clacton. What we must not do, though, is introduce a scheme that might cause damage in another community six or seven miles down the coast. It is important to determine whether an action is required—it clearly was required—to protect an area or piece of infrastructure and that it does not impact on another piece of infrastructure that could cause even more damage. To do so, there needs to be an overarching authority that looks at all the facts in the light of day and, after all due consideration, says whether something is the right or wrong thing to do—whether the impacts of the decision made will be felt further down the coastline. My hon. Friend would be distressed if an application in—to pick a constituency at random—Southend were to have a huge impact on Clacton. He would be distressed if Southend-on-Sea City Council made that decision unilaterally without considering the impact on the community of Clacton.

As the debate has highlighted, the MMO has responsibilities in the marine space, all of which are crucial. We must not forget the adaptability of the MMO in its delivery of the important objectives that support the growth of our local communities, the trade in fish, and the marine environment. The MMO is the primary responder to marine emergency situations and is key to supporting evidence-based decisions that touch a range of Government Departments. I think that is the right outcome and an outcome that we can all agree on. We may disagree on whether the MMO performs to a level that we appreciate, but there has to be a regulator. We need to continue to support the MMO’s performance.

Environment Bill

Giles Watling Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the extended producer responsibility provisions in the Bill will help to deliver the results for which she is calling.

Our “Future of the Sea” report estimates that 12 million tonnes of plastic are currently entering the ocean and that that could treble by 2025. Our constituents are demanding change. We must act to address the shocking levels of plastic in the marine environment, and the Bill will make it easier to reuse and recycle so that we build a more circular economy at home to conserve and better use our precious natural resources.

Clause 49 grants the power to set up a deposit return scheme for products such as drinks containers. Clause 50 enables the plastic bag charge to be extended to other items—the charge has seen bag use drop by 90% since its introduction. We believe that these provisions will be widely welcomed by many who want concerted action to tackle the tragedy of plastics pollution. The suite of measures on plastics in the Bill is further strengthened by powers to make those who produce plastic packaging pay for its whole lifetime cost, including disposal. This will incentivise a switch to more sustainable forms of packaging and, crucially, provide an income stream to fund improvements to the way we tackle waste and recycling. Stronger standards for a wide range of products and clearer labelling will enable consumers to identify more sustainable products. A consistent set of materials will be collected from every household and business to help us all to recycle more, and the Bill also includes measures to encourage businesses to waste less food and help to ensure that surpluses reach those who need them.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I am a very old-fashioned man, and I come from an age when we mended things if they broke. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that the Bill will encourage people to go back to the days when we actually fixed things rather than threw them away at the end of use.

[Theresa Villiers]

That is one of the outcomes that we hope the Bill will help to deliver.

  As well as wide-ranging plans on plastics, the Bill has at its heart an extensive package to protect nature. The net gain provisions in schedule 15 will make a 10% boost for biodiversity a compulsory part of plans for new development. I believe that this will generate tens of millions for investment in nature and give more people better access to green space.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who mentioned hedgehog superhighways. I look forward to those because there is a hedgehog living in my garden at present that is providing an interesting if prickly object for my dogs to look at.

This is an important Bill. Many constituents have contacted me asking that I speak on it. I am pleased to say that I support it. As a sailor, walker and erstwhile forest resident, I care deeply about our environment, and I know that the Bill delivers in several key areas. Of these, I consider the creation of the Office for Environmental Protection to be a most important step forward. As we know, this new and—incidentally—world-leading regulator will scrutinise policy and law, investigate complaints and take enforcement action when necessary, and about time, too.

These actions and powers will be used to ensure that we leave the environment in a better condition than we found it. As the Secretary of State said, we will be the first generation to do so, and I am proud of that. While the OEP will be a national body, however, we must also focus on the individual to reduce our collective impact on the environment. Encouragingly, the Bill does that in several ways, especially when it comes to tackling plastic waste. No doubt plastic waste is a global problem. I believe that recycling and reusing plastic products should be central to any response. Concerningly, the numbers are not good. Of the 6.3 billion metric tonnes of plastic waste ever discarded, only 9% has been recycled. That is, of course, a worldwide figure and this is a truly global problem, but our “use once and discard” approach to unrecyclable plastic cannot have helped. It is good news that plastic straws, drink-stirrers, cotton buds and the like will be banned from April 2020, but there is so much more to do.

I am pleased that the Bill builds on that ban by making packaging producers liable for the full net costs of dealing with their products at the end of life—a financial penalty that should lead producers to begin to design their products with reuse and recycling in mind. If we do this, we will get our approach to plastic packaging right, which is crucial given that, of the 5 million tonnes of plastic used in the UK every year, nearly half is packaging.

The Bill also introduces, or reintroduces—I remember them well—deposit return schemes, which will further reduce our plastic waste output. Those schemes are proven internationally, as I saw during a recent visit to Berlin. They will increase recycling and reuse, and reduce littering.

As for consumers, I believe that the Bill will start to change our approach to plastics. Primarily, it will be influenced by the new charge for single-use plastics, which seeks to mirror the success of the plastic bag charge that led to a 90% decrease in plastic bag use. I have no doubt that, because of that new charge, we will reduce our dependence on single-use plastics, or find a sustainable alternative. These changes will almost certainly lead to a tangible reduction in our plastic waste output. As someone who has spent many hours trawling the Walton backwaters in my wonderful Clacton constituency and picking up plastic flotsam and jetsam, I could not be happier. Our water is precious.

We led and engineered our way into our present position. It is not beyond the wit of man to engineer our way out, and I believe that it is incumbent upon us in the UK to lead that way out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Giles Watling Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman has raised that issue before. It is important that people obey the law, but I encourage him and others to take evidence to the police so that the Crown Prosecution Service can take forward convictions where that is appropriate.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

T6. Yesterday, I was planning to record a video with then Secretary of State to commend the campaign I have run with the World Dog Alliance to outlaw the consumption of dogmeat in the UK. Sadly, events got in the way. I congratulate the new Secretary of State on her appointment. Will she join me and many colleagues in this place in supporting the campaign? Will she meet me and discuss it further?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

Our new Secretary of State’s commitment to animal welfare is very clear. The Government share my hon. Friend’s abhorrence at the thought of eating dogmeat. I recognise both the substantive and symbolic nature of the issues he raises. As he knows, I am exploring actively with colleagues what else we might be able to do to send the clearest possible signal that this behaviour should never be tolerated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Giles Watling Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I am conscious that, certainly through Transport for London, London has had a substantial amount of money to improve air quality. I know that it is keen to do more, but local authorities have statutory duties to tackle this issue. They have had funding in the past and they are able to apply for funding in the future, and I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s authority doing so.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

11. If he will bring forward legislative proposals to ban the human consumption of dog and cat meat.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is abhorrent to think that our beloved cats and dogs could be eaten. As the Prime Minister said, it is illegal to sell dog and cat meat and there are no abattoirs with a licence to slaughter these animals in the UK. We recognise both the substantive and symbolic nature of the issues raised, and we are exploring what more can be done to address this matter and to send a clearer signal that the consumption of dogs and cats should never be tolerated.

[Giles Watling]

There are extensive restrictions in place on the commercial sale of dog meat for human consumption, and I understand that there are similar restrictions on cat meat. Despite those advances, amazingly, the private slaughtering of dogs and cats for private consumption is still legal in this country, and I want that to change. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to extend the current restrictions to cover the private consumption of dog and cat meat, as my amendment to the Agriculture Bill sets out?

[David Rutley]

There is no evidence that dogs and cats are being consumed in the UK, although I understand and agree with the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s amendment to the Agriculture Bill. A ban on consumption raises issues of enforcement and prosecution, but I have asked DEFRA officials to explore what more can be done to address these issues. I look forward to having the opportunity to debate these matters further in Westminster Hall this afternoon.

Sustainable Fisheries

Giles Watling Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I think that one of the reasons why the vote to leave was as high as it was in his constituency was not just memories of what had happened four decades ago, but his force of advocacy in putting the case for the benefits of life outside the European Union. He is right that we need to do a lot more for our coastal communities, which face particular social and economic challenges. Reviving the fishing industry and an economic renaissance in fish processing can help, but there is more to do. With a formidable advocate like my hon. Friend for communities such as Brigg and Goole, I am sure that the Government’s feet will be held to the fire.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, we do not have a very large fishing fleet on the glorious coastline of Clacton-on-Sea, but we do have many fish and chip shops. Will he assure me that, post Brexit, those who fish in our waters will be encouraged to fish sustainably so that we can enjoy the wide of variety of fish that we currently do?

[Michael Gove]

It is always a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is absolutely right. We need to make sure that sustainability is at the heart of everything we do so that we make sure that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy healthy waters and the harvest they bring.

Ivory Bill

Giles Watling Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I would like to put on record how pleased I am that this Bill is going through the House today, and very speedily—I am grateful for that.

At a reception at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the other day, I watched a very sad film about Sudan, the last male white rhino, who, very sadly, died in March. There are two females left, but it looks as though they are going to die out. I do not want to attend a reception where we mourn the loss of the last elephant, so we must do all we can to protect them.

It is crucial to elephants that this Bill ushers in a vital change to bring us into line with other developed economies around the world that have already introduced their own bans. For too long, we have been overshadowed by the USA, China, France and some of the other biggest global ivory trade markets, which have already introduced comprehensive bans. I am pleased that we will now be part of that positive movement, because we have been absent for far too long.

I am delighted that the Bill will introduce a total ban on the sale of ivory, including, most importantly, antique ivory, because the antique ivory market in the UK is surprisingly large. Some so-called antique ivory is faked—it is aged and stained to look antique. We cannot allow that to happen, and that is why I am delighted that this Bill will be passed.

What is more, we must push for a global ban. In the aftermath of the Chinese ban, Ginette Hemley, the senior vice-president of the World Wildlife Fund, said:

“This ban alone won’t end the poaching of elephants. It’s equally critical that China’s neighbors follow suit and shut down ivory markets across Asia.”

So let us in the UK lead the way with this Bill, and let other European countries follow us. I am very pleased with the Bill and I support it.

Pet Theft

Giles Watling Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

That is well said, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Although the word “property” understandably makes many pet owners uncomfortable, our pets would be better protected if they were properly detailed in the 1968 Act, because that would strengthen the aggravated sentence provision, as is already the case with vehicles and bicycles.

SAMPA would like the sentencing guidelines for theft offences to be reviewed so that the section on harm would read: “Harm is assessed by reference to the financial loss that results from the theft, except in cases involving the theft of a domestic pet, where financial or monetary value should be disregarded.”

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, although the theft of ordinary possessions, such as jewellery, is distressing, it is nothing like the loss of an animal? The people who do this are trading in misery.

[Mike Hill]

That is true; the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head in terms of the difference.

SAMPA asks the Minister to reclassify pet theft as a crime in its own right, as is the case with vehicles and bicycles, and to add aggravated sentence provision for pet theft, to give the courts extended discretion.

On sentencing consistency, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is being revised to increase sentencing for animal cruelty, and it is in the public interest to do the same for pet theft. SAMPA wants those changes because it believes that being proactive, with tougher sentencing, will act as a deterrent and help to reduce pet theft.

As we have heard, this is clearly an all-party issue. More than 100,000 petitioners agree that we need pet theft reform to help to protect pets. Campaigners hope that the Minister will do the right thing and make pet theft reform a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Sharma.

Back in the early 1990s I was involved in breaking up a puppy farming ring in Wales—I got involved with a national newspaper—and I saw that the animals were kept in appalling conditions. The puppies were sold at motorway service stations. More recently I went out with the RSPCA in one of my local little towns, Jaywick, and we looked at various places where dogs were being mistreated—not necessarily through deliberate cruelty, but through ignorance, a lot of the time. It really is extraordinary that we sometimes call ourselves an animal-loving country.

It is a great honour to stand here today and represent the 168 people from Clacton who signed the petition. As I have said before, the theft of pets, and especially dogs, happens all too frequently in my constituency. In one case, two French bulldog puppies, Oswald and Dakota, were stolen from their house in Eton Road in Clacton. The puppies were eventually reunited with their owner, which is a rare good news story, but that was only after a Facebook campaign that got 2,500 visits, and I reckon the puppies must have become too hot to handle. However, when they were returned, they were distressed. According to the owner, they were clearly starving and not in good condition.

[Bob Stewart]

So far, we have not actually looked at the problem from the point of view of the dogs. Dogs have feelings, too. It must be bloody awful for a dog to go from a really loving home to the barbarous places where they are put.

[Giles Watling]

I did detect a sort of question there. I totally agree with my hon. Friend that dogs have feelings and stealing them is barbarous. I have dogs myself. I have cavalier poodle bichon crosses—all right, they are mongrels. They are part of my family and the thought of losing one of them really distresses me, which is why I want to combat pet theft. It is terribly important. I raised my concerns with the Minister during a debate on rural crime in the main Chamber, and I asked for more information on what the Government intend to do about the issue. Unfortunately, that information was not forthcoming, so I hope to elicit a better response today from the Minister; I say that very nicely.

The matter is important, and the current application of the law surrounding pet theft is ineffective and should be changed to make the monetary value of the pet irrelevant, which will ensure that all criminals are prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of the law. As we know, 105,968 people signed the petition, and 97% of respondents to a “Dogs Today” survey support the proposal and agree that all pet theft should be treated equally, regardless of the animal’s initial monetary value. There is clearly a great deal of public support for a change, and I ask the Minister to bear that in mind as we move forward.

I also ask the Minister to bear in mind something that has been said many times this afternoon, but that is worth reiterating: pet theft is cruel. It is cruel to the owners who are left bereft after the loss of a friend, a loved one and a member of the family, and it is cruel to the animal itself, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The animal can be mistreated or even, as we have heard—it is horrific—have its microchip cut out of its neck without anaesthetic to avoid detection.

The Government’s current position needs to evolve and take account of the strong public sentiment and the cruel impact that pet theft has on those involved. I have no doubt that I will be reassured that laws are already in place to deal firmly with offenders who commit such crimes. To expand on that point further, and as I am sure we are all aware, the theft of a pet is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968.

[Fiona Onasanya]

The hon. Gentleman has made such a good point. I want to highlight something that I hope the Minister will cover. The lower the category, the lower the sentence, with little in the way of repercussions. That makes the crime even more attractive because it is low risk and high reward, so that needs to be borne in mind when looking at sentencing.

[Giles Watling]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I could not agree more. I am coming on to the question of low risk and high reward, which makes the crime attractive because the risk is so low but some of the animals can be worth a great deal. Indeed, they are stolen to breed from, and therefore the rewards are multiplied by however many puppies they have. The maximum penalty at the moment is seven years’ imprisonment, and it very rarely, if ever, gets imposed.

The guidelines take account of the emotional distress and therefore the harm that the theft of personal items such as a pet can have on the victim, and they recommend higher penalties for such offences. However, although I welcome such developments, I am uneasy about the current position for various reasons. First, as the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance—SAMPA—tells us, the seven-year maximum sentence has never been awarded, so, out of the 646 reported incidences of pet theft in 2017, there were no cases where that sentence was applied. That is because the penalty for pet theft is often decided based on the monetary value of the pet, as we have heard this afternoon. Many pets have little or no monetary value, although in the eyes of their owner, as we have said, they are priceless. However, in the eyes of the court, that value does not exist. The courts deal only in monetary terms, and the most severe sentence recommended for stealing a pet that is worth less than £500 is two years rather than seven.

My second point of contention is that in the past three years dog theft has increased by 24%, which demonstrates that the sentencing guidelines are clearly not working and are not a deterrent to potential pet thieves. To demonstrate that point further, between 2015 and 2018, 96.75% of dog thefts ended without charge, showing that the courts have not become tougher on this particular aspect of pet theft. Additionally, I have heard from SAMPA that the police are reluctant to record pet theft because it negatively affects their crime figures. That explains why cases of pet theft are rarely investigated, and why the few cases that do make it to court do not result in a conviction. Potential criminals know that the chance of getting caught or ever receiving punishment is, as we said earlier, very slim, so the crime is low risk.

My third concern is the reliance on microchipping, which does not address the issue. Microchips can be overwritten, meaning that stolen dogs can be easily moved on rather than reunited with their owner, as the Government suggest. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the chips can simply be cut out, causing great distress to the animal. As a result, I believe we must address that particular issue and improve security compliance on the microchip database. Also, we should complement the microchipping regime with a new dog registration regime, and I will be bringing forward legislation to reintroduce that here in England in due course.

[Bob Stewart]

Our financially worthless, indolent dogs are each microchipped. They also have their own passports, with photographs. My wife owns them and controls them, which is more than I can do. Does my hon. Friend agree that the passport system could be used to help to trace dogs when they are stolen?

[Giles Watling]

That is indeed a possibility. The legislation that I intend to introduce will provide for a reintroduction of the licensing system, so that we know where all the dogs are, who owns them and how they are being looked after, so we can have some grasp on animal cruelty.

Like Dogs Trust, I am troubled by the decision to equate animals with property, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) mentioned. That decision means that we are denying animals the right to be considered sentient beings. The Government’s current position seems to mean that pets derive their sentience only from being in the possession of their owner, given that when they are wrongly separated they become property for the duration of the prosecution and are therefore exempt from the Government’s promise to ensure that their welfare is protected. That must change.

All animals are sentient, regardless of their location or continuation of legitimate ownership. As the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill sets out, the Government

“must have regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings in formulating and implementing government policy.”

Accordingly, the Government must recognise that their current position does not protect the welfare of sentient animals when they are stolen, and the sentencing guidelines for pet theft must be changed to move us closer to a position where their welfare can always be assured.

I maintain that the current position is not working. It does not deter or limit pet theft; in fact, I would argue that pet theft is getting worse. Pet theft should be identified as a separate criminal activity and be covered by its own law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am aware of his history in the postal service and thank him greatly for that. It is one of the great services that we have across the country. There are some risks to postal workers from dogs, so it is incumbent on dog owners to ensure that their dogs are trained appropriately. I realise that postal workers have an affinity for dogs, like the rest of our constituents and people across the country.

As we have heard, a quarter of households have one or more dogs, and it appears that this crime is on the rise. I ask the Minister whether we know why that might be happening, and what the factors are. Only when we discover the key factors behind this crime will we be able to have a multi-structural strategy to address what is happening. Are dogs being stolen for heinous crimes such as dog fighting, as we have heard today? Are those poor dogs being savaged, perhaps as bait for dogs that are being trained to fight in a ring? We need far more resources to tackle that. I was extremely proud to lead a debate in Westminster Hall, only in 2016, on dog fighting.

Is there a gang element to pet theft? Is the same type of organised crime set-up that we see in relation to dog fighting, puppy smuggling and puppy farming causing pets to be stolen? If there are links between those activities, and between the people perpetrating them, we need to develop adequate laws and legal frameworks to deal with that. Lucy’s law is also important for many reasons, including dog welfare and people’s welfare, in terms of having dogs and young puppies enter families, and in relation to the types of issues that we are discussing today. I feel that there may be an important underlying common denominator that it is important to address.

People have spoken today of their love for dogs. My dog, Rossi, is a French bulldog. Having looked at the figures for pet theft, I am aware that that is exactly the type of dog breed that is being stolen—it is near the top of the list. French bulldogs are often used for breeding and puppy farming, which makes me think that perhaps there are links with pet theft. I would be bereft if something happened to Rossi out in the garden where he likes to roam. We are lucky to have quite a big garden. I keep encouraging my husband to cut the grass, and I am hopeful that he might be doing that today as we speak, but Rossi loves to wander throughout our garden. It is always in the back of my mind to check that he is still there and that everything is okay.

[Giles Watling]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to get the information out to owners to protect their pets? Humphrey, Herbert and Minnie wander as well. I do not know where they are half the time. We need to take measures and be aware.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Much of this is about education. Our garden is enclosed, but we are mindful of the fact that if someone were intent on stealing our pet that would not prevent them from doing so. I am aware of the breed-specific snatching of French bulldogs, so it is a particular worry for my family.

From listening to the figures, pet theft seems to be a crime that goes unpunished and has very little consequence for those who engage in it. That has to be addressed, and I urge the Minister to make a change in law. We are a nation of dog lovers, and addressing this issue will minimise the impact on families who lose a pet and on the children. My children would be absolutely devastated to lose Rossi. As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, there is a severe impact on the stolen dog, too, because often they do not go to a happy home. I do not want to think about their fate, given the activities that the criminal gangs may be involved in.

Another issue that has been raised is the impact on elderly people, for whom a pet can be very important. If they live on their own, a pet can be an absolute lifeline and can make them feel that they have a connection. We must consider that, for someone in such circumstances, losing a dog or any other pet is a bereavement—it causes grief and trauma. We know from the meetings of the all-party group for dog welfare just how important dogs, cats and pets in general are in tackling loneliness. The Government have set out to address that issue, so I ask the Minister to look at pet therapy and contact with pets within that framework.

It is extremely busy in Westminster Hall, despite the fact that we are all on a one-line Whip, because this issue resonates with the public, MPs and our constituents. There is no party politics when it comes to animal welfare, as we all want to see change. Members from many parties have spoken today, and I thank them for that. Several Members who support the dog welfare group could not be here today but very much wanted to come.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) spoke about his little dog, Mia, and her importance, if not primacy, in the family now that he is down at Westminster. I wish Mia and the family well.

This is a devolved issue, and I have written to the Scottish Government about it because I want it to be reviewed. My colleagues, Emma Harper and Christine Grahame, are linked to the cross-party animal welfare group in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope that they will take this issue forward. The First Minister knows I am extremely dogmatic in insisting we take the lead on these issues, which must be addressed across the United Kingdom.

I urge the Minister to discuss the legal framework—particularly the fact that cases are not coming to court, they do not appear even to be recorded, and weak sentencing is not acting as a deterrent. Obviously, pets mean much more to us than objects, so that is one of the issues that must be addressed in the law. Some of the ideas that hon. Members suggested as part of the solution, such as licencing and passporting systems, are good, but I want the Minister to address the precipitating factors that have caused the increase in dog thefts across the country. Are they linked to other animal welfare issues, such as puppy smuggling and farming, and dog fighting?

Fur Trade

Giles Watling Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on introducing this important debate. It is a great honour to stand here and represent the 177 people from my constituency who signed the petition and who, like me, believe that a ban on the sale of animal fur in this country needs to be implemented soon.

Although the Government are rightly recognised as a world leader in promoting animal welfare standards, we must ensure that they have no blind spot on this issue. There remains a significant and, as has been said, sustained demand for fur trade products in this country. Thanks to that demand, fur imports exceeded £55.6 million in 2016. As an animal lover, I believe that should concern us all, since those products are the direct result of shameful animal welfare practices elsewhere in the world. Around 85% of those products come from foreign fur farms where animals are intensively reared in battery cage systems and where conditions are as bad as, or even worse than, the fur farms we once saw and eventually outlawed in this country.

I have some chilling words from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which says that animals are packed into

“unbearably small cages, preventing them from taking more than a few steps in any direction or doing anything that is natural and important to them, such as running, swimming, making nests, and finding mates. Many animals go insane under these conditions. The anguish and frustration of life in a cage leads many animals to self-mutilate, biting at their skin, tail, and feet; frantically pace and circle endlessly; and even cannibalize their cagemates.”

Even though we should celebrate our world-leading ban on fur farming here in this country, it seems that, as the hon. Member for Cambridge suggested, we have only outsourced this form of animal cruelty. That is why I believe that an import ban should be put in place. I recognise that the Minister might not agree with me, as the Government’s position is to pursue international animal welfare standards and to phase out cruel farming and trapping practices, rather than introducing the ban, which is seen as less effective.

However, although I see the merit in that global approach, and I accept that the ban would not be a silver bullet for animal welfare—the practice will continue in other countries—I do not believe that it is right for our country to remain open to these products. Moreover, I am concerned that the Government’s position relies on the full co-operation of the industry to implement these improvements. Such co-operation has not been forthcoming in the past when, even in the face of intense criticism and public opposition, the industry responded by introducing questionable animal welfare improvement schemes, which only pay lip service to the idea, rather than address the fundamental inadequacies of the battery cage system.

I do not believe that co-operation will be forthcoming in the future, either. This is a profit-driven industry, and behaviour will be slow to change. By waiting for that to happen, we only prolong our role in supporting and enabling these dreadful animal welfare practices. That is not in keeping with our British values.

With that in mind, I ask the Government to use Brexit not to maintain but to improve on the shockingly weak EU regulations on the import of furs and skins. We have heard that there are countries inside the EU that carry out these appalling practices. The ban should be extended to all animal fur products after our exit. In that regard, Brexit presents us with a positive opportunity: not only to deliver the Brexit that my constituents in Clacton voted for, but to ensure that our laws truly project our British values.

As I have sought to demonstrate, there are significant animal welfare grounds for introducing a ban. I know that point is important, because the Minister has stated previously that any further restrictions on the importing and sale of fur and fur products after we leave the EU will be based on protection of animal welfare. Therefore, as we move forward, I ask the Government to consider the animal welfare issues that I have raised today. I also ask that colleagues—this has been mentioned already—do not see this as a party political issue. There is clearly a significant animal welfare cost from this industry, and we should look to change that together, because although we might not see that cost in this country, that does not mean that we should be turning a blind eye to it elsewhere.

I ask the Government to bear it in mind that more than 69% of the public would support a ban—according to figures from Humane Society International—as would the 400,000 or 500,000 people who have already backed this proposal across, I think, two petitions. I am sure that colleagues here today have had emails from many active supporters—I know they have been emailing me—to ask us to support a ban. That is a further demonstration of the public support for a ban.

I am clear that we must work together to stop the flow of fur trade products into this country. Those products are the result of terrible and sustained animal welfare abuses. Our involvement in this industry as a consumer does not reflect the values of modern Britain. As has been touched on, we will surely hear in the main Chamber today that tusks belong on an elephant, but we should also hear that fur belongs on the back of an animal. I therefore ask the Minister seriously to consider implementing what would be a very popular ban.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I totally agree. That is why so many people signed the e-petition. I would like to see people’s compassion extending to other animals, such as farm animal welfare, but I will not go there today—we would have substantially less consensus.

A lot of our fur imports come from countries that have lower animal welfare standards than the UK has, even before we introduced the fur farming ban. In some countries, the standards are simply non-existent. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I am a member of, has just conducted an inquiry into fake faux fur, where people are misled into buying real fur when they think they are buying cheap faux fur. We heard about the conditions on some of the fur farms in other countries.

The idea of ethical fur farming, even in countries which purport to be high-welfare, has been shown time and again to be a complete fiction. A recent investigation by the Daily Mirror into Saga-certified fur farms in Finland found morbidly obese foxes that had been grossly overfed and selectively bred to have large folds of skin so that they would produce more fur. This kind of breeding causes an array of health problems for the foxes, including poor reproduction, metabolic disorders and even DNA damage, which cannot easily be identified by the brief visual inspection required for a fur farm to become certified. One awful symptom seen repeatedly is foxes having bent and malformed feet, which occurs due to their forced obesity. That is hugely painful for the animals and severely impedes their mobility, sight and ability to breathe. There is a parallel with how birds are force-fed for the production of foie gras, which leads to their inability to lift themselves off the ground because they are so obese.

This is not just happening on one rogue farm on a bad day. A year later, the Daily Mirror went back and found the exact same conditions. Unfortunately, rather than the animal welfare charities cherry-picking the worst examples of fur farming, I have been told that the only cherry-picking taking place is filtering out the most graphic injuries and deformities. Investigations have recorded incidents of cannibalism, infanticide and severe, untreated wounds. Instead of a so-called humane death, there are reports of animals being beaten and stamped to death, and of some even being skinned alive.

Even if we do not look at those worst-case scenarios, the best condition that animals on a fur farm can hope for is to be kept for their whole life in wire-floored cages, which are thousands of times smaller than their natural habitats, while being denied basic behavioural needs such as hunting or swimming, with no mental stimulation and constant stress from being in unnatural social groups and situations, before being killed by gassing or electrocution. No one could argue that that standard of life for an animal on a fur farm constitutes a good or happy life.

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare stated as far back as 2001 that the typical cage in fur farms—not just the worst cage, but that used most frequently—

“does not provide for important needs of foxes”

or mink. As a result, abnormal behaviours are far from unusual. In fact, they are “widespread”.

The UK’s ban on fur farming was introduced only after our Farm Animal Welfare Council spent years gathering evidence, eventually concluding that fur farms are simply unable to satisfy even the most basic needs of the wild animals kept in them. It explicitly stated that it was not possible to safeguard the welfare of animals kept on fur farms.

Even more distressingly, research has shown that the environment of fur-farmed animals is so impoverished and alien to their natural behaviours that it is impossible to rehabilitate them. Fur farming is causing animals to have permanent brain dysfunction through sensory and motor deprivation during development. This dysfunction can be genetically transmitted from mothers to their offspring. Why do we continue to allow this industry to flourish through allowing millions of pounds’ worth of imports and sales into the UK? As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, why is it seen as okay to outsource the cruelty overseas when we do not see it as an acceptable practice in this country?

[Giles Watling]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is correlation between exporting cruelty elsewhere by importing fur and live exports, where we grow animals in this country, then pack them into crates and take them overseas where they can be abused?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would be more than happy to support the hon. Gentleman in calling for a ban on live exports. At the moment, I understand there is a ban on animals being taken overseas for slaughter, but not for fattening. That seems to me to be a strange distinction. Surely we ought to be stamping out the exporting and transporting of animals in inhumane, cramped conditions.

I want to briefly mention the evidence we saw in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Some people might argue that it is up to individual members of the public to exercise choice as to whether they want to boycott products that contain animal fur or shops that sell such products. Humane Society International’s recent investigations have shown that mislabelling of real fur as fake fur, or fur products having no labelling at all, is rife on the high street, whether by active disregard or innocent oversight. Complex, multi-country and subcontracted supply chains mean that shops often just do not know what is in their products by the time they arrive in the UK.

I was reassured by the evidence from the likes of Amazon, which seemed truly committed to trying to stamp out real fur sales. It talked about tightening up a lot of processes. Obviously it was trying to put the best gloss on that, but I felt it was genuine in its desire to address this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Like many other hon. Members, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on the way he introduced the debate and on the way that he kept the flow of the argument going, despite the many interventions he took. He did very well to get the main points across, which clearly reflected the great degree of consensus on the issue. He used the apposite phrase “outsourcing responsibility”, and he mentioned the complicity in cruelty that the current policy leads to.

As we have heard, more than 100,000 people signed the petition, which is why the debate has come to the Chamber. Although only 157 signatures came from my constituency, it seems as though every single one of those petitioners sent me an email in support of a ban—as hon. Members will not be surprised to hear, given that the position we are in does not make a great deal of sense.

As hon. Members have already said, apparently the practices that we have rightly outlawed in this country to protect domestic animals, on the basis that they are cruel and barbaric, are okay if they happen elsewhere. Of course, we cannot tell another country what to do with its domestic laws but we can send a message about the importance this country places on animal welfare.

When I read reports about animals chewing off their own limbs in an attempt to break out of the traps they have been caught in, I am sickened and appalled. I do not want anything that has been produced as a consequence of that to enter this country, and I am sure most people feel the same. It is positive that this country no longer tolerates such cruelty, but if we allow imports from other countries where that sort of sadism goes on, we wrap ourselves in a false comfort blanket.

I am aware of the counter-argument that suggests that the better way to deal with animal cruelty is to work internationally to raise welfare standards. The Government’s response to the petition stated that

“we are working at an international level to agree global animal welfare standards and phase out cruel and inhumane farming and trapping practices. We believe this is the best way to prevent animal cruelty and that this approach will lead to a much higher level of animal welfare standards.”

It is arguable that such an approach might be preferable, but there is absolutely no evidence that it will work within a reasonable time period—there is an almost touching naivety about it. In reality, nothing in that statement says why a ban on imports cannot happen; surely international work to improve welfare standards can be done at the same time as imposing a ban on imports.

With everything else that will be going on in our post-Brexit world, I fear that we will have to use up an awful lot of goodwill that we might have gained to secure new trade deals, and that we will have little flexibility left to push on other issues. The sort of issues that we have discussed today will be towards the end of a long list.

The rise of online traders makes it harder and harder to police welfare standards. We can buy almost anything from anywhere in the world, which is a great thing for consumers, but the downside is that it can be difficult to meaningfully establish how a product was made and its adherence to ethical and welfare standards. There is no practical way of enforcing that, which is why an outright ban is so attractive.

Lots of people believe that there can be no ethical basis for the purchase of fur products, which is why polling has consistently shown that a very large majority of the public favour an outright ban on fur imports, as we have already heard. That is why the Government need to come forward with a positive strategy. If something is wrong, it does not matter which country it happens in. The time has come to end the contradiction in policy and implement a full ban.

[Giles Watling]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Justin Madders]

I have actually just finished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right and if legislation was before us that banned the import of foreign-farmed fur into our country, he would find me in the Aye Lobby voting for it. However, his argument also goes to the point that we slightly salved our domestic conscience when we said—it was before my time in the House—that we have banned fur farming here, but we have not spread the message as to why we banned it, and nor have we pointed out that the doom-mongers’ prediction of an economic collapse after a ban has not materialised. We have not been strong enough in taking that message to those countries where fur farming still continues.

To state the blindingly obvious, we are no longer an imperial power that can send a gunboat to countries that we do not like, so that we can bully people into obeying. However, we can take our soft power and our leadership, and use them. If we wanted to find an example of where we had done that, we and some allies did it on climate change. We realised that there was an issue that needed to be addressed, and through Kyoto and other initiatives we got the world thinking collectively about climate change and the imperative of dealing with it in a proper way to safeguard humanity.

Now, let us not ascribe the same scale to fur farming as to the future climate of our world, although for some it will be equally important, but we should be talking to those countries that still farm fur. Frankly, if our banning imports meant that somebody lost £56.5 million of sales, I suggest that they would just find that money elsewhere in the world market. They will not stop farming fur because we stop importing it. Banning fur imports will make us feel better; of course, it will. We can write to those constituents who have emailed us on this issue—I have had many emails from my constituents in North Dorset—

[Giles Watling]

On that very point, does my hon. Friend agree that by banning imports of fur products into this country, we would lead where others might follow?

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend makes a point, but if he looks at this matter dispassionately he will see that, although we banned fur farming, the major countries that do the large-scale fur farming have not followed suit. So, yes, we can act and, yes, that would close off to all but the illegal trade the market in fur in this country, but we have to do far more in terms of world leadership to help those countries that have a fur farming sector, to show them how they can move away from it, how they can support the creation of new jobs and how they will not see a black hole in their economy if they ban it. So, let us lead by example, of course, but let us also use the soft power that the UK has.