Trophy Hunting

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to habitat loss, which is the biggest cause of extinction. I have an idea—I will mention it right at the end of the debate, if that is okay—that would help to address that problem.

It would be wrong if I failed to acknowledge the live debate between experts, NGOs and even conservation charities about hunting. There are those who argue that it can contribute to conservation. Those in favour of trophy hunting say, for example, that it is nothing compared to the threat of habitat loss, illegal poaching, human and animal conflict and so on, which contribute a great deal more to the decline in species, and that we should focus on them instead. The first part of that is true, but it does not strike me as an argument against taking action to tackle trophy hunting. We could say, but I do not think we would, that we should not worry about deforestation because it is not as big a part of the climate change problem as transport, for instance.

Those in favour of trophy hunting also say that it can generate important revenue for deprived areas of the world—revenue that can be spent on preserving habitat and protecting endangered species more widely. That is an important argument, which needs to be examined properly. The problem—the Minister will probably make the same point—is that there is simply not enough evidence or data to back up that assertion. I am struck by the way in which pro-conservation arguments in favour of trophy hunting are always phrased. Trophy hunting is okay if it is properly regulated, if the fees go to local communities and if it is sustainable. I suspect that advocates of those arguments are arguing for something that, although it is undoubtedly done to a higher standard occasionally, just does not exist on a wide scale.

The Government use a similar argument. In explaining the Government’s position, Ministers have said that sustainable trophy hunting can play a part in species conservation efforts, including providing funding for conservation. I have three questions about that approach. First, are Ministers confident that the large fees charged for trophy hunting are actually being spent on conservation, rather than going to those organising the hunts? There is very little evidence that the money is genuinely reinvested in protecting habitats or helping local communities.

Secondly, do Ministers really believe that the money generated from hunting is preferable to the much larger sums that could be generated, where appropriate, from such things as wildlife tourism and sustainable land use? The Wildlife Trusts estimates that a live elephant is worth 76 times more than a dead elephant.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Is it not rather hard to create the right culture and educative environment if we say, “Oh yes, if you’re rich you can go and shoot a few elephants or whatever, but if you’re some poor poacher, that’s terrible—you mustn’t do that”? We have to say that it is completely unacceptable behaviour whether someone is rich or poor.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s view, and I will come to that shortly. I thank him for his intervention.

The third question for Ministers is: can we be confident that the legal hunting trade is not acting as a cover for the illegal trade in animal products, which the UK has been a world leader in fighting? We banned the legal ivory trade in the UK precisely because it often incentivised, and provided cover for, the illegal trade. Surely the same logic applies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate. He is one of the foremost experts on ecology and conservation, not only in this Chamber but in Parliament, and he always speaks with passion and love for the environment. I congratulate him on another outstanding speech.

Most level-headed people are disgusted and outraged by the trophy hunting trade. As the hon. Gentleman said, clients—mostly from Europe and the USA—pay thousands of pounds to take part in hunts and keep trophies such as an animal’s head or skin. The worst thing about this horrible trade is how proponents and apologists make an utter nonsense to justify such brutal acts. One trophy hunter said that he hunts mostly because he enjoys it, but also because he wants

“to try and preserve those wild places in Africa”—

what a patronising view of the African continent!—

“but the only way they get preserved is if there’s money. If it doesn’t pay, it doesn’t stay—it’s as simple as that.”

It seems to me that trophy hunting is a trade that deals in killing animals.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Surely they are not preserved—they are stuffed.

[Chris Evans]

That is exactly the point: they are not preserved. Common sense dictates that if people go around shooting every animal in sight, there will soon be none left to kill, so there will be no trade anyway. What is the point?

The hon. Member for Richmond Park spoke about fantastic things that the Government have done with the Opposition’s wholehearted support, such as banning the ivory trade. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) pointed out, the essential question is why they have not banned trophy hunting. The hon. Member for Richmond Park has already cited the commitment that the International Development Secretary made as an Environment Minister in November 2015 that

“the Government will ban lion trophy imports by the end of 2017”.

That has not happened.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park spoke about the death of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe in 2015. Australia, France and the Netherlands underlined their outrage by banning the import of lion trophies. At the time, the UK pledged to do the same

“unless there are improvements in the way hunting takes place”.

That has yet to happen.

I have been a Member of this House for nine years, and I know that a lot of people attack early-day motions as parliamentary graffiti or as a waste of time. In debates like this, however, I sometimes wish that the Government would take action on sensible early-day motions such as the hon. Gentleman’s, which

“calls on the Government to commit to halting imports of hunting trophies”.

The Government should adopt its eminently sensible suggestion

“that nature tourism is a humane and more effective means of conserving wildlife and supporting local communities”.

Nature tourism is more accessible financially and for families. It has a wider pool of customers, clients and tourists, which means more money. It is also more sustainable, because it does not involve the threat that endangered species will eventually run out because they have all been killed. By supporting it, we could end the trophy hunting industry at a stroke, allowing animals to live out their lives and be observed from afar. It is more sustainable and long-lasting, as well as more educational and humane; it would be a more compassionate way of supporting rural communities.

The export and import of hunting trophies from endangered species must be licensed under the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. CITES is implemented across the EU, but EU regulations go beyond its requirements. I did not want to mention the B-word, because I am sure that we are all fed up with it, but Brexit really is involved. The Government should look at what the EU is doing. In February 2016, it launched an action plan to tackle illegal wildlife trafficking, including 32 measures that must be carried out by 2020. Assuming that we have left the EU by 2020, will we still commit to that action plan?

I have known the Minister for a long time. I am not sure whether she remembers this, but many years ago she gave her maiden speech just before I gave mine. Since then, her career has flown up to the top, while mine—well, that is another story.

Draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

I will ’fess up: I was not aware of that difference. There may be a perfectly logical explanation that is not policy related.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I notice that there is an article in the regulations entitled, “Financial Discipline in England”, which sets out how that would work. Am I right that the other nations would not have to have any financial discipline, or would they make their own arrangements?

[Mr Goodwill]

The other nations have chosen not to opt into the financial discipline mechanism, which we use—I was going to say “to top-slice”, but that is too emotive—to ensure that we have provision for emergency payments and other such measures. That is in no way to suggest that the Scottish Administration are behaving recklessly; it is just how they are choosing to deliver that policy. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend is reassured. Indeed, I met with the DAs this morning, and Mr Ewing was very keen to talk about how we move forward constructively, respecting the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Administration.

These draft statutory instruments are required to ensure our continued ability to pay UK beneficiaries of the CAP and the common fisheries policy as now. They will help to ensure compliance with the rules set out in the retained CAP legislation and to ensure that public money is spent appropriately. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)

draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)

draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

The Committee has considered the draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. As a farmer myself, and given that my family business participates in an agri-environmental scheme, I should mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The two statutory instruments are closely interrelated and I thank the Committee for taking them together. They amend retained EU law to ensure that rural development payments can still be made after exit day. The amendments will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of EU legislation that would otherwise be deficient after our exit. The changes are necessary to enable rural development programmes, particularly those partially funded by the European agricultural fund for rural development—the EAFRD—to continue to operate effectively in the United Kingdom following exit, until their closure after the end of the 2014 to 2020 programme period.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

With his background, the Minister will know the importance of the rural development programme for England. Can he confirm that the effect of the draft instruments will be that that programme will continue unimpeded and unchanged and that there will be proper funding for it if we have a no-deal Brexit?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. I can absolutely confirm that—it is vital if we have a no-deal Brexit. If, as I hope, we do not have a no-deal Brexit—I hope Opposition Members will think about that before next week’s vote—the regulations will come into force when we leave, following the implementation period.

Four rural development programmes operate in the UK—one for each Administration—providing funding for rural businesses, farmers, land managers and applicants who live in a rural community, with the intention of growing the rural economy, increasing productivity and improving the environment. The European fund relevant to the instruments is the EAFRD, which supports the delivery of rural development in the UK and is worth £430 million a year over the programming period.

The UK Government have guaranteed that any projects funded from the 2014 to 2020 allocation will be funded for their full lifetimes, to repeat the point that I made to my right hon. and learned Friend. The changes that the draft instruments make ensure that payments can continue to be made to agreement holders, using domestic funding in place of EU funding. That will provide certainty to individuals and businesses who receive development funding or who are considering applying for funding during the current 2014 to 2020 programming period.

The draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the EU regulation that provides the general rules and structures that govern support for rural development, provide payments to be made to agreement holders and lay down rules on programming, networking, management, monitoring and evaluation. That includes the countryside stewardship and environmental stewardship schemes, which improve the environment; the countryside productivity fund, which supports productivity improvements in farm and forestry businesses; and the growth programme, which supports rural business development, food processing, tourism and broadband. Let me give examples of the sort of projects that the latter two funds might support. The countryside productivity fund might fund a fruit-growing business to increase the storage capacity of a reservoir to include water security during the summer months. The growth programme might support a company that grows salad leaves and specialist vegetables to invest in new equipment to keep up with demand and grow the business.

The draft Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the implementing and delegated provisions made under the main rural development EU regulation. They also amend four implementing decisions that approve the rural development programmes for each of the devolved Administrations. We are omitting powers to submit and implement an information and publicity strategy, and actions relating to it. That includes the requirement for agreement holders to publicise EU participation. We have all seen the big billboards around the country where EU funding has been used. As we are no longer using EU funding, putting up those big billboards, with those blue flags with yellow stars on, will no longer be a requirement. I am sure that that will be a great relief to many of those travelling around the country, and will emphasise that we have left the European Union.

I emphasise that the instruments remedy deficiencies in the regulations that are a direct result of the UK leaving the EU, to ensure that they continue to operate effectively when we leave. They do not introduce any new policy, and simply preserve the current regime for supporting rural businesses and environmental land management, among other things. The amendments include omitting redundant references to the European Commission and member states, and replacing them with either the UK or the relevant authority as appropriate. The instruments also make references to “Union law” throughout, so that the relevant EU regulations continue to operate effectively as part of national law. Provisions that are deficient because they are time limited, under which the relevant actions have occurred, have also been omitted—such as the provisions relating to ex-ante evaluations that have already been completed.

One purpose of the modifications is to ensure continuity and clarity regarding which public bodies have responsibility towards the programmes. The obligations and discretions placed on member states will continue to be exercised after exit by relevant authorities in the UK. In this context, “relevant authority” means the Secretary of State in relation to the rural development programme for England, Scottish Ministers in relation to the rural development programme for Scotland, Welsh Ministers in relation to the rural development programme for Wales, and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to the rural development programme for Northern Ireland, where we do not currently have an Administration operable.

As hon. Members are well aware, agriculture is a devolved policy area, and is of special importance for all parts of the UK. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to produce the instruments, and they place great importance on them. They have given their full consent for them.

I repeat that the statutory instruments are required for the continued operation of the rural development programmes. Without them, there will be no legal powers to make payments to fulfil the promises that those important programmes will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because in a nutshell that is where we are; we just do not know. One of the sad things about the loss of these moneys is that it has been targeted at particular groups—young farmers, for example, who desperately need investment into the way they come into the farming industry. I do not like to use the term “funny money”, but there have been ways we have been able to fund it through the various different grants that the EU has made available. Where will those grants come from in the future? People of ordinary means cannot, sadly, enter the land, because of the costs—not just of securing the land, but of investing in the way they intend to farm, particularly if they are going to be a livestock farmer. Those are very expensive and punitive impositions on them when they are in the infancy of trying to get on the land.

Before we decide how we vote, it would be useful to hear from the Minister about what the Government’s strategy is. I am aware that we have done very little in this House, which is to our shame. The Lords does a lot more work on rural economies: there is the Cameron report, which came out about nine months ago, and a report that is just about to be released by Lord Foster, which has looked at some of the impacts of rural development.

I am aware of the Rural Services Network’s call for a rural strategy, which I totally support. This is against the background of next year being the 20th anniversary of the then Labour Government’s 2000 White Paper, which was a very good piece of work because it was accompanied by a billion-pound budget. Sadly, it was all frittered away. Such things happen in Government, but many of the good initiatives that were set in place have been lost for good, which is wrong. As the then rural tsar Stuart Burgess talked about, there is £347 billion of untapped capacity in rural England. I know that is a magical, mystical figure, but it shows the capacity there is in rural England—I cannot comment on Scotland, because when I was on the Select Committee I was able to look only at rural England—to do some interesting work.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman remembers the 1995 rural White Paper, which I was quite involved in. It was a very solid piece of work.

[Dr Drew]

I agree entirely. The problem was that it did not have a budget, which meant, sadly, that it was rather stillborn, but it was a very good piece of work by Lord Deben. It is important that we parliamentarians recognise that the rural economy and society does not get enough publicity, and that we do not do enough to help it.

I have some questions for the Minister. It would be interesting to know the financial framework the Government envisage once the EAFRD offer goes, because I cannot see anything in place. I met a member of the rural team—I know there is one—but I do not know what budget they have to do anything. It would be interesting to know about the financial framework that the Government envisage after 2020 or, dare I say, 2021—whenever we finally leave the EU schemes.

I am taken by some of the things the Green Alliance has been saying recently about the lack of consultation, particularly in the area of stewardship. Countryside stewardship is not in a good place. We are talking about the environmental land management schemes as if they will just roll in on the back of countryside stewardship. The reality is that many farmers—the Minister will know this—are pulling out of stewardship because it is seen be too complicated and is not fit for purpose. Given that at least some of this money came through this budget heading, it would be interesting to know what the Government intend to do.

What is the Minister planning to do in order to consult more widely on how we might get towards a rural strategy? If the Government do not do it at this stage, at what stage do we move towards a rural strategy? Everyone who is involved in this area is calling for a rural strategy. If we are losing money that we have already been able to allocate, and we have not got anything else in place, at what stage do the Government get serious about launching a consultation to find out what we could do to make a difference?

My final question is about the legacy of many of the schemes that we have put in place over a generation. Is anyone going to capture them, to see in what ways we have worked with our EU neighbours and if any of them can be opened up in different formats?

I assume that there are ways and means of looking at different funding streams so that institutions such as CCRI, which I mentioned earlier, can continue to do some research on a pan-European basis. It would be a great tragedy to lose the knowledge that we have without putting anything else in its place. Whatever one’s views on the EU, I cannot find anyone who does not see that as one of the EU’s strengths; there are many weaknesses, but we do not want to throw away all the collaboration that has happened over a long period—between higher education, rural communities and practitioners within those rural communities who do a lot of the groundwork. It is important to know from the Government what they intend to put in place instead of something that will be a loss.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

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

I wish to thank Members who co-sponsored this Bill, those who were selected for the Committee and all the other Members and supporters, such as the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) who has been very supportive but who is currently on maternity duty. They have been great supporters of this small but important change in the law, popularly known as Finn’s law. I also thank all those who have campaigned for this measure, including PC Dave Wardell, Sarah Dixon of the Finn’s law campaign, many animal charities, the media, including the “Today” programme, The Sun and the Daily Mirror, all police and crime commissioners, including David Lloyd from Hertfordshire, and mayors such as Andy Burnham. I am grateful to the Administration Committee for agreeing that Finn could attend the various stages of the Bill accompanied by PC Wardell and Sarah Dixon. I thank my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has championed the Bill and helped me a great deal with this. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for your advice early on in the proceedings when you told me to keep persisting and perhaps I would get there, and it looks as though I may, so thank you very much.

This Bill, which received a Second Reading on 6 July last year and passed Committee on 16 January, arises from events that I explained to the House in my ten-minute rule Bill application on 5 December 2017. My constituent PC Dave Wardell is a police dog handler from Buntingford in my constituency where he lives with his family and Finn, now a retired police dog. On Wednesday 5 October 2016, PC Wardell and Finn were on duty in Stevenage when a robbery suspect ran off and they followed. The suspect was found hiding in a garden when a light came on. PC Wardell called, “Stop! Police!” but the suspect started to jump up a fence. Finn took hold of his lower leg to restrain him. The man lunged at Finn with a 10-inch bladed hunting knife and stabbed him right through the chest several times. He then turned his attention to PC Wardell. Finn intervened to save PC Wardell as the blade was aimed at his face. Finn put himself in the way to save the officer, and PC Wardell received a hand wound, but the dog received serious head wounds as well as the chest injuries. PC Wardell believes that Finn saved his life.

As other officers arrived, the suspect was apprehended. Finn was badly injured, bleeding and was taken to the vet and then on to a specialist vet. He was in a terrible shape with his lungs punctured in four places and yet he was licking his handler’s hand wound. Finn had a four-hour operation to save his life. The vet commented on his strength and bravery. PC Wardell slept downstairs with Finn for the next four weeks, and I think we are all pleased that Finn made a remarkable recovery. After 11 weeks, he was ready to go back to work with PC Wardell. On his first shift, on 22 December 2016, they arrested a fleeing suspect on their first outing.

Finn is one of the most successful police dogs that Hertfordshire police has known. He has won national recognition for his bravery: Action Animal of the Year; Hero Animal of the Year; and the PDSA gold medal, which is known as the animals’ George Cross. However, when it came to charging the offender, it became clear that there is a problem with the law. For the assault on the officer, it was a straightforward offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but there were two potential charges for the injuries to Finn himself—either causing “unnecessary suffering” to an animal under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, or section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Neither offence properly provides for the criminality involved in the attack on Finn. In the event, an offence of criminal damage was brought, but this treated Finn as though he were simply a piece of police property that had been damaged—a bit like a police radio or something of that sort.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

May I thank My right hon. and learned Friend for his persistence in introducing this Bill and say how strongly I support it? He is making the compelling case that treating these animals in the criminal justice system as items of property is entirely unjust, and it does not reflect their bravery and service.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, who was here a moment ago, told me that he thought it was unpalatable to think of police animals as equipment. In addition, the penalty for criminal damage is largely determined by the value of the property that is damaged, and a seven-year-old police dog who is close to retirement is simply not worth much money. And so it proved at court, where no separate penalty was imposed on Finn’s attacker for the attack on Finn.

The offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act is potentially a better route, but there are two problems with it. First, the maximum penalty is only six months’ imprisonment. After a consultation, happily the Government have committed to increasing that to five years, and that has been widely welcomed. I pay tribute to the campaigners who have pressed for that, including Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which is also a strong supporter of this measure. The Government’s commitment to a maximum penalty of five years clearly represents a great improvement.

Secondly, there is a difficulty with the application of section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the Animal Welfare Act, which sets out that various factors must be taken into account in deciding whether the infliction of suffering on an animal can be considered unnecessary—those factors include the protection of a person or property—and currently contains no reference to the role of service animals. Clearly, the mission of a service animal is to restrain a suspect or to use its physical presence to support the actions of an officer in accordance with his or her duty, but there is no reference to that in the Act. We have heard from police dog handlers, prosecutors and all the police and crime commissioners in the country that there is concern that the provision allows defendants to argue that they are justified in applying force against a service animal in self-defence, rendering the force necessary. That has apparently been an issue in deciding not to prosecute for the offence under the Animal Welfare Act.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman—on this occasion, I will call him my right hon. and learned Friend—for the doggedness with which he has pursued this Bill, and I thank those who have campaigned outside. It is unfortunate that the campaign has been necessary. Surely we should be protecting those who protect us. In this instance, we are talking about police dogs, but the same should apply to uniformed staff and the blue-light services. We should treat attacks on them and attacks on service animals as aggravating circumstances, and the CPS should get that message loud and clear.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I certainly agree with my friend the right hon. Gentleman. He is right that such attacks are really attacks on those who keep us safe, and it is a pity if that is not adequately recognised in law. I pay tribute to him; in his support for the measure, he has been like an old dog with a bone—[Interruption.] I will not repeat the sedentary comment that has just been made.

I thank Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, particularly Lord Gardiner; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; My hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is the Minister today and who was supportive at an earlier stage; and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who dealt with the Bill in Committee. They have discussed the matter with me at length, and now they are supporting the Bill, which is the outcome of discussions. The Bill follows the example of the Australian Animal Welfare Act, which makes similar provision for service animals. This approach is becoming the norm in advanced countries, and that is good to see.

Clause 1 provides that the consideration in section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 should be disregarded if the animal was under the control of a relevant officer at the time and was being used by that officer in the course of the officer’s duties, in a way that was reasonable in all the circumstances. A relevant officer is defined as a police constable or a person such as a prison officer who has the powers of a constable, or persons in analogous positions. Clause 2 makes provision for commencement in the normal way. The measure applies to England and Wales, but it is fair to mention that a campaign for Finn’s law to apply in Scotland is gaining ground, and the same is true in Northern Ireland. My hope is that this will become the law across the United Kingdom.

Taken together with the Government’s increase in the animal welfare penalty, this change in the law will mean that for the first time there is suitable protection for service animals and a proper sentence for offenders. Service animals such as Finn do a great job, and there are 1,200 police dogs in service at any time. There should be proper recognition in law of their vital role, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on a very important piece of legislation. It is brilliant that Finn is here—I would say “in person”, but I should really say “in dog” I suppose. I also congratulate PC Dave Wardell and everyone who has brought forward this Bill, on all their hard work and indeed on their service to this country.

The Bill is clearly needed; there is a clear deficiency in the law. Dogs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) pointed out, are not just property; they are hugely sentient beings. The dog my parents-in-law have tends to whimper or cry whenever I set off back to Westminster; I do not know whether that is a comment on the state of Westminster at the moment, but it is clear proof that dogs are hugely sentient and indeed emotional beings.

The Bill is a wonderful natural complement to the private Member’s Bill put through by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), which aimed to protect those who protect us and to increase sentences for people who attack police officers in the line of duty. This Bill naturally builds on that and protects police animals, too. The sort of person who is prepared to stab a dog with a 10-inch blade is clearly incredibly dangerous.

Research shows that such incidents are not as rare as we might think. Of the 1,920 incidents in which a police dog was deployed over the last year, 557 have involved a suspect armed with a weapon. The terrifying scenario that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire set out is therefore not rare. That is why this piece of legislation is so necessary. Of course, it also builds on some other good things that are happening at the moment: the ban on puppy smuggling; the ban on third-party and black market sales of puppies and kittens; and the ban on electric-shock dog collars that is coming in.

Without wishing to be the dog in the manger in the debate, I do think it is important to at least draw attention to the safeguards. My right hon. and learned Friend is a great legal brain, and I am reassured that the safeguards in the Bill are important. Sadly, a constituent was bitten by a police dog at a Leicester City match. It was a really terrifying incident, and he was bitten for about 90 seconds; indeed, the handler of the dog was also bitten. However, the safeguards in the Bill about the dog being used in a reasonable way in the line of duty make clear the difference between self-defence and a criminal attacking a police dog.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

When I was drafting the Bill, I looked at what has happened in other countries. Australia has a similar provision to that which I am proposing, and it has worked in practice. That is why those safeguards are there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I particularly thank the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) for bringing forward this Bill and for his persistence in championing the cause of police dogs for so long. As in the previous stages, the Opposition will fully support this Bill as it corrects a crucial imbalance in animal welfare. Service animals are sentient beings that bravely and loyally serve the public. The law should recognise them as such and give them the protections that they deserve.

I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the brave police dog Finn. Opposition Members could not quite see him when he made his tour de force in the Public Gallery, but we look forward to being invited to the Government Whip’s Office for a photo later. This is not something that normally happens to Opposition Members. [Interruption.] Ah, there he is—brilliant. I look forward to visiting the Whip’s Office to see Finn in person, and to say thank you to PC Dave Wardell and all those who have campaigned for Finn’s law.

As we have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Finn protected PC Wardell from an attack that might have cost him his life or at least given him serious injuries. Finn’s case was extreme but, sadly, not unusual for police dogs. Life is rough, so we are told, and police animals are routinely put in harm’s way to protect us in the name of the law. Surely the time has come for the law to protect them as well. Every service animal matters and this Bill, when implemented, will make that true for police dogs. Police dogs and police horses are valued public servants and, like Finn, can be real victims of violence and animal cruelty. The law must give them the protection they deserve.

I am sure many Members in this House are followers of Devon and Cornwall police dogs on Twitter—DC_PoliceDogs. Rightly, it is one of the most popular Twitter accounts in Plymouth and the far south-west. It is a reminder of the daily work that police dogs do not just in big cities, but in rural areas such as the far south-west. It is fantastic to see how they join up with other service animals, such as the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue service specialist search dogs. All of them deserve good protection.

Labour Members have been at the forefront of protecting animal welfare for many years. Indeed, we like to believe that we are the party of animal welfare. From bringing forward the landmark Hunting Act 2004 to protecting domestic animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, Labour has always placed the welfare of animals high on the policy agenda. At a European level, Labour secured better welfare standards for battery hens and chickens, and tightened the rules on the transport of live animals. It is a record that my party can rightly be proud of, but it is also a record that requires us to support—and ensure that we support—all those who are fighting for animal welfare. It is the reason why we are very pleased to support this Bill.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly mentioned that animals are not property and should not be treated as such under the law. The current law is inadequate in that respect, and the omission of service animals from the protection of animal cruelty legislation needs to change. It is fantastic and overdue that this Bill creates a specific offence for those who seek to injure service animals. They deserve appropriate recognition for the vital role they fulfil.

Recourse to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is not good enough, and in cases such as Finn’s, it has been shown that that approach simply does not work. Some 1,200 police dogs are protecting us at any time, and their protection must be made clear in law. Labour welcomes the Sentencing Council’s updated sentencing guidelines on animal cruelty, which now include a new aggravating factor of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal that is being used in public service or as an assistance dog.

In reality, however, we know that we need to go much further. The law as it stands is not a successful deterrent, and many people who work with service animals think it is failing to offer protection. The Animal Welfare Act was a watershed moment in animal rights, but we must continue to build on the progress that we achieved over a decade ago.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who was the architect of the 2006 Act, is one of the Bill’s co-sponsors and agrees that this change is needed to improve that landmark piece of legislation.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention, and it is good to see on the back of the Bill the list of luminaries who are backing it. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is among those champions. Indeed, his work in supporting the welfare of animals is something that I think all of us on both sides of the House can be proud.

I am pleased that the Government have announced increased sentences for animal cruelty. That is an important step forward for which Labour has been arguing for some time. I would be grateful if the Minister told the House when he intends to bring forward legislation to put that into practice. Sadly, on every single day that goes by without that strong deterrent being put into law, examples of animal cruelty are being carried out across the country for which there are insufficient criminal penalties. I would be grateful to the Minister if he clarified the position.

Let me turn briefly to implementation. This really important Bill extends to England and Wales. As was said by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on Second Reading, there is the question of how we can extend the Bill’s provisions to the entire United Kingdom, with devolved Administrations making the appropriate decisions for their locality, but may I ask in particular about Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland does not have a sitting Assembly at the moment, so the devolved legislature does not have the ability to take action. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Office about how these really important provisions can be extended to police dogs in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am very eager that the law covers the whole United Kingdom. The position in Northern Ireland is slightly difficult because it has a different animal welfare law from the 2006 Act, which covers only England and Wales. When I looked into this with the House authorities, I found that it would be very difficult to amend my Bill to cover Northern Ireland, for example because the long title refers to the 2006 Act, which applies only to England and Wales. I was told that if I tried to amend the Bill to include Northern Ireland, I might lose it. However, this is clearly a very important thing to look at, and I am certainly supportive of doing something for Northern Ireland.

[Luke Pollard]

As someone who grew up watching films of dogs travelling the country to protect their owners and rescue people, I know that where there is a will, there is a way. I hope that Ministers will take forward the belief that extending Finn’s law to cover all parts of the United Kingdom is a sensible and prudent way for us to make sure that police dogs, wherever they are serving, enjoy the same protection as they will in England and Wales under the Bill.

The concerns raised by the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) about safeguards are important, and we must also consider concerns about self-defence. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire addressed such concerns in the Bill’s early stages, but as we close one loophole regarding cruelty towards police dogs, we must not risk opening another. That is especially important when considering the implementation of the Bill and how it will be judged by the courts, and we must send the strong message today that we do not seek to create new loopholes around self-defence, especially regarding the excessive use of force.

The Opposition fully support the Bill. Animals do not have a voice in politics, and it is our job to give them one. There will be people across the country who, over the past few months, might not have looked at the House of Commons and decided that it is politics at its best, but today they will see hon. Members on both sides of the House coming together in favour of something that carries the overwhelming support and good will of the British people.

I hope that the Bill will create headlines in the media today. It is up to us all to show that when considering important matters such as protecting animals from cruelty, we will close any loopholes in the law that enable the perpetrators of such cruel violence to get away with it. That is something of which the House can be rightly proud. It has never been more important to have an ambitious animal welfare agenda, and the Opposition fully support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank all Members who have spoken today for their invaluable support, including my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) and for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), as well as the Minister and the shadow Minister. I also thank the Public Bill Office, which has been very helpful, particularly Adam Mellows-Facer, and the civil servants in DEFRA and other Departments who have helped with the Bill. I wish the Bill well in the other place and thank my noble Friend Lord Trenchard, who lives in my constituency—close to where Finn lives—for agreeing to take it through that House. We heard mention today of three brave police dogs—Aman, Isla and Axle—and I think that from Chichester we heard about Sparky, Lottie and Gonzo. In a way, the Bill is a tribute to all the brave service animals in our country. I hope that it can now proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We will hold discussions with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations on those issues. Only a few months ago we sought and achieved a derogation from the EU linked to wet weather. I am now aware that in many parts of the country, including England and Wales, there are issues linked to dry weather, and we are considering seeking derogations from certain schemes to take account of that problem.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

T6. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the happy news that Finn’s law, the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill, achieved its Second Reading last week. Once enacted, it will make it easier to convict people who attack police dogs and other service animals. The Secretary of State has consulted on increasing the sentence for such attacks to five years’ imprisonment. Is it possible to have an update on the timetable for that so that we know when we can expect it?

[Michael Gove]

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his tenacity and success in ensuring that service animals will be better protected as a result of the Bill that he is bringing forward. We want to ensure better protection for all God’s creatures, which is why we will bring forward proposals to increase the sentences available to the courts for those who commit the most extreme acts of animal cruelty.

Flooding

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is exactly why, in December, I reappointed Dieter Helm as chair of the Natural Capital Committee. I did so precisely so that he could look at that issue and ensure that we are spending money holistically across catchments. That is working hand in hand with our 25-year environment plan. Shortly, we will announce the framework for that. That will require a lot of work. There are a lot of people involved: the water companies, the Environment Agency, local communities, farmers and landowners. We can get better value for money. That is why we are moving in that direction and carrying out that work. However, there is a famous Chinese proverb: the best time to plant a tree is 25 years ago and the next best time is today. We do need to plan for the long term but it takes time to ensure that we get everything in order.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that chapter 5 of the Paris agreement is about the need to protect forests and to have more trees in the world if we are to tackle some of the problems related to carbon. Does that not also have a relevance for flooding? Does she agree that, as part of the work that she has described, it is important to look at whether we need more tree planting in this country? The House has taken initiatives such as the Westminster wood and the National forest to try to encourage tree planting but perhaps we need more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I look forward to discussing in more detail with the hon. Lady exactly which European standards she is talking about—concentration levels or total emission levels, for example. If she is talking specifically about nitrogen dioxide, this Government are absolutely committed to meeting the EU targets as soon as possible.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Johnson Matthey, the world’s leading manufacturer of autocatalysts, which is internationally recognised for its diesel trap technology. Will he do all he can to ensure that the tax regime in this country and emissions regulations that apply here allow for the deployment of the latest technology in this field?

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. and learned Friend will not expect me to comment on a Treasury issue in relation to taxation, but I would like to pay tribute to the work of Johnson Matthey. My hon. and learned Friend has suggested that we meet, and I look forward to meeting this company with its innovative technology as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have said, the panel is independent, and I have had no separate conversations with its members to hear the views that the hon. Lady has expressed. The important thing is to wait for the panel to report to us with its recommendations. In the interim, Ministers have made it absolutely clear that there will be no further sale of the public forest estate.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State recall that in the 1990s John Major, as Prime Minister, launched an initiative in the national forest to develop a parliamentary area, where MPs could sponsor a tree? The aim of that voluntary activity was to encourage biodiversity and help the forest. Could the independent panel consider such initiatives, because I am sure that throughout the country there are groups of individuals who would like to do their bit?

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

The Minister makes a good point, which I shall come on to later.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

But does not my hon. Friend think it right that we should have green fields and farmers tending their livestock, not enormous great sheds, on an industrial scale, absolutely packed full of cattle being fed soya?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, and I accept that, in an ideal world, that might be the case, but in this country the climate does not always make such practices possible. Throughout history, cattle have been kept inside sheds for a large part of the year. Okay, perhaps in years gone by, they were kept in wooden sheds, and that might not be appropriate in this day and age, but it is fairly normal practice to bring cattle inside in the winter months.

[Mr Heald]

I fully appreciate that there is no harm at all in using sheds, but is there not an issue of scale? Some of the proposals that one hears about these days involve not just a shed, but almost an aircraft hangar.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but if we accept that it is okay for, for the sake of argument, 60 head of cattle to be kept inside a shed in the winter, providing the animal welfare standards are acceptable for 60 and not diluted when extended to 600—

[Mr Heald]

Or 6,000.

[Mr Nuttall]

Or 6,000. That is the crucial point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are a number of apparent contradictions in the idea that the traditional—I think the phrase used in farming is “more extensive”—methods will result in any saving or extra protection of the environment. For example, a farmer has to drive to reach the flocks of sheep that are tended on the uplands, but if they are all in one place that is much more environmentally sound.

[Mr Heald]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time, but is he really saying that we should clear the uplands of sheep? That is one of the glories of Cumbria.

[Mr Nuttall]

Absolutely not. That is, indeed, one of the glories, and as someone who has on many occasions enjoyed walking in that environment and eating such animals, I certainly would not suggest as much, but it is worth considering that even in the most natural of environments, that method of farming still has an environmental impact.

The Bill seeks to define sustainability not just in environmental terms, but in social and economic terms. The definition is so broad that it makes the Bill completely unworkable. I am concerned that duty (d) in clause 3 includes a requirement not just to protect the landscape, but to “enhance” it. I am not clear why that is necessary.

Alongside that definition, there is no mention whatever of the economic aspects of sustainability. We need farmers to make a profit and to be consistently profitable. It is surely essential to the sustainability of the livestock industry that farmers be economically viable, and at the very least the reference in clause 3, duty (e), to

“the resilience of farming communities”

should be redrafted to include that critical point.