Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Debate between Peter Gibson and Ashley Dalton

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

I entirely agree. The wider public are not necessarily aware of that or the wide range of existing legislation, let alone the provisions that will be introduced by the Bill if it proceeds successfully. By engaging in this debate we are helping to raise awareness, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on enabling that by presenting the Bill.

The proposed banning of the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats is another provision that will help to protect animal health and welfare. The plans of those seeking to circumvent new rules limiting the number of animals imported under non-commercial rules would be scuppered. Those seeking to abuse our laws will always try to find new ways in which to sustain their exploitative operations in any which way they can, but the Bill, well thought out as it is, offers great two-layer protection for puppies and kittens. Let us imagine a scenario in which a puppy smuggler wanted to import several puppies or kittens, under the guise of the animals being their pets. The limit to the legal importation of these animals under non-commercial rules on an aeroplane would now be three. Cognisant of that limit, a smuggler could have sought to import a heavily pregnant dog or cat which would then give birth in the UK to numerous puppies or kittens which could then be sold. This practice would be limited, with the further provision banning the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats. A puppy smuggler could not simply travel with a heavily pregnant dog or cat under the guise of pet ownership for the animal then to give birth as a commercial opportunity in the UK.

Crucially, the Bill will also support the health and welfare of pregnant cats and dogs, who are our pets and can suffer greatly from international travel when heavily pregnant. The physical and emotional upheaval of long-haul travel can prompt early labour without the necessary veterinary care, and therefore carries risks of harm or death for both the mother and the puppies or kittens involved.

In reviewing the specifics of the Bill in preparation for the debate, I was astonished to find that some of its provisions were not already enshrined in legislation. These are sensible and considered measures for which I can see little downside, and they are well supported by others outside this place. The support that the Bill has garnered from animal welfare stakeholders and charities demonstrates the benefit its provisions could have for the health and welfare of puppies and kittens in the UK.

The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home all support measures in the Bill, and they supported them when they were introduced in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Those stakeholders are the experts in the field, and their endorsement has reassured me that the measures are well considered and likely to positively impact the health and welfare of cats and dogs.

In fact, the importance of supporting the Bill has grown greater since the Government abandoned the kept animals Bill in May 2023. The Prime Minister rode back on the commitment he made during his ill-fated leadership election in which he pledged to retain that Bill in the Government’s legislative agenda. It was left to Opposition Members to try to revive that Bill in an Opposition day debate on 21 June last year. I spoke then in defence of greater regulation to ensure the welfare of animals imported into this country. Despite voting in favour of Labour’s motion, Government Members rejected our best attempts to revive the Bill.

I have since pressed the Government in this place on their failure to support better animal welfare standards. In January, on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, I pressed the Minister about the Government’s plans on puppy smuggling and ear-cropping legislation. However, as the title of that Bill suggested, the Government were concerned there not with the importation of domestic pets but with the exports of livestock. The absence of legislation in this area is exactly why I was keen to speak today in support of this Bill.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

The banning of live exports is one of the real benefits of our leaving the European Union. Were we to have stayed in, we would not have been able to give that benefit to our livestock. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is a real benefit to animals in this country?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It was unfortunate that, even at that point, we still had not managed to bring anything forward around the importation of pets, and it was disappointing that the kept animals Bill was abandoned. We were told in the House that the Government expected such measures to come forward through private Members’ Bills, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on her Bill. I am delighted that what I considered to be something for the birds at the time has come about, and I am delighted on this occasion to have been wrong.

If the moral arguments for the Bill—greater protections for the health and welfare of domestic animals—are not compelling enough for Members across the House, the biosecurity threat posed by a poorly regulated and exploited importation industry should be. That is of particular relevance to my constituents in West Lancashire, which is also a farming community and so relies significantly on biosecurity.

Puppies, kittens and ferrets imported into the UK illegally pose a significant risk of parasitic disease. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took oral evidence on its puppy smuggling inquiry in October 2019, but the written evidence submitted to that inquiry and published for all Members of the House to read was particularly interesting. Dogs and puppies illegally landed in the UK were recognised as presenting a significant biosecurity risk. The pet travel scheme requires microchipping, rabies vaccination, a mandatory pre-travel waiting period and, depending on the country from which the pet is travelling, tapeworm treatment and a rabies antibody test result to create a pet passport.

The commercial importation scheme has greater requirements, as I referenced earlier, and has all the conditions of the pet travel scheme alongside a pre-importation veterinary examination, an animal health certificate and pre-notification to the authorities to ensure welfare during transportation. The illegal smuggling of pets, where there is not compliance with PTS or commercial importation standards, leaves our residents’ pets, animals and us at risk of infectious diseases that may spread to other animals or, in some cases, people in the UK.

NHS Dentistry

Debate between Peter Gibson and Ashley Dalton

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because inability to gain access to an NHS dentist is an issue plaguing my constituents.

In 2024 Tory Britain, the opening of additional NHS dentistry practices is national news, with reports of people queuing on high streets just for the chance to be seen by a dentist. This is a Britain where a call to an NHS dentist to inquire about registering as a new patient is met with laughter down the phone. That is not hyperbole or hearsay: it is what I heard when I tried to register my 88-year-old mother and myself with a new NHS dentist. My dad does not need one: he had his teeth taken out for his 21st birthday, because—my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) made this point—it was cheaper and easier. It is shocking that we seem to be back in that situation today. In 2024, it is easier to get your hands on Taylor Swift tickets than to get an NHS dental appointment.

For the benefit of the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who is no longer in her place, my constituency is a rural one, and it is a beauty. However, for many of my constituents, living in a rural constituency makes accessing vital services nothing short of stress-inducing. The presence of the new Labour Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern), would point to the idea that people in rural communities do believe that Labour has got a grip on what rural communities need; and our colleagues the candidate in Hexham, Joe Morris, and the candidate in Carlisle, Julie Minns, are also telling me that their local people, and hopefully future constituents, believe that Labour has a grip on what is needed in rural communities.

When services are not available in Burscough, in my constituency, it is not as simple as phoning the next practice down the road, or the one just over from that. It means travelling to Skelmersdale, to Southport, to Liverpool. One of my constituents has contacted every practice in our constituency and beyond, from Ormskirk to Blackpool, and is unable to register anywhere as an NHS patient—and Blackpool is 50 miles away, a four-hour round trip by public transport. Another parent in my constituency has been unable to register either of their children, both of whom have additional needs, with an NHS practice.

Another recent arrival to Skem cannot register any of his family members as an NHS patient. I took up his case with the ICB—I am sure that the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who is still in his place, would approve. The ICB told me the shocking truth that Government funding of NHS dentistry is only sufficient to enable around 50% of the population to access routine dental care. So where is the funding for the other half? What are the other 50% of our constituents meant to do?

[Peter Gibson]

The hon. Lady is obviously in a different ICB area from mine and I am not privy to the detail in respect of her ICB’s underspend, but it would be wonderful to know whether her ICB does in fact have an underspend.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for leading up conveniently to my next point. The issue is that the ICB is actually bringing back more money than ever before from our dentists, and the local NHS dentist in Burscough is telling me that that is because they cannot recruit dentists or hygienists or other dental professionals in order to meet their target. They would love to do it; they cannot. The hon. Member for Darlington also talked about choice, but it is no choice when the only choice is private or nowt—and that is what my constituents are looking at.

If only the problem stopped at dentistry. The inability to access a dentist and regular check-ups leads to people having to visit their GP for knock-on health issues, or they are in so much pain that they are forced to end up at an already stretched A&E. Under this Government, the state of NHS dentistry services has ended up as dismal. A member of the public who contacted Healthwatch Lancashire recently, reported that they were in so much pain that they were feeling suicidal.

The public know that they cannot trust the Tories with NHS dentistry, and the alternative with Labour is clear. Prevention is by far the most effective way to improve patient outcomes across the NHS, and there is no better way to prevent than to educate. We have heard that a Labour Government will introduce supervised toothbrushing in schools for three to five-year-olds, giving children the best chance to avoid tooth decay altogether; 700,000 more urgent appointments for the most serious treatments such as fillings and root canals; and will incentivise dentists to work in areas where they are needed most. That is music to the ears of residents in rural areas such as mine. Even better than that, it is all paid for, by ensuring that the people who make Britain their home pay their taxes here, abolishing the non-dom tax status once and for all.

Toothache is nothing compared with the hurt of another five years of this Government’s inaction on dentistry. It is time they called a general election to make way for a Government with a plan to fix our nation’s teeth.