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

Sarah Champion Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Selaine Saxby]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that the Minister can provide guidance on that at the end of the debate.

The Bill will ban the import of puppies and kittens under six months and dogs and cats that are mutilated or heavily pregnant. It will also address the abuse of non-commercial rules that compromise animal welfare and biosecurity by making it more difficult and less profitable for traders to fraudulently import animals for sale under the disguise of owners travelling with their pets. The Bill also addresses the issue of commercial imports being disguised as non-commercial movements by amending the rules that govern the non-commercial movements of dogs, cats and ferrets into Great Britain from third countries.

The puppy trade has become a multimillion-pound, transnational industry, with UK sales of up to 2 million puppies annually and a value of £3 billion. However, 50% of the industry is either illegal or unlicensed and off the enforcement radar. Of that, half originates from animals coming from outside the UK.

According to the Animal and Plant Health Agency, in 2023, more than 500 landings of dogs and cats were intercepted at the port of Dover and found to be non- compliant with import requirements. Of those, 116 puppies and kittens were quarantined for being below the legally required minimum age for import. That data does not include animals detained at airports or found inland. We cannot know the true extent of puppy smuggling operations, so those figures likely capture only a small proportion of the animals smuggled into the country.

Ferrets are included in the Bill, because dogs, cats and ferrets are in the same category for rabies risk. I have not had strong representations from the ferret community, but I would like to mention on the record the ferret of the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who was the Minister for the original Bill. Her gorgeous ferret, Roulette, is no longer with us, but I know that the now Attorney General has previously ensured that references to many of her much-loved pets are recorded in this place, and I am delighted to remember Roulette today.

While not many ferrets have made my inbox, I have done much to support the work of our fantastic animal welfare charities on puppy and kitten smuggling, so I will focus on their travel arrangements. Pet animals can be brought into the UK from EU member states through two different schemes. One is for the travel of owners with pets and the other is for the commercial import of pet animals. Under the EU pet travel scheme, or PETS, vaccinated and microchipped dogs, cats and ferrets are allowed to travel between EU countries for non-commercial reasons, as long as they have a pet passport and have complied with all the requirements of the scheme, which include a rabies vaccination.

The current pet travel scheme is designed to allow a maximum of five pets to travel with their owner rather than for the commercial movement of animals intended for sale as pets. Under the scheme, pet owners must fill in a declaration confirming that they will not sell or transfer the ownership of the pet. An approved transport company must be used for the travel of the pets, unless travelling between the UK and Ireland, where a private boat or plane can be used.

Although I understand that the pet travel scheme was created to make it easy for owners to take their family pets on holiday with them, the system has been abused by unscrupulous traders. Traders have taken advantage of the scheme’s simple set-up to illegally import thousands of puppies for sale, making a huge profit at the cost of welfare. The most common method of attempting to smuggle puppies into Great Britain is by bringing them in under the pet travel scheme when they are, in fact, being imported for commercial sale and should instead be subject to the requirements of the Balai directive and the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011.

Most of all, I highlight the great work that the pet charities have done to raise this issue. Dogs Trust exposed the cruel puppy smuggling trade in 2014 and has been pushing for changes to the law to help stop it ever since. The Dogs Trust puppy pilot scheme was set up in 2015 to aid the interception of illegally imported puppies by APHA at the ports and to provide care and rehabilitation for them until they find loving new homes. Since then, it has cared for more than 2,000 puppies.

As part of the Dogs Trust puppy smuggling taskforce, I first experienced the documentary and identity checks that currently operate at the border. I saw for myself the tactics that smugglers employ to avoid detection. I thank Dogs Trust for all its hard work in campaigning on this issue and for working with me on the Bill’s progress, through the roundtable and the event this Wednesday to discuss their recent “Tragic Tales and the Decade of Delay” campaign, which featured four real-life case studies of dogs who have been helped by the puppy pilot. Special thanks goes to my local Dogs Trust site in North Devon between Ilfracombe and Braunton, which does exceptional work to rehome dogs locally.

I also thank the RSPCA for its work on this issue and for its #ForPupsSake campaign, especially during the pandemic when interest in getting a puppy sky-rocketed. The campaign called for a stop to illegal puppy imports and highlighted how smuggled puppies can cost the owner more than they think. On behalf of the fluffy, furry kittens, I would like to thank Cats Protection, which published its 2023 “Cats and their Stats” survey. It found that 3% of the cats obtained in the 12 months preceding the survey were from abroad, equating to 50,000 cats. It is unclear what conditions those cats were subjected to during travel.

There have been significant changes in the cat market in the past five years, with a big rise in pure bred and pedigree cats. Of the cats obtained in the past 12 months, 42% were pedigree and pure bred cats, compared with 17% five years ago. It is likely that many of the imported cats are pedigree. Having had a cat while I was living overseas, I know that cats are extremely stressed by transportation over long distances, which in turn can supress their immune systems so that their risk of infectious disease and other stress-related illness is markedly increased by importation.

Vet charities, such as the British Veterinary Association, have also raised directly with me the significant threat posed to biosecurity by the large number of smuggled puppies entering the UK. Although it is not in scope of the Bill, I hope that raising the issue is a first step and that the Department will take forward those concerns. Other charities, such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, FOUR PAWS and the Kennel Club, have all done invaluable work to campaign on the issue. I thank them all today.

Moving on to the Bill and the measures that will be enacted through primary legislation, clause 4 will reduce the number of animals that can travel under non-commercial rules from five per person to five per vehicle, or three per foot or air passenger. The charities would have preferred three animals per vehicle, as their research shows that over 97% of pet owners have three or fewer dogs. However, the reduction is a significant and welcome step to tackle the illegal smuggling of pets. The non-commercial rules are intended to make it easier for genuine pet owners to travel. Unscrupulous traders fraudulently claim ownership of several pets that they are actually importing for sale. They do that because the requirements for owners travelling with pets are less stringent. The Bill reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be brought into Great Britain non-commercially. Reducing that number is proportionate and takes into consideration other pets owned by the household that may also travel.

Article 5A in clause 4(5) ensures that when a non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret is carried out by an authorised person, it may only take place within five days of the movement of the owner. There is evidence that the ability for a pet to travel with an authorised person under the non-commercial rules is being used as a loophole to bring in animals that should be moved under the commercial import regime, and therefore subject to more stringent requirements for sale or transfer of ownership. The new measures will ensure that pets are moved under the owner’s direct responsibility or, where the pet animal cannot be moved at the same time as the owner, under the responsibility of a person authorised by the owner and within five days of the movement of the owner. An authorised person is one who has authorisation in writing from the owner to carry out the non-commercial movement of the pet animal on their behalf. This will also ensure that only an owner of a pet can sign a declaration that a movement is non-commercial. This will stop non-commercial routes being used as a loophole by traders. Movements that are not within five days will require the dog, cat or ferret to be brought in as a commercial import, rather than a non-commercial movement.

On the measures to be enacted through secondary legislation, the Bill contains an enabling power to make regulations on the bringing of dogs, cats or ferrets into the United Kingdom for the purpose of promoting their welfare. The first regulations that can be made in relation to dogs and cats in Great Britain under that enabling power have been outlined on the face of the Bill to provide reassurance of the Government’s intention to lay the measures through secondary legislation. The enabling powers provide the opportunity for the Government to gather further evidence and discuss the proposals with stakeholders and the public in order to develop the new restrictions effectively. The powers will enable the Government to tackle low welfare imports dynamically. They will allow us the flexibility to address known issues quickly, but also act to close down emerging practices, including those attempting to circumvent previous restrictions.

The Government will use that power alongside the other powers in the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) to clause 1 introduce prohibitions that restrict the commercial import and non-commercial movement into Great Britain of puppies and kittens under six months. We are still seeing high volumes of smuggled puppies—dogs under six months which do not comply with current animal health rules and are landed in Great Britain for the purpose of commercial sale—as well as other low-welfare movements and imports of pet animals.

I understand the Kennel Club’s concerns about genetic diversity and rescue dogs that are brought into the country at the age of four months. However, the need for a six-month minimum age is due to the practicalities of identifying the age of a dog or a cat that can come into the UK: at six months old, the majority of puppies and kittens will have a full set of permanent incisors, canines and premolars, and can therefore be aged more accurately. The measure will enable the identification of puppies and kittens that are being moved at young ages and are thus at risk of low welfare.

The prohibition is intended to prevent the import of under-age puppies and kittens by increasing the minimum age from 15 weeks to six months. To illustrate the importance of that, I want to talk about Bruce, who is available after today’s sitting for photos in room W3, if you would like to meet him, Mr Speaker. Bruce highlights the need for a change to the minimum age. He is a French bulldog who was seized at the border at just 10 weeks old alongside three of his siblings, who had all endured a journey in cramped and squalid conditions over thousands of miles from Bulgaria in 2018. Ten weeks is well under the 15 weeks that puppies must have reached to legally enter the UK.

Bruce and his siblings were found in a poor condition, infested with worms and severely underweight. All four of the dogs weighed roughly 2.8 kg, which is half the expected weight of French bulldogs of their age. Their passports were faked, with at least three claiming that the dogs had been wormed before they were even born. The dishonest traders claimed that Bruce and his siblings were all their own pets. Upon seizure, however, Dogs Trust staff were able to find evidence of all four dogs being advertised for sale online. Fortunately for Bruce, the Dogs Trust was able to take him in and care for him until he could find his forever home. Bruce has now been rehomed responsibly through the Dogs Trust. He is a very cute French bulldog.

Some of these dogs are bred for fashion, and the Kennel Club, along with other animal charities and vets, has highlighted the health and welfare issues that can be associated with such breeds. Although the issues of breathing and flat-faced dogs are about genetic mutilation and are therefore not in scope of the Bill, I would like to highlight the need still to safeguard dogs of this type that are already in the country. We must look at what else we can do to help with genetic mutilations, which cause our pets to suffer.

Last week, it was reassuring to hear about Crufts’s respiratory function grading—RFG—scheme for brachycephalic dogs, such as French bulldogs, pugs and bulldogs. It was great to meet Dr Jane Ludlow, the vet who has devised the scheme, which assesses dogs with a stethoscope. The dog exercises for three minutes, and the process is then repeated. We saw at first hand that the test is quick and straightforward, and it assigns an RFG rating to each dog. Those with the lowest grades should not breed.

Far too many flat-faced dogs have brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, known as BOAS, which can chronically impair the ability of the dog to breathe normally and carry out everyday tasks. All the dogs at Crufts had the option of being tested, which becomes compulsory next year, and all those that win are tested to ensure that the breed retains high health standards. I hope that my highlighting this issue today will ensure that more potential pet owners ask questions about the health of the parents of their future pet.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am really glad that the hon. Lady has brought up this issue. I do not know whether she has seen the number of brachycephalic dogs that are going to Battersea because pet owners cannot afford to have the operation. The charity has seen an exponential rise in these dogs being dumped. Does she agree that much more needs to be done?

[Selaine Saxby]

I have indeed been to Battersea, which is what really triggered much of my interest in this particular area. Like the hon. Lady, I was deeply shocked by what I saw, which is why it was such a relief to see the new system come into effect at Crufts. It gives people the opportunity to find out whether their dogs are unwell—ideally, before they have been adopted as puppies.

Cats Protection has highlighted the issue of under-age kitten smuggling. Nala was smuggled illegally into the country when she was around eight weeks old. She had been with her owners for eight days when they brought her into the UK from Germany without a pet passport and appropriate vaccinations. They became concerned for her health and took her to a vet, who realised that she had arrived without meeting the requirements of the pet travel scheme and reported the matter to trading standards. The pet travel scheme—PETS—allows pet cats, dogs and ferrets to enter the UK without quarantine as long as they are microchipped, have a pet passport and a rabies vaccination, and have waited 21 days after the vaccination before travelling.

In addition to breaking the terms of PETS and been facing prosecution, Nala’s owners were also unable to pay for the costs of seven weeks of quarantine, which came to £1,500, so they signed her over to feline welfare charity Cats Protection. It ensured that the tiny cat was appropriately quarantined and received vet care before being taken into its Ferndown adoption centre. Despite being removed from her mother at about seven weeks old, a week earlier than is advised, Nala was a lively, energetic kitten, and a suitable home was found for her.

Clauses 1(3)(b) and 1(4)(b) introduce prohibitions that restrict the commercial import and non-commercial movement into Great Britain of heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those that are more than 42 days pregnant. There is an emerging trend in the import of pregnant dogs, but there is a strong consensus to tackle that, with Dogs Trust polling showing 79% support for a ban on the import of heavily pregnant dogs. The prohibition in the Bill is intended to ensure the welfare of pregnant dogs and cats by lowering the gestation limit to prohibit the movement into Great Britain from a third country of dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant—and so within the final third of the gestation. That aligns with clear markers in pregnancy, and therefore pregnant dogs and cats under that limit can be more easily identified. In addition, we expect that traders will respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. This measure is needed to prevent that anticipated increase in imports of low-welfare dogs and cats from producers with unacceptable welfare standards.

The tragic case of Snowy, the heavily pregnant bichon Maltese, shows how important this measure is in this Bill. Snowy was seized at the port of Dover in May 2023, after being illegally transported into the UK. Before she was intercepted, Snowy had travelled to the UK from an EU country. Snowy was 56 days pregnant when she was seized—in the final 10% of her pregnancy, when it is illegal to transport dogs. Just days after she was seized, and despite her ordeal, Snowy gave birth to four healthy puppies. Snowy and her puppies have all now been responsibly rehomed through the Dogs Trust. The disturbing trend of transporting heavily pregnant dogs into the country in the later stages of pregnancy causes significant suffering and health implications to both mum and puppies. Not only will importing one dog attract less suspicion at the border, but as responsible buyers will ask to see the puppies with their mother, this tactic allows criminals to give the impression of being legitimate breeders, and thus avoid being reported to trading standards.

Clauses 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) introduce prohibitions that restrict the commercial import and non-commercial movement into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations, for example, dogs with cropped ears or docked tails, and declawed cats. From my previous meetings with pet charities, I know there is a clear consensus among the charities about a ban on dogs and cats with cropped ears and declawed cats, and I am delighted that it has been taken forward. The intended approach to the prohibition of mutilated animals is set out in further detail in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation “Commercial and Non-Commercial Movements of Pets into Great Britain”. The summary of responses and the Government response to that consultation are due to be published in due course, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the consultation response.

The ban on cropped ears mutilations would have helped six-year-old Maisie, who came into RSPCA care in October 2023 due to welfare concerns. She was incredibly malnourished and underweight. She is a sweet and gentle girl who absolutely loves playing with a football, chasing tennis balls and eating sausages. She arrived in RSPCA care with a docked tail and cropped ears. She has a passport from overseas, so the RSPCA believes she was imported having already been cropped and docked. Unfortunately, it is not just dogs that are mutilated. Many kittens are subjected to declawing, an extremely painful and distressing procedure that prevents cats from exhibiting normal scratching behaviour, and is the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip at the first knuckle. Although it is already illegal for cats to be declawed in the UK. Cats Protection, the RSPCA and Battersea have been campaigning hard to ensure that cats with this mutilation are included in the Bill and banned from importation. That is both to deter any market or interest in declawed cats, and to keep in line with ensuring that the highest standards of cat welfare are consistently maintained in the UK. The PDSA “Animal Wellbeing Report 2022” states that

“alarmingly, 5% of cat owners who got their cat from abroad, equating to 31,000 cats, told us that they chose to get their pet from abroad because they wanted them to be declawed.”

Clause 1(2)(b) delivers relevant exemptions to the prohibitions, for example, for recognised assistance dogs or military or service working animals. The enforcement measures and exemptions for the Bill will be delivered through secondary legislation. As with the exemptions, delivering the enforcement measures through secondary legislation will enable us to work closely with enforcement bodies to develop guidance and ensure they have the correct tools to deliver these measures effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It is a privilege and an honour to speak in this vital debate. I declare my strong personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I strongly support the Bill.

I have had to frantically rewrite the introduction to my speech, having heard my colleagues name-check their pets. I know that my two lovely dogs, Poppy and Juno, are following the debate closely, so I now have to name-check them. They would never forgive me if I did not, and I am sure that they would punish me by rolling in something unspeakable.

We are a nation of animal lovers. Animals provide us with so much companionship, and help our physical and mental wellbeing. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for driving forward this important Bill and colleagues across the House for supporting this important area of legislation over many years. I also commend many charities, institutions and organisations. The British Veterinary Association, Dogs Trust—I mention specifically Paula Boyden, its veterinary director, who has done so much work on this issue—Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea, the RSPCA, Four Paws, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and the veterinary surgeon Marc Abraham have done so much on this issue.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has taken a close interest in this area for many years, and we have run various inquiries in recent years. One was about moving animals across borders, and we have a current inquiry on pet welfare and abuse, which deals with a lot of the issues that we are discussing today. We had an emergency special session this week on issues facing the veterinary sector, and we looked at biosecurity and animal welfare as well.

I welcome the fact that this Bill is about dogs, cats and ferrets, because it is important that we encompass all those animals. I also welcome the fact that the Bill will increase the minimum age on importation to six months. I note that some measures are not in the Bill, but also that we want to get this legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that the Government will bring in secondary legislation to add things as and when necessary. We need to keep the option open for future secondary legislation to include things such as reinstating the rabies titer checks and increasing the post-rabies vaccination wait time to 12 weeks. Such measures would help to reinforce the increase in the minimum age to six months.

I hugely welcome the change to the policy on heavily pregnant animals. On the EFRA Committee over the last few years, we have taken harrowing evidence of the awful trade in heavily pregnant animals being shipped into this country to give birth and then shipped back out again, sometimes with fresh suture wounds. It has been awful and harrowing to hear that evidence. Since 2019, Dogs Trust has taken in 168 pregnant dogs that have been transported. Currently, it is not permitted to transport dogs and cats in the last 10% of pregnancy. It is difficult to assess when that is, so including the last third of pregnancy in the ban is a very important step.

We need to keep a watching brief on whether unscrupulous traders are flipping between the non-commercial and commercial movement of animals, and whether we need to act on the commercial importation of pregnant animals as well. We have taken evidence showing that there are bad people shipping animals in. Over recent years, these unscrupulous traders have been switching between commercial and non-commercial movement, and when the authorities move one way, they move the other. We need to keep a watching brief on this.

I welcome that clause 4 states that a movement is not non-commercial if there are more than five animals per vehicle. That is very important. Many institutions and charities wanted the figure to be three per vehicle, but five per vehicle is an awful lot better than 20 per vehicle, because people were picking up passengers and saying, “These pets are with these passengers on board.” The five animals per vehicle rule will be a game changer.

It appears to me that clause 5 will allow Ministers to bring in secondary legislation, so we do need to keep a watching brief and to allow secondary legislation. When previous laws have come in, unscrupulous people have found loopholes that were not predicted by the legislators drawing them up, so we need to be able to act to close the loopholes.

There has been a lot of discussion today about the mutilation of dogs and cats, and the Bill will do much to tackle that. To be clear, ear cropping is an absolutely horrific practice that has no role in a civilised society. There is no medical or clinical benefit to the animal in having its ears cropped. As has been discussed, a lot of this is about how the dog looks—it makes them look more formidable or ferocious. There has been an upsurge in the prevalence of dogs with cropped ears; when we are walking around, we see these dogs now.

The Select Committee has also taken harrowing evidence on this practice. It is illegal in this country to crop a dog’s ears, but we have evidence that it has been taking place here. People are doing it in horrific circumstances, potentially in their back garden sheds. Looking online, we see that the situation is horrific; there are online ear cropping kits. We need to stamp that out as well. This law is important and it will help address that; it will close the loophole.

We must look at popular culture as well, including popular animated films. One of my favourite films that I watched with my children was the Disney Pixar film “Up”, which we all absolutely love, but if you look closely at the dogs in that film, you will see that many of them are cropped. If people are going to the cinema with their kids and seeing this on the big screen, it looks normal, and that is wrong. In the last couple of years, there was another hugely successful animated film, the “Super-Pets” movie. Again, the lead character was an ear-cropped dog. Many people in our country who love their animals do not realise that ear cropping is not normal and want their dogs to look like that. Unfortunately, there is a popular and celebrity culture as well. We need to educate people that these dogs have been horrifically mutilated. The Bill will close that loophole.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon raised the important issue of brachycephalic dogs: dogs with very short faces that have real difficulty breathing. That is so important, because they are lovely and wonderful dogs but they have a lot of clinical difficulties. We need to do work to make sure that in the future breeding of these dogs, their noses become longer again so that they can breathe more easily. Again, this appears in popular culture and in the advertising of products. I will not name them, but a lot of major products use images of brachycephalic dogs in their advertising. We need to be very cautious about that.

[Sarah Champion]

May I draw the hon. Gentleman back to his previous profession? When a vet sees a dog that is unsuitable for breeding, does the hon. Gentleman think that the vet, instead of facilitating the breeding process, has a responsibility to say, “No, we’re not letting this go forward”?

[Dr Hudson]

I can give the hon. Lady a categorical reassurance that the veterinary profession is strongly looking at the issue very closely. It also has a role in educating the pet-owning public about where to source their dogs responsibly and to ensure that those dogs have a good and happy life. But yes, the veterinary profession is looking at this closely. What comes into frame with ear-cropped dogs is an upsurge in the past few years of unregulated canine fertility clinics, where acts of veterinary surgery are being performed by people who are not qualified. In future, we need to ensure that we strongly clamp down on those practices as well.

I am absolutely delighted that the Bill includes cats. The mutilations include those cats that have been horrifically declawed. There is no benefit to the cat in being declawed. The Bill will help an awful lot of cats.

In future, we need to look at whether secondary legislation is needed. We will ban the import of ear-cropped dogs, but we need to think, too, about banning the onward sale of those dogs in this country. However, I hope that the Bill will stop the importation, so that that may not be necessary. Again, we need to keep a watching brief.

Many colleagues today have talked about diseases. The importation of animals presents a risk to not only animals in this country, but people. One major disease that we are concerned about is canine brucellosis, caused by Brucella canis. There were 143 positive cases in dogs from 2020 to 2022 and 160 positive cases in 2023. There have been two laboratory-confirmed cases in people. This is a disease—zoonosis—that can be transmitted from dogs to people.

The Bill will ban the importation of heavily pregnant dogs. One of the main exposures to brucellosis is when a pregnant dog comes into the country and whelps here—the birthing fluids are a potential risk for people. Vets, nurses and practitioners on the frontline are at risk, as are owners. As I said, two people in this country have contracted the disease.

Brucellosis is an unpleasant disease for the dog. Treatment is not recommended; the prognosis is poor and often euthanasia is recommended. It is also an unpleasant illness in people, especially in vulnerable and immuno-compromised people. It is a salient point to make that we need to be cognisant that laws like this will help the situation, because we have seen an increase of dogs coming in that have such diseases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

This Bill is deeply welcome and I particularly support the measures to prevent pet smuggling, although I fail to understand why the Government pulled the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and instead are using precious private Members’ Bills to pass the same necessary legislation.

The puppy trade has become worth up to £3 billion in the UK with the sale of up to 2 million puppies annually, and as much as 50% of the industry is illegal or unlicensed. I also want to speak on the issue of cat and kitten smuggling; I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) but I will not be talking about ferrets in this part of the speech. I strongly believe that cats and kittens must be given parity with dogs from the outset in any new legislation.

Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlights that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. The charity says that it is unclear whether any health and welfare checks were done on those cats or what conditions they were subjected to during travel, meaning that some may have arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health or carrying infectious diseases that they could pass on to other cats. Many felines also become very stressed during long journeys, leading to related illnesses such as cystitis.

Cats Protection believes there is a heightened risk of kitten smuggling due to the increasing popularity of high-value pedigree breeds, which can be sold for thousands of pounds, and this demand is rising. According to its report, there has been a significant rise in pure breed and pedigree cats; 42% of the cats obtained in the last 12 months were pedigree or purebred, compared with 17% more than five years ago. Higher prices and increasing demand make these cats an attractive target for illegal importation by those wishing to make a quick profit.

I add at this point, both to Members and to everybody listening, that our rescue cats need homes. Many have said that I am a she-cat, and I am mother to Stanley, who came from Cat-CHING, a Rotherham and Sheffield charity, and to Mia Cat and Sue from Cats Protection. Rescue cats are fantastic pets and they need our support; owners do not need to spend a fortune on them and they get the support of the charity.

Let me change the tone and speak about the horrific mutilation of declawing cats. The kept animals Bill included positive steps to limit the importation of dogs with mutilations including ear cropping, but, concerningly, cats with mutilations were not included in the proposals. The most notable omission was the vile declawing procedure, which is extremely painful and distressing and prevents cats from exhibiting normal scratching behaviour. It is basically the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip at the first knuckle, and it is already illegal in the UK. I therefore give credit to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), as her Bill prohibits the importation of dogs and cats who have been mutilated.

I strongly support the Bill, as I believe that it will go a long way to protect our beloved dogs and cats from pet smugglers looking to exploit them for profit. I commend the hon. Member for her commitment to that cause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am very glad to hear that, because it certainly gives her a better chance of making sure the Government do not go soft or slack when it comes to doing the necessary things to ensure the Bill ends up on the statute book. She would be congratulated by many from across the House if she managed that. Obviously, the regulations will have to be written and consulted on. The Bill has to go through the Committee and Report stages in this House. There is a concertina effect on when private Members’ Bill Fridays are coming up, so she will have to get the Bill through Committee fast. That would be my other little bit of advice: there is a queue of Bills ahead of her that have passed Second Reading, so she needs to keep pushing in the right direction.

The Bill takes up some of the provisions that were in the more comprehensive Bill that, as I recall, the Government withdrew in 2023. They have been trying to legislate on this issue since the 2019 election, when it was in their manifesto, so I think it is a good thing that the hon. Lady is bringing forward these provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said, there is a little extra detail in this Bill than was apparent in the original legislation. That is also a good thing. It is not correct, as is the modern fashion in legislative drafting, to leave everything to the regulations; sometimes it is a good idea to have the provisions in primary legislation. That might make me a bit old fashioned, but I do think that there is something to be said for it. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on getting a few more details on precisely what is going to be done into primary legislation. That holds to the feet of whatever Government are then trying to implement the legislation to the fire, and there is something to be said for that.

The change in the law that the hon. Lady is seeking to make is good in respect of dogs and cats, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Currently, the lower age limit to import a dog or cat is 15 weeks. Pregnant dogs and cats may be imported—as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who has extra knowledge of these things, mentioned— until the last 10% of their pregnancy. Up to five dogs or cats can be imported per person, and the owner can authorise somebody else to travel for them. The changes that are being made to those limits can only be entirely good, for the reasons that have been made by other Members during the course of this debate and that I will not repeat.

Ferrets are included in the short title of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Devon was kind enough to respond to me when I intervened on her, saying that the reason that ferrets had been included is that they can get rabies, so there is something desirable to be said about controlling the import of ferrets. That, for me, is a good enough reason to include them in the short title of the Bill, but I have noticed that we do not seem to have had a lot of representations about ferrets, or examples of the abuse of ferrets in the way that we have in respect of dogs and cats. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, can let us know whether ferrets are there purely as a rabies control measure, or whether there is evidence that there is abuse in the importation of ferrets? I do not have a wide knowledge of that, so I would be interested to know whether the issues facing ferrets are similar to those of dogs and cats, or whether the fact that they are in the short title of the Bill is simply to do with disease control. To my mind, that is a good enough reason, but I wonder whether there should be further provisions on the safety of ferrets that are not set out in the regulations so far. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Sarah Champion]

I am interested that my right hon. Friend is keenly mentioning ferrets at every opportunity that she can in this debate, so let me just put it on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend now has that on the record. I do not really know what else to say about that, except that I am sure that Oscar brought her brother great joy. That is what pets do. I am sure there are many other ferret owners who might attest to the same thing. My interest in ferrets is purely because they are in the short title of the Bill, yet there does not seem to be any evidence that there is abuse. That is why I keep raising the issue of ferrets. I am sure the Minister will be able to enlighten us when he comes to reply.

The other issue that I particularly wanted to raise—I have raised it a number of times in my interventions—is that this legislation has been taken in part from the old, comprehensive legislation, but there are no provisions in the Bill about penalties. It is all very well for us all to object to the cruel and appalling way in which animals have been abused and treated in great numbers by those seeking to make profit out of their misery, but the only way we can make sure that that ceases is by having good, effective enforcement and by ensuring that those who seek to profit in this way are made an example of through the courts.

I know that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the sentences for animal cruelty from a maximum of six months to five years, but it is not totally apparent to me—the Minister might be able to enlighten us, if he is listening—whether that Act provides the enforcement and penalty regime for this Bill. Will breaches of this legislation be punished through the provision of that Act, or is that to be done by some other regime of punishment and penalty somewhere else? Obviously, in a comprehensive Bill the penalties would probably be included with all the provisions. Given that the Government, with the help of the hon. Member for North Devon, have chosen to slice and dice their approach to animal welfare legislation and bring forward separate Bills, I hope the Minister will be able to explain where the penalties are written and what they will be. Are they being increased? Can they be increased by regulation? What penalties and punishments might he expect those who fall foul of this improved legislation to meet if they continue in their nefarious activities?

That brings me to the other point I wish to raise, which is about enforcement. I have raised this in a number of interventions during the debate, and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border had something to say about it too. Having the law on the statute book is a good first step, but it does not stop abuse of the law—it is enforcement that does that. So will the hon. Member for North Devon or the Minister say something about enforcement? Since the 2021 Act increased the maximum penalties for animal abuse, has the number of prosecutions increased? Have people gone to jail? Have they gone to jail for more than six months, which was the previous maximum term? This is a lucrative trade and those who smuggle puppies can make hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the enforcement, penalty and punishment regime needs to match the scale of that potential profit. If it does not, the law will sit there and not work in the way in which its supporters in this House, who come from across the Chamber, wish it to work.

I welcome the Bill very much. I congratulate the hon. Lady on choosing it, when she fortuitously came up in the ballot in the way in which she did. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure its supporters from around the Chamber—very many of us have spoken in support today—about precisely what will happen on enforcement and what the penalty and punishment regime will be. It is all very well getting the law right, but if we do not then enforce it by catching the perpetrators and pursuing them through the law to the maximum available opportunity, these lucrative trades will continue and we will still have problems with animal welfare in this country.

That having been said, let me finish by congratulating the hon. Lady on bringing forward this piece of legislation. She said she is tenacious and she will have to be to get all this done before the Prime Minister calls a general election. I know that she will stick at it, and let us hope that we will then be able to get this Bill on to the statute book and do some of the good that it purports to want to do. This will work only if the Government can reassure us that they are going to get on with the regulations and get this working as soon as possible. They have spent the whole of this Parliament saying that they are going to do this without managing to do it yet. Perhaps, at the end of this Parliament, the Minister will be able to stand up and say that he actually managed to do this and got it right to where it needs to be, and perhaps he will be able to reassure us about enforcement and punishment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for any crime, let alone these particular vile and heinous crimes, is essential to deter others who want to profit from the same exploitation of animals and people that we see in this vile trade in puppy and kitten smuggling. Nobody wants to see that, but we could have had more focus on this, and sanctions, had the Government pursued the original legislation, rather than delaying it and then supporting it coming back—in part at least—as a private Member’s Bill.

The circumstances in which animals are bred are also changing. A growing number of puppies are bred not only in vast, industrial-scale puppy farms, but in sheds, repurposed smallholdings, urban tower blocks and warehouses. We have seen images of these poor, desperate creatures tied up, often left shivering in the freezing cold, in filthy cages, covered in their own excrement, and sometimes reduced to eating their own excrement. It is distressing beyond words to see any of these images and videos, so thank goodness we have this Bill before us today. But what a crying shame it is that the Government have done so little about this vile trade until now and then abandoned the original legislation that could have brought in measures far sooner to save countless defenceless animals from abuse by the most unscrupulous traders and criminal gangs.

The RSPCA is the world’s oldest and largest animal welfare charity, founded here in England in 1824. It has been at the forefront of raising public awareness and concern about puppy smuggling. I pay tribute to the RSPCA for its many years of campaigning on this and so many other animal welfare issues. The RSPCA has highlighted that many dogs smuggled into this country to be sold on the underground puppy market have long-term health problems, as well as behavioural issues because of their breeding and negative experiences early in life.

We are talking about puppies like Dobby, a 19-month-old French bulldog who was taken in by the RSPCA’s Mount Noddy animal centre in West Sussex. Dobby, who had been trafficked into the UK from Lithuania, was plagued with severe and painful health problems, which eventually required significant surgery. The RSPCA points out that importing sick puppies with zoonotic diseases into the UK not only poses a risk to public health, but can lead to the very sad outcome of the animal needing to be euthanised after enduring a short, wretched life of pain and suffering.

What about mutilation, which has been by hon. Members across the Chamber? Mutilation includes horrific acts of cruelty, such as tail docking, ear cropping and the declawing of cats. Ear cropping has been illegal for over 20 years in England and Wales—thank goodness—but the RSPCA reports a 1,243% increase in incidents of ear cropping in dogs between 2015 and 2021. That is such a staggering figure it is worth repeating—a 1,243% increase in incidents of ear cropping in dogs. How despicable! No wonder so many animal rights campaign groups have been pleading with the Government for so many years to bring forward measures to curb this cruel trade.

The RSPCA tells us that the current loopholes in the law that permit the importing of dogs with cropped ears offer a defence in court for those responsible for illegal ear cropping here in the United Kingdom. That helps them to avoid prosecution for abuses of dogs that were made illegal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Dog lovers across the United Kingdom are desperate for this horrific practice to be stopped once and for all.

Kitten smuggling raises further welfare concerns that I suspect will distress Members across the House. Cats Protection is the UK’s largest cat welfare charity. It provides administrative support to the all-party parliamentary group on cats, which I was proud to co-chair for many years before I was appointed to the shadow Cabinet by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The charity has produced a most helpful briefing paper on the Bill before us. It notes that its 2023 survey found that 3% of cats purchased in the United Kingdom over the previous 12 months had been sourced from abroad. We have no idea what conditions those cats or kittens were subject to during travel, but the long journeys they are forced to endure can cause them significant pain, fear and distress. That is not something anyone would wish to impose on a beloved family pet, or indeed on any animal, where it can be avoided.

The Bill is an important opportunity to prevent so much needless suffering. The Bill will crack down on puppy and kitten smuggling by closing loopholes in the law that have been mercilessly exploited by dishonest and criminal commercial traders. The Bill reduces the number of animals that may enter Great Britain in a motor vehicle during a single non-commercial journey to five. That will help stop smugglers who pretend larger cargos of animals are their own pets, when in reality they are intended for sale in this country. For similar reasons, the Bill reduces the number of animals that can be brought into the country by means other than a motor vehicle to just three. That will be of huge benefit in reducing the level of kitten and puppy smuggling into the United Kingdom.

The RSCPA has found criminal gangs using routes like this to smuggle animals into the country. The gangs then hire short-let properties, such as Airbnbs, to trick buyers into believing their puppy or kitten comes from a good home and has been well cared for by the animal’s mother. The animal’s new owners are incredibly distressed when they find out that their new pet may have a serious illness, an infection or behavioural problems caused by being removed from its mother far too young. It can even cost the new owners thousands of pounds in vet bills as they try to care for their animal. Of course, in many cases, the animal dies.

[Sarah Champion]

On that point, I have had a constituent get in touch with me because they went to get a dog—they thought it was a legitimate one—but when they got it home they found it had many complications. However, the children had already bonded with it, so they ended up having to take out a loan to cover all the vets’ fees. Surely more needs to be done to prosecute those people who are causing so much cost to the pet owners, who are innocent victims.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Through that example, she makes the most compelling case for why the Bill is necessary and why it should be brought in as soon as possible. Families who go out to buy a family pet are aghast, appalled and distressed when they get home and find out that that animal is not the healthy, well cared-for pet they thought they were buying, but has been subject to abuse. The animal may have behavioural or health problems that cost them thousands of pounds. It is simply unfair.

The Bill gives the authorities in different parts of the United Kingdom—including those with devolved Governments—the power to prohibit or restrict the transport of dogs, cats or ferrets into the UK for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the imported animals, since that, too, has often been used as cover for the illegal importation of ill-treated or sick animals for sale as pets. The Bill requires regulations to be made covering England, Scotland and Wales to prohibit the importing of dogs or cats that are below the age of six months, are more than 42 days pregnant, or have been mutilated through declawing, ear cropping, tail docking or other such methods. These are extremely important measures that will give a significant boost to animal welfare.

There has been a huge increase in the importation of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, which have often been stolen from their loving owners in continental Europe and smuggled into the UK in the most appalling conditions. The criminal gangs’ intention is to sell the puppies or kittens as quickly as possible after they are born. They do not care that the animals may have been made sick by the conditions in which they were transported, or even if the animals are born prematurely as a result of trauma inflicted on the mother. It is purely and simply a criminal money-making operation that needs to be stopped as quickly as possible.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” in line 1 to the end of the Question and add:

“this House notes the Government’s statement on 25 May 2023 regarding the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill; and welcomes the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries’ commitment that the Government will be taking forward measures from the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill individually during the remainder of this Parliament, including on the keeping and licensing of primates, livestock worrying, export of livestock, pet theft and the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets.”

We are a nation of animal lovers. Animal welfare has been the priority of this Government since 2010. Internationally, our animal welfare standards are already top class—according to the World Animal Protection index, they are the best not just in the G7 but in the entire world. Our manifesto commitments demonstrate our ambition to go even further on animal welfare. To remind the House, we have already committed to bring in new laws on animal sentience, introduce tougher sentences for animal cruelty, and implement the Ivory Act 2018 and extend it to other species. We have ensured that animal welfare standards are not comprised in trade deals. We have cracked down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, and we will bring forward cat microchipping. We will ban the keeping of primates as pets and imports of hunting trophies and endangered species. We will ban the cruel live shipment of animals and ensure that, in return for funding, farmers safeguard high animal welfare standards.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. It had cross-party support. We would have got it over the line and saved the lives of thousands of animals.

[Trudy Harrison]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member understands that the measures in that Bill were important. I will set out later just how we will achieve each and every one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

My inbox is full of angry constituents who feel profoundly let down because the Government dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which could have addressed things such as puppy smuggling, live exports and pet theft, about which we all care deeply.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for zoos and aquariums and will focus on the Bill’s zoo licensing measures. On Second Reading, colleagues across party lines were clear that the Bill was the right thing to do. Indeed, the zoo sector fully supported the Bill. It disappoints me that the Minister has not yet detailed how these individual Bills will come forward. If she could speak about the timetable, it would give much reassurance.

Good zoos and aquariums have, for many years, been committed to raising standards of animal welfare and boosting their conservation work. They have been leading on this and we should be proud that, through the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, our zoos and safari parks adhere to world-leading welfare standards. They are also leading the world in their conservation and research.

I urge the Minister to visit ZSL Whipsnade to see creatures that are extinct in the wild. Entire species now rely on the zoo to survive and recolonise in the wild. Or she could go to Scotland, where she will see that Scottish wildcats bred at Highland Wildlife Park have returned to the Cairngorms. Or Plymouth, where she will see the National Marine Aquarium restoring sea grasses to our seas.

In 2022, BIAZA zoos and aquariums undertook 836 conservation projects around the world and spent £28 million on conservation. They supported 90 native species projects and worked on 1,339 research projects. Conservation is the backbone of all good zoos.

The Bill set out the most significant changes to zoo licensing since the 1980s, and the measures would have strengthened the conservation, education and research of all zoos and aquariums. It would have made zoo licensing easier to enforce, and therefore guaranteed the high standards in animal welfare that good zoos and aquariums are proud to uphold, and it would have replicated them across the sector. Zoos and aquariums tell me they are unclear what happens next, so will the Minister please contact the society, speak to the zoos themselves and make sure this much-needed legislation goes through, in whatever form? We would appreciate that commitment today.

Animal (Penalty Notices) Bill

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Good afternoon, Mr Twigg. May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? It is a particular pleasure because we worked together on Falkland Islands issues; perhaps a last-minute amendment specifically about penguin protection might be appropriate. I thank you and all fellow members of the Committee for joining me to discuss and assist in the passage of what I believe is a landmark Bill.

As a lifelong advocate for the care and protection of animals, it is enormously satisfying to introduce a Bill that is so close to my heart in advancing the cause of animal welfare throughout this country. My Bill will reform fundamentally the way that we enforce animal health, biosecurity and welfare across all farmed and kept animals in England. It will safeguard and strengthen the health and welfare of animals in our care by building on the skeleton of our existing domestic framework for enforcement, which cruelly has few options beyond prosecution. Penalty notices will add a tool to our enforcement toolkit, giving our enforcement system the use of a wider range of deterrents.

Penalty notices will help to generate the right incentives for people to keep and handle animals, and will contribute to delivering high domestic animal health and welfare. They will enhance the credibility of our enforcement system in general. When, as I hope, the Bill is passed, it will apply to a range of listed Acts in clause 1, and will protect the health and welfare of companion, farm and zoo animals. However, for offences under the Acts to be used, they will need to be switched on through secondary legislation. That will be done only after proper consultation with non-governmental organisations, charities, enforcers, industry experts and others, to ensure that penalty notices are a good fit for the offence. Furthermore, the proposed reforms will continue to allow for education to be used as the right solution where appropriate, and for people to be redirected at an early stage away from inadequate practices.

I share the sentiment of many that redirection rather than punishment is often the most appropriate course of action, but there is a need for a proportionate approach when an offence is committed. I hope that there will be a strong cross-party consensus in support of the Bill, and I thank Members across the House for being open in sharing their thoughts and concerns with me to ensure that we get the new legislation absolutely right. I extend particular thanks to the hon. Member for Cambridge, who took the time to talk to me and the Minister about his views and concerns regarding the Bill. It was a productive conversation, and I hope we were able to reassure him and clarify points of uncertainty. No doubt we will hear from him later in the debate.

I believe wholeheartedly, as do many colleagues across the House, that it is right for animal keepers to face the consequences if they fall short of the actions required. Those who keep animals have a responsibility and an accountability for animal health, animal welfare and biosecurity across the country. Penalty notices will help to improve that accountability by steering individuals towards the right practices. Although penalty notices will have an impact, I want to be absolutely clear that they will not be an alternative to taking serious cases to court. They are an addition to existing laws, and do not take away from taking really tough action when serious offences occur.

The clauses build on each other to bring in a fair, proportionate and usable enforcement tool. They set out the scope of legislation covered, and allow for the detail of the offences to be determined in secondary legislation. This gives ample time for key stakeholder engagement, while the matters to be considered published on the face of the Bill give clear limitation on where, when and how penalty notices may be used in practice.

Once again I thank Committee members for their attendance today. I hope we can agree that the Bill is a significant one that should pass and go back to the House for its remaining stages. It will help to deliver our Government’s commitment to improving standards across animal health and welfare. The introduction of a new enforcement tool is a well-timed step forward in the cause of animal welfare, and I commend my Bill to the Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I begin by thanking my friend, the hon. Member for Romford, for all his work on this Bill and on animal protection, which is deeply appreciated. It shows that Back Benchers really can make change in this place if they put the hard work in.

There is no excuse for animal cruelty in this country. The Bill allows for financial penalties of up to £5,000 to be given, as the hon. Member said, for existing animal offences and offences relating to animal products. Financial penalties may not always be the best response to an offence, but they are a useful enforcement tool that can be flexibly and consistently used, sometimes in addition to or instead of existing penalties.

Penalty notices may be applicable in a variety of situations where animals could be harmed—for example, if animals that are transported are not fit for the journey, or are transported in a way that could cause undue suffering. Another example would be where pet breeders fail to maintain appropriate records or ensure that puppies are microchipped before being rehomed. Such issues need addressing for the safety of animals, but it would be disproportionate to require the offender to go to court. A warning is often not enough, so financial penalties may therefore be required, which is why the Bill is so useful.

The penalties would differ for each type of offence, but the aim of the legislation is to deter animal owners or keepers from acting in a way that could potentially risk the welfare of animals. It is important that we have proportional yet effective punishments for abusing animals or putting their safety at risk. I welcome the fact that the Bill allows local authorities to use their measures, which are easier, quicker and use fewer resources than many other punitive provisions, especially at a time when courts face such backlogs.

As the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Chris Sherwood, said:

“Fixed penalty notices are really useful to quickly combat suffering of farmed animals, horses and animals kept in zoos.”

The Bill is largely welcomed by the animal charities and organisations including the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and BIAZA—the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. I hope that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will work closely with them in developing the guidance to support the Bill.

Good and responsible zoos, farmers and pet owners or breeders should have nothing to worry about with the introduction of the Bill. The measures in it, however, can be used to ensure that standards are upheld and animals are looked after in the best and safest of ways. If that is not the case, enforcement agencies can decide on an appropriate response.

The hon. Member for Romford clarified some points, but I would also like reassurances from the Government. Under subsection (3), will the Government provide more detail on which Acts they expect to introduce regulations under? Furthermore, will the Government offer assurances on the process by which the decisions will be made? For example, will the Government consult the Zoo Experts Committee before introducing any further regulation under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

Overall, I am so proud to support the Bill as it passes through Parliament, to help ensure that no animal faces needless pain or risk to its safety. The UK can and should be a world leader in animal welfare standards. I hope that the Bill will continue to drive up adherence to those standards across the country.

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

It is a pleasure to speak in Committee today. I start by deeply congratulating the hon. Member for Romford. The Bill is excellent and will protect the most vulnerable animals. It will also steer owners in the right direction on education and their willingness to pursue it.

The Bill does not apply to Scotland directly, but I can inform the Committee and the hon. Member promoting the Bill that it has already been covered in the news in Scotland. In our local news, it was the most popular article for many months. We were astounded by the response. That shows that, wherever we are in the United Kingdom, we want to see animal welfare standards at the highest level. We support progress right across the United Kingdom on such matters.

[Sarah Champion]

In that case, will the hon. Member confirm that she will propose similar legislation for the Scottish Government to adopt in the future, as it is so popular up there?

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not in the Scottish Parliament, so that might be difficult, but given the groundswell of opinion and support for the Bill, we should certainly be looking at exemplars of best practice right across the United Kingdom and taking those forward wherever they happen. I will certainly be advocating the same, which is why I am here today, to support the Bill whole- heartedly.

We are here in Committee with a broad consensus, although obviously we have to look at some of the details about which there might be disagreement among those present, to take things forward. However, I want the hon. Member for Romford and the Committee to know that the public seem to be firmly behind the Bill. For animal welfare everywhere, the hon. Member promoting the Bill is certainly being innovative, and this ground- breaking work is showing true leadership in animal welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to the points raised. Members asked whether we are introducing penalty notices to avoid taking abusers to court and sending people to prison. We are not. Penalty notices are designed to complement existing measures. Penalty notices are like yellow cards: “The ref has had a word with you; you should be behaving better on the field…You are not—here is your yellow card…You have still not, and you have committed an offence. That is too bad—there is your red card. You are in court and you are facing the possibility of paying more than £5,000 and a sentence.” Extra tools allow that redirection; they provide more routes for our charities, zoo groups and farming communities to ensure the proper care of animals.

[Sarah Champion]

Does the issuing of penalty notices also have a cumulative effect when it comes to court hearings? If someone has received a number of them or has not paid a penalty notice, might a more severe sentence be issued?

[Jo Churchill]

Should somebody receive more than one penalty notice, that is part of the suite of evidence that shows that they have not been behaving. We cannot just carry on giving fixed penalty notices. We cannot argue for these measures as having the power of redirection to improve behaviour, and then not expect to see behaviour improving. A penalty notice might be the right thing to do for low-level offences—the hon. Lady gave examples of what those might be—but not for committing the same offence repeatedly. People cannot just be given fixed penalty notices repeatedly. We are looking for another tool in the toolbox to redirect and improve behaviour, to ultimately help care for the health and welfare of animals.

I have answered the hon. Member for Rotherham. The Acts are listed. We will speak to the zoos as we will speak to all Members.

I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for her comments. I hope we will see Scotland follow us in this measure, to ensure that animals right across the UK are looked after, because I know that, across all four nations, we are a true nation of animal lovers.

This is about ensuring the burden of proof. Penalty notices are another tool in the toolbox. I hope we do not focus on the fact that a fixed penalty notice cannot be issued without the proper investigation, because it has to be as robust as it would be if we were pursuing alternative measures. As we work through the finer points with the organisations—I know the hon. Member for Cambridge is in regular contact with them— I hope that we will get to the point where we have reassured him, but, more importantly, reassured those who look after animals that where there are cases, there is extra care for those animals. That is the whole point of introducing the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford said.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Sarah Champion Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I broadly support the overall aims of the Bill—I am keen to see increased animal welfare across the country and am glad that the Government share that ambition—but of course the devil is in the detail. My speech will focus on just a few areas.

First, the Bill’s attempts to tackle puppy smuggling are particularly welcome, but we need to ensure that they are as efficient as possible. I encourage Ministers to work with organisations such as Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home to make sure that their proposals are robust. I have seen the heart-breaking torture of puppy smuggling and its lifelong implications, particularly on animal health and psychology. Often, puppies are smuggled in car boots or under seats; sadly, some do not even survive the journey. That is totally unacceptable.

Right now, the profit motive is high and the risk of being caught is low for smugglers. The Bill proposes a maximum of five pets per vehicle entering the country, but Dogs Trust believes that that must be reduced to three per vehicle if it is to have any real impact on puppy smuggling. In addition, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, we must increase to six months the age at which puppies can be imported, and ban the transportation of all pregnant dogs for commercial purposes. These are simple measures that would improve the safety of many more dogs.

I would like to see increased protection for exotic animals kept as pets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, the RSPCA is concerned that the licensing system proposed in the Bill

“runs the risk of allowing some private keeping of primates to continue indefinitely”.

An outright ban on all exotic animals—not just primates, but bears, lions and tigers, for example—being kept as pets would be more effective and more manageable for local councils.

Clause 47 will make several changes to the standards of modern zoo practice. I am concerned that moving zoo standards from primary to secondary legislation will create the risk of the Secretary of State amending rules without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. It also concerns me that the legislation does not make a clear enough distinction between private collectors and zoos focused on conservation. We need assurances that there will be full transparency from the Government, both now and with respect to any further changes in the law.

There are still many questions that need answering. What role will the Zoos Expert Committee play in advising on proposed changes to zoo licensing requirements? Will the Government allow the committee to publish its independent advice and Ministers to respond to it? That would be beneficial for zoos and for transparency in the policy area.

Not only are zoos exceptional at caring for animals and providing a fantastic day out, but they do phenomenal conservation work. It is right to recognise that work in the new standards, but the definition of “conservation” must be subject to full consultation from the sector and needs to include all the work that zoos do, including education.

Earlier this year, I visited Chester zoo to see for myself its outstanding work. It has been working with schools to build its curriculum around conservation, engaging thousands of pupils with the topic, and over the next decade it will help to train 5,000 conservationists as part of its conservation training academy. Yorkshire wildlife park is close to my constituency and is well-loved by my constituents. I have seen the incredible work that it does, while expanding its premises and providing an ideal location for school trips.

We must make sure that the definition of conservation is not too narrow, and reflects all the excellent work that zoos carry out. Education is a vital part of conservation, and we need to ensure that it is recognised and supported. The Government must work proactively and effectively with zoos to ensure that no park will be punished or forced to change the important work that it does just to enable it to fit the new standards.

I should be grateful for reassurances from the Minister about the concerns that I have expressed—particularly those relating to accountability and the definition of conservation, which seem to be the two issues that worry zoos most.

Another aspect of animal welfare that the Bill does not cover is testing on animals, and I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to address that as well. A recent poll by YouGov found that almost two thirds of people want to see a plan to phase out animal experiments, and the setting of a target date for ending tests in the UK. When there are alternatives to testing on animals, it should not be allowed. Why are we still tolerating the use of this cruel and unnecessary practice by such huge companies? I also fail to understand why animal testing often occurs twice, with the same ingredient used in different products. Surely causing twice as many animals to suffer is unnecessary. I fear that the Government are backtracking on legislation to reduce animal testing, and I hope the Minister will reassure me about that.

I hope very much that the Government will listen to my demands and will work on the Bill with experts, because we all want it to be as effective as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point that needs to be emphasised more and more strongly by the day. Zoos do incredible conservation work, and they are there to ensure the survival of so many species. They are not just places that tourists go to see animals. We have an amazing network of zoos in this country that provide conservation and education, working with third world countries to protect animals in the wild and to re-inhabit animals. It is so important to emphasise that. I know that Belfast zoo does amazing work in that area, and that zoos contribute enormously to the work of animal welfare and conservation. That is why it is so important that they are included fully in this legislation.

[Sarah Champion]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his award and thank him for the incredible, consistent work that he does in this area. Does he agree that in most cases conservation means working with local people to invest in the animals and the landscape, not least because many in places—I am thinking of Kerala—it really helps tourism? It is a win-win all the way round.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Lady is completely correct. Without working with the local people—the indigenous people of those countries—these efforts are not going to work. We need to ensure that the people in those countries are playing their part, by including them in these projects, as our zoos are doing. That is vital for the sustainability of the projects. I thank her for her remarks.

To recap, can the Minister please give reassurances that conservation will be understood in the broadest sense at zoos and aquariums? Will the Government also seek to make the Zoos Expert Committee more accountable, because that is vital? Finally—I say this in all sincerity—I extend an invitation not only to the Minister but to all Members of the House to visit their local zoo or aquarium. We have the most incredible zoos across the United Kingdom, and it is only by seeing for themselves that Members will see the brilliant work that they do to protect the animal kingdom with whom we share this planet. Our dear friend David Amess said this in June about the forthcoming animal welfare Bills:

“I hope the House will come together, support them and get them quickly on to the statute book.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 243WH.]

I can think of no better tribute to him and to the animals across the United Kingdom that he so adored.

Draft Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your wise chairmanship, Mr Evans.

I listened to the Minister’s speech intently, and I have three specific questions to ask for the record. She talked about the scrutiny committees. Will she clarify whether they will be independent, and what weight they will have when their recommendations come to the Government? Secondly, will the UK have continued access to the EU invasive alien species information system? Thirdly, will the Government continue their commitment to ensure that UK invasive species legislation and public policy aligns with the Bern convention, the convention on biological diversity and the UN sustainable development goals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to respond to the questions that have been raised. In answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham, the independent bodies are already in place, and they will continue to be in place. On access to notification and intelligence sharing, the system enables critical information to be shared quickly between member states and the Commission. We have developed contingency plans to mitigate the impact of losing access to the system; I will not say at this point that an agreement has been made that we can continue to access it, but I assure her that there is an obligation for Ministers to co-operate with one another. I expect that obligation to be upheld, especially with reference to treaties of which we are full members, such as the Bern convention and the convention on biological diversity.

I remind the Committee that it is not just from the European Union that diseases can enter. As someone who represents a port constituency, I know the level of detail that authorities go into when checking that things like pallets do not have the bugs and beetles that can sometimes invade unduly. A lot of work also goes on, under a risk-based approach, to inspect the importation of trees and so on, for similar reasons. There is no reason for any of that to change, and the advice from the independent bodies will still be there.

The sustainable development goals are not strictly treaties, although they have been agreed worldwide. They tend to be quite broad, but of course the United Kingdom Government have signed up to them, and we will continue to work on the outcomes that we have signed up to.

To reply briefly to the right hon. Member for Exeter, the point of the draft regulations is set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act; they are not about the status of EU nationals or other issues to which he referred. He asked whether the regulations are fit for purpose—yes, they are. I have confidence in the legal advice that was given to my noble Friend Lord Gardiner, who is the Minister responsible for this portfolio and who has signed a transparency statement to the effect that the regulations are to make the system operable and no more than that—they do not seek to get into other issues.

The hon. Member for Stroud raised several points about what more we could do on biosecurity policy. The point is that we are active in this space. I think it was last year that the Secretary of State wrote to the Commission to ask it to take greater action against the spread of Xylella fastidiosa. While ash dieback affects one species, at least 50 species would be affected by Xylella fastidiosa, so we were very keen for the Commission to step up its actions. There are a number of ways in which we are already active; that relationship will continue, although I accept that we will not be part of the European Union.

I have not read the article by my former right hon. Friend Ben Gummer, so I am not sure what he was referring to. I appreciate that he may have some doubt about the primary legislation that may be needed, but I have every confidence that the statutory instruments drafted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the devolved Administrations will mean that we will be ready for exit day as decreed.

I cannot remember how many SIs we have got through so far; this is my third affirmative SI, but a number of negative SIs have already been through the sifting Committee. There is another way in which the drafting of such statutory instruments is checked: the peers and hon. Members on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the lawyers who advise it, scrutinise them to ensure that the drafting procedure is suitable. That Committee noted that the draft regulations have not been referred to the House; it is happy with them as drafted, in legal terms.

[Sarah Champion]

I hear what the Minister says. We do not doubt the skill of those who advise the Department, but a Treasury Minister confirmed to me before Christmas that 800 pieces of secondary legislation would need to be passed by 29 March in the event of no deal. The draft regulations are not particularly contentious, but we have been here for 35 minutes. Does the Minister genuinely believe that we can get through the outstanding pieces of legislation in two months? There are probably 700.

[Dr Coffey]

Within DEFRA, we have taken an approach of bringing several SIs into one, for instance when amending references to EU law and EU obligations so that they refer to retained EU law and retained EU obligations. For example, a statutory instrument that we debated yesterday will change several primary Acts—four, I think—and make three cross-cutting environmental amendments. We are grouping operability changes that commonly require several SIs within one SI. Those instruments often relate to one directive. The draft instrument covers one directive in its own right, which is why we are only discussing invasive species.

I appreciate the hon. Member for Stroud’s concerns about the draft instrument. As I say, it has been through the JCSI. It was laid in the first week of December, and prior to that, DEFRA opened it up to a group of stakeholders to look at, so that they could talk it through with our officials and raise any questions. So far, that has only happened to one other SI, to which he referred: the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Unfortunately, before that draft instrument made its way through the JCSI process, and in response to feedback from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Secretary of State took the decision to change it. I thought my noble Friend Lord Gardiner answered questions on that rather well. The draft instrument was again laid before Parliament last night and will come back before the House in due course. I do not have a date for its return. That shows how, via stakeholders coming to the Government with suggested changes, we have been able to effectively consider the draft instrument before reaching the Committee.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points, I fully understand the biosecurity threats.

Badger Cull

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I spent the weekend talking to farmers to find out their position on the issue and I was shocked by the stress, the trauma and the cost that this illness is causing. I am hugely supportive of farmers and I want us to do everything we can to fight and destroy the disease.

I want to say a few words about the implications of testing for farmers. They have to pay for a vet to come, normally on a yearly basis. They have to bring all their stock in to be tested. If there is a reactor, within a couple of days when the vet comes back that animal will be slaughtered. That locks down all movement on that farm for 60 days. Yes, farmers get compensation for slaughtered animals, but not for the lock-down. If they were taking animals to be covered or if they were taking animals to market, all that would stop. Some 28,000 cattle are slaughtered, costing the taxpayer £100 million in compensation and costs. From last January to this January the number of reactors has gone up by 24.2%. Bovine TB is a dreadful disease and we need to stamp it out. However, I am against the cull.

I am against the cull for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) so I will not rehash the same argument. I want to make three quick points. First, badgers are a protected species under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. That is an important and powerful fact to remember. Secondly, for the cull to be effective, 70% of all badgers need to be culled. We do not know how many badgers there are. DEFRA estimated the population in the pilot area to be 1,300 in every 300 km area, but the randomised badger culling trials estimated the figure to be 3,000, so will the licence to kill be to shoot 910 or 2,100 badgers? The difference will be dramatic. I do not understand how a 70% target can be set without knowing what the total figure is.

Thirdly, and most important to me, are the logistics of a cull. If there is a badger sett in my back garden, does that mean that people can come and shoot the badgers in it? I do not understand the logic of that. If a farmer does not want a cull on his land, does he have the right to stop the cull, or will the animals be culled if he is in a TB hot spot? As was mentioned earlier, the public will be incredibly anxious if they see people at night in balaclavas going round with shotguns. The thought of that freaks me out.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is summarising what is driving the enormous frustration in the countryside with some of the ignorant comments that she is making. No one is allowed to shoot a badger with a shotgun. It must be done by a trained person with a rifle. Badger setts very rarely appear in people’s gardens. Badgers like to live away from people. Some of these comments are so ignorant that they cause enormous frustration.

[Sarah Champion]

I find the hon. Gentleman’s use of language offensive and patronising. I do not like to be called ignorant. He has no basis for saying that.

Another thing that concerns me is that there is a budget of £500,000 for policing. Police often spend £500,000 to secure the safety of just one march, so that seems a tiny amount for the three culling areas. I believe the figure will be much higher. The Secretary of State mentioned that culls had been effective in other countries, but it is a lot easier to shoot a water buffalo with whatever gun it is than to shoot a badger. Badgers are by nature private, they are nocturnal and it is hard even to see them, let alone shoot them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked whether a clean shot could be guaranteed. I do not believe that it is possible in all cases. There is a risk, as was mentioned, of badgers going back into their sett and dying.

All these issues could be resolved, but even if they were and a cull went ahead, the estimate is that the reduction would be only 16% after nine years. That is a tiny amount, if all the objections could be overcome. Surely a better long-term solution is to put all our money and resources into a bovine vaccine. The Government cut the funding for research into and development of such a vaccine and the funding needs to be restored. The British Veterinary Association says that £1 billion will be wasted on TB over the next decade. Surely if a small percentage of that could be invested in research and getting the vaccine closer—[Interruption.] If so, that is brilliant, but let us chuck more money at research because in the long term it will save us.

The main argument against the vaccine is that the EU forbids it because it is not yet possible to distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals and the EU would ban all live exports. All the farmers I spoke to said that they were against live exports, so I do not think there is much strength in the argument. In the short term, I believe we should use a combination of vaccinating badgers, good husbandry and the existing controls, but we need to drive forward a bovine vaccine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

This has been a good debate, and I commend all Members who have spoken today for their contributions, not least those who focused on the science, the evidence and the facts. On an issue as important as this, we must have evidence-based policy. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) just made some remarks about our discussion of issues of animal husbandry, cattle movements and so forth. I say to him that he should look at DEFRA’s own pronouncements on that, which make the same points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the issue of chapter 4.5 of the original Independent Scientific Group report and the modelling of spatial patterns of transmission. He said this work is still to be done several years on. We need to get on with doing that. The Secretary of State describes himself on his own website as an expert on bovine TB. We should therefore agree to follow the science, and we need to do that modelling.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about the opposition from farmers, the public and others in the west country and the pioneering work of her wildlife trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) talked about the approach in Wales and the ISG remark in respect of the original trials that the cull cannot meaningfully contribute to the eradication of TB. She rightly praised the Labour Welsh Government’s approach in TB-intensive vaccination areas, with 472 landowners taking part.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) talked eloquently about the impact of testing and cattle slaughter on her farmers, and the meetings she has had with farmers, but she strongly advocated a different way forward than a cull. She also talked of the practical difficulties of shooting badgers at night.

[Sarah Champion]

The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) twice called me ignorant for using the term “shotguns” in respect of shooting badgers. I draw his attention to the DEFRA document of May this year, “Controlled shooting of badgers in the field under licence to prevent the spread of bovine TB in cattle”. It says on page 2 that the firearms that are authorised are rifles and shotguns.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That is a point of clarification, not an intervention. The hon. Lady has made those remarks in the wrong place.