“We are a nation of animal lovers, and animal welfare has been a
priority of the Government since 2010. Since then, on farms, we
have introduced new regulations for minimum standards for meat
chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying
hens, and made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England.
For pets, we have introduced microchipping, which became mandatory
for dogs in 2015; we have modernised our licensing system for
activities such as dog...Request free
trial
“We are a nation of animal lovers, and animal welfare has been a
priority of the Government since 2010. Since then, on farms, we
have introduced new regulations for minimum standards for meat
chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying
hens, and made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in
England. For pets, we have introduced microchipping, which became
mandatory for dogs in 2015; we have modernised our licensing
system for activities such as dog breeding and pet sales; we have
protected service animals via Finn’s law; and we have banned
commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens. In 2019, our
Wild Animals in Circuses Act became law, and we have also led
work to implement humane trapping standards by banning glue
traps. We have done more than any other party on animal welfare,
delivering on a manifesto that was drafted with the public’s
priorities in mind.
Further to the steps I have outlined, in 2021, we published an
ambitious and comprehensive action plan for animal welfare that
set out an array of future reforms for this Parliament and
beyond. That action plan’s wide-ranging measures relate to farmed
animals, wild animals, pets and sporting animals. They include
legislative and non-legislative reforms, and extend beyond
domestic actions to cover international engagement and advocacy.
And we have delivered—since the publication of that action plan,
we have delivered on four key manifesto commitments. First, we
passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognises
in law that all vertebrate animals and invertebrates such as
crabs, lobsters and octopuses are sentient beings. That Act will
form the bedrock of the animal welfare policy of the future. We
passed the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which introduced
tougher sentences for animal cruelty, increasing maximum
sentences from six months up to five years. Last month, we made
cat microchipping compulsory, which will help reunite lost pets
with their owners. Just this week, we announced that, having
brought the Ivory Act 2018 into force in 2022, we will be
extending it to cover five endangered species: hippopotamus,
narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus.
In addition to legislating, we have launched the pioneering
animal health and welfare pathway. It charts the route forward
for improved farm animal welfare for years to come. This
government and industry partnership are already transforming
welfare on the ground. The pathway does that through annual
health and welfare reviews with a vet of choice, supported by
financial grants.
I can tell that Opposition Members are feeling weary listening to
the expansive list of delivery, but I can assure them that I am
not done yet, because today we are taking two further steps in
delivering our action plan. First, we are announcing the launch
of the new Animal Sentience Committee, which will advise
government on how policy decisions should take account of animal
welfare. The committee’s membership provides expertise from
veterinary and social science and covers farm, companion and wild
animals. We expect the committee to begin its work next
month.
Secondly, we are announcing a consultation on new financial
penalties of up to £5,000 for those who commit offences against
animals. That will mean there is a new enforcement tool to use
against the small minority of people who fail to protect the
health and welfare of animals. This could apply, for example, if
an animal is kept in poor living conditions due to a lack of
appropriate bedding or shelter.
On top of those measures, we continue to support the Private
Member’s Bill of my honourable friend the Member for Crawley,
, which will implement our
manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies. Also
making strong progress are Private Members’ Bills that ban the
import and export of detached shark fins and that ban the
advertising and offering for sale here of low-welfare animal
activities abroad. I thank the honourable Member for Neath,
, and my honourable friend
the Member for Guildford, , respectively.
The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill started nearly two years
ago. It was designed to implement several of our ambitions,
including banning the live exports of animals, seeking to prevent
pet theft and new measures to tackle livestock worrying.
Unfortunately, its multi-issue nature means there has been
considerable scope-creep. The Bill risks being extended far
beyond the original commitments in the manifesto and the action
plan. In particular, Labour is clearly determined to play
political games by widening the Bill’s scope.
The Bills and regulations that we have already passed demonstrate
the enormous progress that can be made with single-issue
legislation, so we will be taking forward measures from the kept
animals Bill individually during the remainder of this
Parliament. We remain fully committed to delivering our manifesto
commitments, and this approach is the surest and quickest way of
doing so, rather than letting that Bill be mired in political
game-playing. Having left the EU, we are able to and will ban
live exports for fattening and slaughter. There have been no live
exports from Great Britain since 2020, but our legislation will
ensure that that becomes permanent and we remain committed to
delivering it.
We are committed to clamping down on puppy smuggling. We will ban
the import of young, heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs, and we
will be able to do that more quickly with a single-issue Bill
than with the secondary legislation required under the kept
animals Bill. We are committed to banning the keeping of primates
as pets, and we will do that by consulting before the Summer
Recess on primate-keeping standards. They will be applied by
secondary legislation to be brought forward this year. We also
look forward to progressing delivery of the new offence of pet
abduction and new measures to tackle livestock worrying.
I am conscious that there are many other campaigns on aspects of
animal welfare. I want to assure the House that, in making this
change to how we will implement the measures outlined, we are
open to future consideration, but we will focus on delivering
these key elements. Delivering these measures, as well as
everything we have already delivered as part of and beyond the
animal welfare elements of our manifesto, shows a Government who
care about animals and do not just talk about the issue or play
games with it. We are committed to maintaining our strong track
record on animal welfare and to delivering continued improvements
in this Parliament and beyond. I commend this Statement to the
House.”
7.34pm
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement we are debating today starts with a list
of government achievements on animal welfare. Of course, we
always welcome any positive progress on animal welfare measures,
but the problem is that that is not really the point of this
Statement or why it has been made. What it is actually doing is
scrapping the kept animals Bill—legislation designed to protect
pets, livestock and wild animals. I point out that we have had to
wait until today to debate this, as the announcement was made on
the afternoon of 25 May, the last day before recess.
The Bill was first introduced two years ago and was announced
again in the Queen’s Speech last year. It would have delivered on
a number of Conservative 2019 manifesto animal welfare
commitments, including ending the export of live animals for
fattening and slaughter, tackling puppy smuggling and banning the
keeping of primates as pets. One animal charity has accused
Ministers of “an astonishing betrayal”, yet the Statement has the
gall to say that this Conservative Government
“have done more than any other party on animal welfare,
delivering on”
the manifesto. So, let us remind ourselves about the issue of
delivering, because aside from this Bill, the animals abroad Bill
was also scrapped. Although I am sure the Minister will say that
we have Private Members’ Bills coming to this House, some
containing what was in that ill-fated Bill, can he explain why
the promises to ban fur and foie gras imports have bitten the
dust?
If animal welfare promises are included in a manifesto, they
should be delivered. There should not be a pick-and-mix approach
by the Secretary of State or Prime Minister of the day as to
which proposals are the least likely to upset Tory Back-Benchers.
Saying that taking forward the measures in the kept animals Bill
individually is the surest and quickest way is an extraordinary
statement, when we consider just how long they have been
languishing in the Commons. If the Government had been serious
about passing this legislation quickly, they could have done so
more than a year ago. I have lost count of the number of times
that I have asked the Minister and other Ministers about the
Government’s commitment to the Bill and when we would see it make
progress. I was always strongly reassured, and I genuinely do not
blame the Minister for that, but again it is deeply
disappointing.
So, what reassurance can the Minister provide that every part of
the Bill—I repeat: every part—will make it through this process,
with government support, by the end of this Parliament? Can he
provide a proposed timetable? Can he guarantee that no part of it
will meet the same fate as the promised bans on fur and foie gras
imports? Does he agree with Conservative Members in the other
place? Conservative MP said it was “better than
having nothing”, but added that there had been
“an unforgivable delay on the whole bill, which is completely
unacceptable”.
Conservative MP said she felt
“a sense of frustration and disappointment”.
The Minister will know that I feel strongly that the Government
have once again let down those who believe in progress on animal
welfare. More than this, the reasons given for dropping the
legislation are simply outrageous. To attempt to blame the Labour
Party for a Conservative Government’s decision to drop
legislation that had strong cross-party support, with no evidence
whatever that
“Labour is clearly determined to play political games”,—[Official
Report, Commons, 25/5/23; cols. 495-98.]
is an utterly feeble excuse.
I know that the Minister is personally committed to improving
animal welfare standards, so I end by saying that it is a shame
that he is not in charge, as I believe he would have more
backbone on this issue than some of his colleagues in the other
place. I look to him to ensure that progress is made.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, I welcome the chance to comment on this Statement. The
Government have been active on the animal welfare front and I
commend their Action Plan for Animal Welfare. I have some
questions for the Minister on progress on several fronts on this
plan.
I was delighted when the Ivory Act was passed and disappointed
that it took so long to implement. I am pleased that the measures
in the Act are now extended to cover hippo, narwhal, killer and
sperm whales and the walrus, all endangered species.
The animal health and welfare pathway covers farm animal welfare
through welfare reviews with a vet of choice. We debated earlier
this week the shortage of vets to conduct all the necessary
government work. At that time, the Minister detailed the steps
being taken to address the vet shortage. Is the Minister able to
say whether there are particular geographical hotspots of vet
shortage, or is the shortage spread across the country as a
whole?
The Statement mentions the new Animal Sentience Committee, the
creation of which was not universally welcomed in the other place
or in this House. As the committee begins its work next month, is
the Minister able to say whether it will be looking at
forthcoming legislation across all departments of government, as
originally intended, or will it be confined solely to Defra?
I understand the Government’s reasons for not pursuing the kept
animals Bill, but I am, nevertheless, disappointed and concerned
about certain aspects which the Bill would have covered. The
Government appear to be relying quite heavily on Private Members’
Bills to implement strands of their manifesto. As we know,
Private Members’ Bills often take a while to complete their
passage and are some of the first to fall if there is pressure on
official government business.
While I fully support the ban on trading in detached shark fins
and banning the sale of glue traps, I am less enthusiastic about
the ban on importing hunting trophies. While I think the hunting
of large exotic animals for trophies is a revolting practice,
there is another side to this. The hamlets and villages which
live alongside these wild animals find it hard to make a living
out of farming the land, which is often destroyed by marauding
game. The expansion of their farming practices into the areas
previously inhabited by wild game brings them into conflict with
the animals. Villagers are dependent, in some areas, on the
exploits of big game hunters for their income. Would not a better
system, to prevent the destruction of certain species, be to
introduce a quota system, such as used to exist in the USA?
There, a hunter could have a licence once every five years to
kill a single bear. When his turn came up, he had the year in
which to be successful. If he was not, then his licence lapsed,
and he had to wait another five years. I readily admit that I do
not know if this system still exists in the US, but it did some
years ago. I also accept that my comments will not be welcome to
those taking part in the debate next Friday on this important
issue, and I am not able to be present on Friday but feel both
sides of the argument should be heard.
The Government have done much to prevent the export of live
animals for fattening and slaughter since 2020, but this is a
temporary measure. Can the Minister say when the UK legislation
will become permanent and what, if any, barriers there are to
this happening soon? There have been several statutory
instruments concerning puppy smuggling and banning the
importation of mutilated dogs. The Statement indicates that,
instead of this being covered by the kept animals Bill and
statutory instruments, this will be in a single-issue Bill. Can
the Minister say when this might be brought forward—if not in
this Session, then presumably in the next?
During the Covid lockdown, we saw a rise in pet ownership, which
was coupled with a rise in pet abduction, possibly driven by the
rise in the cost of acquiring a puppy or kitten. The Government
are seeking, as they put it, to progress
“delivery of the new offence of pet abduction and new measures to
tackle livestock worrying”.
I fully support this, but I wonder whether this will be through
government legislation or another Private Member’s Bill—can the
Minister comment?
Lastly, I want to turn to the issue of keeping primates as pets.
This was to have been, for me anyway, a key element of the kept
animals Bill. The Government are due to consult over the Summer
Recess on the issue of standards for keeping these highly
intelligent animals as pets. This gives the impression that it
will be acceptable to keep primates as pets. The Statement also
refers to secondary legislation as the vehicle for introducing
this. If this is the case, which Act will the relevant SI sit
under? I am opposed to the keeping of primates as pets and hope
the Government will ban this instead of regulating it.
I congratulate the Government on the action they have taken, and
intend to take in the future, on animal welfare, and fully
support their actions. However, I feel a sense of disappointment
that the kept animals Bill will not be the vehicle for achieving
further improvement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made by both
Front-Bench spokesmen. We are a nation of animal lovers and that
unites us across this House. Animal welfare has been a priority
for this Government, and I say to the noble Baroness that she
would be hard pushed to find any Government that have done more
for animal welfare than we have. On farms, we have introduced new
regulations for minimum standards for meat chickens. We have
banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens. We
made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in
England. For pets, microchipping became mandatory for dogs in
2015 and, as she is aware, we have just passed this measure for
cats. We modernised our licensing system for activities such as
dog breeding and pet sales. We have protected service animals via
Finn’s law. We banned the commercial third-party sales of puppies
and kittens. In 2019, our Wild Animals in Circuses Act became
law, and we have led the world to implement humane trapping
standards by banning glue traps. Some of these measures were
Private Members’ Bills, but we worked with people in both Houses
to make sure that these happened.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned, the animal
health and welfare pathway is seeing a real step up in the
relationship between vets and farms, and the support we can give
to farmers in this important priority for improving animal
welfare standards. We had the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act and
the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act. Last month, we made
cat-microchipping compulsory and, as the noble Baroness pointed
out, we brought the Ivory Act into force last year, but we have
extended it to cover five other species also.
The noble Baroness is being a bit harsh when she looks at the
issue in the round because we have had a lot of success with
single-issue animal welfare matters, and we are still committed
to the measures in the Bill. With regards to the example raised
by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the ban on keeping
primates as pets, this will be on the statute book before it
would have been if we had taken this through as a multi-issue
Bill, because we are able to do this through a statutory
instrument. I cannot remember the piece of legislation that this
will amend or add to, but it will be on the statute book.
We remain committed to banning the export of animals for
slaughter and fattening. Noble Lords may be interested to know
the number of animals that have been exported since we left the
European Union is zero. It is an activity that, through economic
circumstances and the availability of the necessary
infrastructure, is just not happening, but that never stops the
Government being determined to do this.
We have the trophy hunting Bill coming forward; I suggest that is
when we will tease out some of the legitimate issues raised by
the noble Baroness. On shark fins, we will support the ban. The
low welfare issues abroad are certainly matters we can take
forward.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, around
foie gras, we are keeping to our manifesto commitment. We are
looking at the measures that would be required to legislate. We
have committed to building a clear evidence base to inform
decisions on banning the import and sale of foie gras; we have
been collecting evidence on the sector and will continue options
in due course. We are committed to taking an evidence-based
approach towards exploring potential action on fur. We have
already held a call for evidence and are continuing to explore
possible outcomes.
When the noble Baroness looks at every part of the Bill, she will
see that nearly all of it will have the necessary parliamentary
time. We may be able to find an alternative place to bring in
other areas such as zoo standards, but there is more evidence to
collect on that. I am working very closely with the Zoos Expert
Committee to make sure that we are doing that.
In reply to the noble Baroness’s point about vets— I am sure this
will be raised by others in this House quite shortly—there is a
shortage of vets, certainly in government and the APHA. We are
treating this situation very seriously and seeking to address it,
and we are working with people such as the noble Lord, , to make sure that the new vet
schools which have opened in recent years, which are extremely
welcome, are training more vets who will remain in the United
Kingdom and service us. There is a particular shortage of large
animal vets, and we are working with the royal colleges to make
sure that we are finding new ways to encourage people to go into
that sector and looking at why there is a disinclination for
certain people to go into that area.
I have already covered the point about primates as pets. As for
the six measures in the manifesto, we will ban live exports, as I
have said, and there will be measures on puppy smuggling and
primates as pets. Livestock worrying and pet abduction were not
in the manifesto, but we are doing work on those issues. I hope
also to be able to do something on zoo licensing. In addition to
the manifesto, we have supported the glue traps Act, which passed
through your Lordships’ House. We brought in extra penalty
notices and extra measures for animal cruelty, and increasing the
penalties for hare-coursing has been extremely popular with
people—as well as with hares. The people carrying out that
activity— I speak with some experience on this matter—are not
pleasant when they are confronted.
I hope I am able to convince both Front Benches that the kept
animals Bill was designed to implement several of our ambitions,
including manifesto commitments on banning the live export of
animals, cracking down on puppy smuggling and banning the keeping
of primates as pets. Its multi-issue nature means that there has
been considerable scope-creep. The Bill risks being extended far
beyond the original commitments in the manifesto and the action
plan. The Bills and regulations that we have passed already
demonstrate the enormous progress that can be made with
single-issue legislation. Therefore, we have announced that we
will take forward measures in the kept animals Bill individually
during the remainder of this Parliament. We remain fully
committed to delivering our manifesto commitments, and this
approach is now the surest and quickest way of doing so.
of Ullock (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, if he is concerned about the
widening of scope, perhaps he should suggest that the levelling
up Bill is scrapped.
(Con)
I will definitely feed that very important piece of information
through to my colleagues in other departments.
7.53pm
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party
Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I congratulate the
Government on the animal welfare measures to date that have been
listed in the Oral Statement of 25 May. I regret the withdrawal
of the kept animals Bill but I note that there is a commitment in
the Statement to introduce most of its measures. I will
disappoint the Minister, because I am not going to mention the
shortage of vets—he is very well aware of it, as he has
demonstrated. I will confine my comments and questions to the
measures derived from the kept animals Bill that are present and
committed to, or indeed absent.
First, I note that the Government have committed to banning
primates as pets, conducting a consultation before the summer and
putting forward secondary legislation this year. That is all very
welcome. It is estimated that something like 1,000 to 7,000
primates are kept as pets in the UK. It is very difficult to get
accurate figures. There is no doubt that primates have very
complex welfare needs which generally would not be provided for
in a domestic environment. The kept animals Bill proposed
licensing. I am interested to hear from the Minister,
notwithstanding the outcome of the consultation, whether it is
likely that the Government will introduce a total ban—the word
“banning” is used without conditions in the Statement—or whether
they are still committed to licensing.
I note that there is a commitment to progressing new measures on
livestock worrying. I would be interested to know a little more
about what that might involve. Livestock worrying is a huge and
growing issue. APGAW has been very concerned about it for a
number of years since it published a report on the subject in
2018. A survey this year by the National Sheep Association found
that 70% of its respondents had suffered at least one sheep
worrying incident in the last 12 months. There are multiple
instances of animals on farms either being killed outright or
mortally wounded and requiring euthanasia in the last year or
two. We strongly support more stringent measures against this
increasing crime. I would like to hear a little more about what
is envisaged.
With regard to the export of live animals for fattening and
slaughter, the kept animals Bill included horses and other equine
animals, along with cattle, sheep, pigs and so on. Are horses
going to be included in the new measures? I raise this because
there are welfare benefits of being able to slaughter horses in
abattoirs, but there is only one in England that regularly takes
horses. This shortage of equine abattoirs in the south of England
in particular may mean that export for slaughter is a positive
welfare issue if suitable abattoirs exist close to the ports
across the channel—otherwise horses risk being abandoned and
having a much more chronic welfare problem.
The importation of dogs in particular, as well as cats and
ferrets, is another growing problem. There is a vast amount of
criminally conducted smuggling and a gross abuse of the pet
travel scheme. I note that the Statement suggests a ban on
imports of young dogs—although it does not specify what
age—heavily pregnant dogs or mutilated dogs via a single-issue
Bill. All this will be extremely welcome.
As I have mentioned, puppy smuggling is occurring on an
industrial scale, incentivised by the huge profits that can be
made. There is very little chance of prosecutions occurring, and
the sanctions are currently quite low. To give your Lordships an
example of the profitability, one transporter has been estimated
to traffic 6,200 puppies a year, worth an estimated £11.7
million. To bring even more dogs in, we are seeing smugglers
bringing in pregnant bitches which will quite shortly produce in
the UK more than one pup.
Finally, the illegal trade we are seeing is threatening the
biosecurity of the UK dog population. The most recent and perhaps
most serious threat has been the increasing incidence of Brucella
canis infections in dogs. This is not only a serious infection in
dogs but a public health hazard. In dogs, it is essentially
untreatable, and the only recommended intervention is
euthanasia.
Therefore, stronger enforcement is needed to get to grips with
this issue, and I urge that the new measures contemplated bear
that in mind. Perhaps we could use modern technology—camera
imaging and so on—to detect dogs in vehicles, perhaps also using
AI to read the camera results. We really need to scan every
vehicle coming in if it is too impractical to make visual
checks.
Nothing on zoos is mentioned in the Statement— I would be
interested to hear from the Minister why they are excluded.
Finally, we welcome the offence of pet abduction being used,
which would recognise the emotional cost to owners of pet theft.
I would welcome the Minister’s comments and answers to those
questions.
(Con)
It just so happened that while I was sitting here I received
inspiration, so I am able to answer the noble Baroness’s
question. The statutory instrument on keeping primates as pets
will see an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the
noble Lord, , mentioned. We are consulting,
as is required, on the standards that we would apply, which would
limit the vast majority of the cases that the noble Lord talked
about, where primates are kept in improper surroundings and in
improper conditions in houses. As I say, this will happen quicker
than would have happened if we were taking this through as a
massive piece of legislation, as originally intended.
On livestock worrying, this measure will require primary
legislation, so we will consider options for legislative vehicles
to take this forward. In the meantime, we will continue to work
closely with the Countryside Code, which we amended recently, on
ensuring messaging around keeping dogs on leads around livestock.
That should remain a priority. However, as the noble Lord will
know, 70% of livestock worrying cases occur when a dog is not
being managed or is not with its owner—it has escaped. We should
not just be working on livestock. I do not know how we legislate
on this, but on “Springwatch” last year there was a very good
piece about a very rare redshank’s nest that was predated on by a
dog. The law is not always the best way of encouraging
responsible ownership. However, it should be totally unacceptable
that our rarest wildlife is being predated in this way and that
livestock continues to be attacked by dogs not under control.
On the export issue, I had not considered the point the noble
Lord raised about horses, but he makes a very interesting point
and I will take that back to the department. There is a positive
animal welfare issue there. Only one vessel works out of
Folkestone that is able to transport livestock. I am not sure
whether it transports horses, but I will keep in touch with the
noble Lord and work with him on that.
The mutilation of puppies and puppy smuggling are revolting
crimes. This is a manifesto commitment that we know has a huge
amount of support among parliamentarians on all sides of the
House. A single-issue Bill could give us the opportunity to put
in it additional measures: for example, bans on the import of
young puppies, heavily pregnant dogs and those with mutilations
such as cropped ears and docked tails. Those would have been
implemented through secondary legislation, which would have taken
time. Under this new approach, we can bring these measures
forward at the same time, which could be effective and
quicker.
On dogs, cats and ferrets being imported, the measure we are
bringing will allow a maximum of five per vehicle rather than
five per person, which is one of the abuses we are seeing, and we
are banning the imports of mutilated animals over six months old
and heavily pregnant ones. We think this can be delivered through
secondary legislation.
On biosecurity, the noble Lord is absolutely preaching to the
choir. The horrendous example I can give is the import of animals
from Afghanistan, which we were told had all been checked by a
vet. However, it turned out that there were cases of Brucella
canis and Leishmaniasis among them. That is a horrendous threat
and risk to the domestic dog population, and we have to be
absolutely clear that we are dealing with this and doing so in
the best form possible as regards biosecurity.
On the Zoo Licensing Act reforms, we enjoy a close working
relationship with the zoo sector and will continue to capitalise
on that to identify non-legislative ways of reforming it. By the
end of the year we will publish updated zoo standards, which we
have developed in collaboration with the zoo sector and the UK
Zoos Expert Committee to raise standards and make enforcement
more effective.
On the noble Lord’s last point about pet abduction, I ran a
campaign on that in my constituency when I was in the other
place, when dog theft became a particular crime and, to be
perfectly frank, it was not being taken seriously by the
authorities. It is a vile crime because for many people the loss
of their dog is much more troubling than the loss of many other
possessions they have; it can have an absolutely devastating
effect on the owner, and we want to make sure that criminals face
the toughest sanctions possible.
(DUP)
I thank the Minister for his remarks so far. I join other noble
Lords in expressing a level of disappointment at the Statement
made in another House. I think the Minister himself mentioned the
oft-used phrase that we are a nation of animal lovers. That is
generally the case; it transcends party politics and people of a
wide range of affiliations would certainly support that. However,
it is fine to talk the talk but we need to walk the walk. In
animal welfare, that means ensuring that we have the most robust
and progressive legislation that we can on animal welfare.
Equally important, as the noble Lord, , identified, is implementation
and enforcement. In my experience, without that, the best
legislation in the world, particularly on animal welfare, can at
times be meaningless.
I do not want to try to score political points on this and, to be
fair, on a lot of aspects of animal welfare the Government have
been genuinely progressive. I know that not everyone in this
House would apply that adjective to the Government in all
circumstances, but they can be proud of a lot of their past
record and even of some legislation going through at the
moment.
I will add one caveat to that and seek a response from the
Minister. It is important that current legislation is fully
applicable and robust across all the United Kingdom. I express in
particular a concern about the trophy-hunting legislation, which,
I understand from the other place, does not at this stage appear
to apply to Northern Ireland. The reason given was a concern that
this might breach the provisions with regard to the single
market. With regard to the European situation, a number of
countries such as the Netherlands have already brought in these
bans, so if the Government have not changed their position on
this, it is important that Northern Ireland is included, so I
seek an assurance from the Minister that it is at least being
looked at.
On this legislation, the ideal position would certainly have been
for the Kept Animals Bill to have continued its pathway. It is
the gold standard to which I think many in this House would
aspire. In addition, having praised the Government, I felt that
one thing in the Statement was a little disingenuous. I am not
here as a spokesman for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but to
try to pin the blame on the Labour Party was deeply unfair. What
was passing through was the will of the House of Commons, and
this is not a situation in which we have a minority Government
dependent on a loose coalition of additional support; this
Government have quite a large majority in the Commons. Therefore,
if the Government have, for whatever reason, decided to do a
U-turn or abandon this, or they feel that there are practical
reasons why this cannot move ahead in this format, simply to try
to deflect from that by scoring political points and passing it
on to the Opposition is in this case unfair.
Having said that the gold standard was the reinstatement of the
Bill, I think the next best position, as outlined by the noble
Baroness on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, is a government
commitment that every aspect of the Bill will be put in place. At
the very least, what we need from the Government is a level of
certainty as to what the next steps are. There is a slight danger
that we could be like groupies at a music concert: we very much
appreciate the back catalogue, but we really want to know what
the new material on the next album will be. To that extent, if
the Minister cannot give us an assurance tonight that within the
lifetime of this Parliament every aspect of the kept animals Bill
will be committed to and put into effect—if this is to be taken
forward in individual, smaller steps—at the very least the
Government have to outline which elements of this they are
prioritising; the timetable for each of those elements, and a
firm commitment on that; and whether there are aspects of the
Bill which can be brought forward without the need for
legislation, via another route. I think we need clarity, not just
for this House but for the many animal lovers throughout this
country—and, indeed, for their animals—to see the levels of
protection they are going to be provided with. Let us ensure that
we do not just speak of a nation of animal lovers as a cliché but
deliver on that. So I want to know from the Government what the
next steps are going to be.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his very balanced position on this. To
use his analogy, I think this Government are the Taylor Swift of
this, because our new material is every bit as good as our back
catalogue. As for being progressive, I have always regretted that
that word has been poached by parties of the left, because the
opposite of progressive is regressive and that is far from what
we are. So I am very happy that our approach to animal welfare is
considered progressive. We work with the changing values of the
population, who demand ever higher standards of animal welfare.
Some of these matters are bitterly contested, because there are
views in both directions. Nevertheless, we are not afraid to
debate them, and we will have plenty of opportunities to do so in
the future.
On the noble Lord’s point about Northern Ireland and whether or
not the trophy hunting Bill should be included, it is of course a
devolved issue. Many different animal welfare issues are debated
in our devolved legislatures. The Welsh Government have taken
steps to ban electric collars for training animals—a measure we
are also taking. They have done it in a different way; we think
we are doing it in a more proportionate way.
(DUP)
In relation to it being a devolved matter, there have been a
number of occasions—as we saw recently with organ donation—when
the Government have intervened on issues with regard to Northern
Ireland which would be considered devolved. But the rationale
given in the other place for not including Northern Ireland was
in the European context rather than it being a devolved
issue.
(Con)
The noble Lord’s point is absolutely taken. I completely
understand it.
I finish by saying that these are, of course, matters where you
can see the glass as half-full or half-empty. I think this is a
glass that is nearly full, because we are wanting to take these
matters forward. We mind desperately that we have good animal
welfare policies and laws in place, and we will continue to work
towards that.
|