Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con) I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government policy on animal
welfare. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship,
Mr Robertson. It is often said that we are a nation of animal
lovers and in many respects we are a world leader in animal
welfare. That is something we can be proud of. In the months
since the general election we have seen a blizzard of activity from
the...Request free trial
(Richmond Park) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government policy on animal
welfare.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
It is often said that we are a nation of animal lovers and in
many respects we are a world leader in animal welfare. That is
something we can be proud of.
In the months since the general election we have seen a blizzard
of activity from the Government that will build on that proud
record. They have committed to putting CCTV into all abattoirs to
prevent abuse; they have committed to increasing the maximum
sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; they
have committed to closing down the ivory trade in the UK, to
remove loopholes allowing new ivory to be sold as if it is old
ivory; they are banning neonicotinoids, pesticides that are
wiping out bees and many other pollinators; they are bringing in
measures to tackle plastic waste that is clogging up our oceans,
as we have all seen on the extraordinary “Blue Planet” series;
and they are banning microbeads, those tiny particles of plastic
that are causing mayhem to marine life.
On a bigger scale, we have seen over the past few years the
creation of a network of giant marine protected areas. Our 14
overseas territories represent the fifth-largest marine estate in
the world and include some of the most important biodiversity
hotspots in the world. This Government have committed nearly 4
million square kilometres to protection by 2020—an area way
bigger than India. That represents the single biggest
conservation measure by any Government ever.
Despite that, there remains much to be done if we want to bring
our animal welfare and environmental policy laws up to date, as
we should. In this debate, I want to centre on animal welfare. It
is timely that the Government have announced today that they will
bring forward a new animal welfare Bill to deliver some of the
commitments that have already been made.
As hon. Members know, we are putting EU environment and animal
welfare laws into UK law, but there has been some controversy
over one issue in particular: animal sentience.
-
Sir (East Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my sense that there are some who
have been mischievous and misleading on that subject, because
they refuse to believe that the Government take animal
welfare seriously and are legislating more than any previous
Government have done?
-
My right hon. Friend makes the point well and I agree with
him. It was reported two weeks ago, as hon. Members will
remember, that MPs had voted as if they felt that animals do
not have feelings. That story took on a life of its own. It
became a forest fire on social media. In fact, it became the
top political story of the year. I have to say,
notwithstanding what he has just said, it is a wonderful
reflection on the British people that they made it the top
story of the year, but it was, as he has said, fake news.
There has never been any disputing the fact that animals have
feelings or that animal sentience needed to be enshrined in
UK law. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs made clear at that time that he intended to
find the best legislative vehicle for translating sentience
into law, and today, as expected and as promised, he has, in
a new animal welfare Bill. Also as expected and as promised,
the new rules will go further, because our sentience
principle will apply to all policy decisions and relate to
all animals. It will not be narrowly restricted to those
policy areas under EU control, as it is today. That point was
made earlier today by the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals.
-
(Berwickshire, Roxburgh and
Selkirk) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this important
cause. As a farmer’s son, I know all too well the importance
of protecting animal welfare. Does he agree that Brexit gives
us an opportunity to strengthen our animal welfare rules and
laws, so that we are putting animal welfare at the heart of
our programme going forward?
-
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and I will making
that point in more detail shortly.
The new Bill that was announced at midnight last night will
also increase the maximum jail terms for animal abusers from
six months to five years. Both of those commitments are
enormously welcome. It is great news and I can hardly
exaggerate my thanks to the Secretary of State for the
breathtaking leadership he has shown since being appointed to
his role, but I believe it would be a mistake not to use the
opportunity of a new animal welfare Bill to create something
truly comprehensive, so I want to make the case for some key
areas that I believe should be included and I want to start
with farming.
-
(Henley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that preventing people who abuse
animals from owning animals is a very good thing to include
in the Bill?
-
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and I thank him
for making that point.
The Secretary of State has said:
“As we leave the European Union there are opportunities for
us to go further and to improve… animal welfare”.
Of course, he is right. For example—this goes to the point my
hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
(John Lamont) was making—as we leave the EU, we will be able
to end the live export of animals for slaughter and
fattening, which is a grim process for tens of thousands of
animals every year. Last year, 3,000 calves were transported
from Scotland via Ireland to Spain and over 45,000 sheep were
taken from the UK through continental Europe. Under EU single
market rules, the UK has not been able to stop that—we have
tried, but we have not succeeded. I am thrilled that
Ministers have indicated that they are minded to act as soon
as we are allowed. If we do, we will be the first European
country to do so and will be setting what I hope will become
a trend.
Procurement is another area where we can make a relatively
easy and significant impact. The Government spend around £2
billion a year on food for schools, hospitals, prisons and
military barracks. Currently, that food is required to meet
only a very basic standard of animal welfare—basic standards
that still leave chickens in tiny cages, pigs in cramped and
stressful conditions, cows in sheds all year long and so on.
-
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The
five-year sentencing for animal cruelty is excellent. We need
to procure food that is of a very high standard and British.
We also need to ensure that, as we do our Brexit deals in
future, we do not allow in food with much lower welfare
standards, so that our farmers who have high-quality and
high-welfare standards also have a real chance to maintain a
competitive edge.
-
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I am
reassured by a number of statements that have been made by
the Secretary of State in relation to that. Putting sentience
into UK law across the entire range of Government policies
will also help us ensure that we do not lower our standards
in return for trade deals.
-
(Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does
he agree that it is very welcome that the Secretary of State
has made clear that our sentience law will be much stronger
than both French and EU law, which declares animal sentience,
but then allows disgraceful practices such as cock fighting
and bull fighting?
-
That is a very good point. The sentience principle in EU law
has been held up by some as a gold standard, but it is a gold
standard that has allowed foie gras, veal production, fur
farming, in some cases donkey torture, bull fighting and much
more besides. It is not a gold standard. We are setting a
gold standard. We are going to go so much further, which we
should be proud of.
Returning to procurement, we have £2 billion at our disposal,
which we currently spend each year on food of a pretty low
standard. In my view, that is a wasted opportunity. There are
hundreds of schools and hospitals in this country already,
including in my own constituency, that are choosing to use
their buying power to support suppliers who guarantee higher
standards. The Government need to take that best practice and
make it into the norm.
-
Sir
My hon. Friend is making some extremely good points. Does he
agree that one thing that has hitherto prevented our schools
and particularly our armed forces from buying British
products is EU procurement legislation? When we leave the EU,
we will not have to do that, so we will be able to sell our
own British-made products to British institutions.
-
That is exactly right. That has been a barrier all the way
along from the Government’s point of view. However, they can
now begin to take that best practice and make it the norm. I
would like to see them commit to using their vast buying
power to boost the most sustainable and highest animal
welfare standards. When I first raised this point in
Parliament as a new MP seven years or so ago, I was told all
the time by Ministers: “You cannot do it. It will be too
expensive. It is a luxury.” I helped to set up a group called
School Food Matters, originally in Richmond, to try it out in
my own area. We persuaded Richmond Council and then Kingston
Council to rewrite their contracts. Today, every single
primary school in Richmond serves Food for Life gold standard
food—the very best people can get. They prepare all their
food in house and take-up by parents has trebled, and we are
doing nearly as well in Kingston, where it started slightly
later. Here is the thing: the cost per meal went down by
38p—it did not go up; it went down. In my view, that removes
the only argument against pursuing this policy.
There is no reason not to use that simple but powerful lever
to support the highest standards, but the Government can do
more than that: they can raise the standards as well. There
are two important ways in which the Government should do so.
The first, simply, is to update the rules around cages.
Millions of animals are currently trapped in appalling
conditions on our farms. Pregnant sows are stuffed, unable to
move, into farrowing crates, typically from a week before
giving birth until the piglets are weaned. Those have been
banned in Sweden and Norway, and we should do the same.
Chickens are no luckier. We banned battery cages in 2012, but
the so-called enriched cages that replaced them are more or
less the same. They are hideously restrictive, and there is
virtually no additional room at all. The life of a factory
chicken just does not bear thinking about. Luxembourg and
Germany have banned the cages, so why cannot we?
The second way in which we can easily raise standards is by
tackling the overuse and abuse of antibiotics on farms. This
is an animal welfare issue because antibiotics have been used
in farming to keep animals alive in conditions where they
would otherwise die, but it is also a major human health
issue. The abuse of antibiotics has allowed the growth of
resistant bacteria, which can spread to the human population
and reduce medicines’ effectiveness in treating our own
infections. The brilliant chief medical officer has warned:
“If we don’t take action, deaths will go up and up and modern
medicine as we know it will be lost.”
It is worth thinking about that pretty profound statement
from the chief medical officer. She has talked about a
“catastrophic threat”: the risk of millions of people dying
each year from common infections.
The good news is that, after a lot of campaigning, the issue
has risen up the political agenda and the Government have
taken action. Sales of antibiotics to treat animals in the UK
fell by 27% from 2014 to 2016. That is clearly good news, but
the threat remains acute and the Government need to get a
stronger grip. There should be absolutely no mass medication
of animals simply to prevent illness. It should be outlawed.
There should be no use of antibiotics, such as Colistin, that
are classified as critically important to human health. They
should have no place on a farm. If we stop this madness, we
stand a chance of preventing a human health disaster and, as
it happens, we will also force a kinder, more civilised form
of farming.
Finally, on agriculture, an issue that merits, and has indeed
had, many debates all of its own is the badger cull. The
Government have always said that their policy of culling
badgers to stop the spread of bovine TB is based on science,
but that position is becoming harder to justify. The only
full Government study into bovine TB transmission between
cattle and badgers, which ran from 1998 to 2006, concluded
that
“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle
TB control in Britain.”
More recently, the independent expert panel appointed by the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advise
on the current pilot cull stated that it was ineffective and
inhumane. Nobody doubts the importance of dealing with TB or
the devastating impact that it can have on livelihoods—
-
I could not disagree with my hon. Friend more on this
particular point. If there is a pool of the disease bovine TB
within badgers, and someone tests their herds of cattle,
ensures they are clean and then puts them out in fields where
there are badgers carrying bovine TB, the badgers will then
re-infect the cattle. We have to deal with both. I am sorry,
but on this occasion I could not disagree with him more.
-
Well, we normally agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for his
intervention. I do not believe that there is anything like
enough evidence to justify culling tens of thousands of
native wild animals, the vast majority of which are
disease-free. This year is likely to see a trebling in the
number of badgers culled, and yet in Wales, where no general
culls are taking place, TB has halved. In the absence of
robust science, the very least the Government should—
-
(Carmarthen West and South
Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that the decline in bovine TB
in Wales is no more distinct in the areas where vaccination
takes place than it is in areas where vaccination does not
take place? Indeed, the Welsh Government are now considering
whether they need to bring in a limited cull because the
existing methods are not working. I hope he takes that into
account.
-
I am going to move on, but the chief veterinary officer in
Wales takes a different view.
-
She is in favour of culling.
-
She wants selective, as opposed to general, preventive culls,
and that is different to our approach here in England.
-
Ours is selective.
-
Our approach is not selective. There are huge numbers of
animals involved, The approach in England is a preventive
cull, as opposed to a selective cull. My view is that at the
very least the Government should suspend the cull and
commission a proper study into the alternatives, so that we
can be sure that the policy we adopt is based on science, and
not assumption.
I shall hold off on taking interventions for a few moments,
as in the time I have remaining I want to briefly look at how
we treat exotic wild animals. In so many areas we are world
leaders, but in others we lag behind. For example, at least
23 countries worldwide have banned the use of wild animals in
circuses; but despite British Government promises going back
five years, it is still legal to use lions, tigers, zebras
and other wild animals in travelling circuses in the UK. It
is time for Ministers to make good on a promise that has been
made and repeated over the past five years.
The keeping of monkeys as pets is a similar issue. Primates
are highly intelligent wild animals; they are not suitable
pets. Like us, they enjoy complex social lives and form deep
and lasting relationships, but despite that thousands upon
thousands of squirrel monkeys, capuchins and marmosets
languish alone in cages across the country. Because they
become very tricky as they grow old, they are often simply
abandoned and then have to be picked up by wonderful, but
overstretched, organisations such as Monkey World in Dorset.
The emotional and physical damage that they endure takes
years and years to undo. Fifteen European countries have
banned the trade, and more than 100,000 British people signed
a petition demanding that we do the same. Again, we need to
get a grip on this issue.
It is not just individual private ownership that needs
looking at. There are 250 licensed zoos in the UK. Some, such
as Howletts in Kent, really do represent the gold standard.
The welfare of the animals is their principal concern, and
the conservation of the species that they harbour is at the
forefront of their campaign. They release animals back into
the wild in a way that no other zoo in the country does.
However, recent incidents, such as the exposé of the
grotesque conditions at South Lakes Safari Zoo, show that
there is a gulf between best and worst practice, and a need
for better standards and a more rigorous inspection process.
I believe that we need to establish a new, independent zoo
inspectorate and give it the job of drawing up fresh
standards for animal welfare in UK zoos and then enforcing
them.
I want to join in the applause that the Government rightly
earned last month when the Secretary of State announced that
we would ban the trade in ivory here in the UK. Globally, the
trade takes the lives of 20,000 elephants a year—one every 26
minutes—and they are hurtling towards extinction. We in this
country—I do not think that many people are aware of this—are
the largest exporter of legal ivory in the world, stimulating
demand for ivory and giving the traffickers a means to
launder new ivory as if it were old.
The Government’s promise is not merely symbolic—it is much
more than that—but I hope they will go further. Evidence is
mounting of an increase in the trade in hippo ivory. There
are only 100,000 or so hippos in the world, so the slightest
shift in demand could be devastating for that species. I hope
that the Government will expand their consultation, or the
policy when it eventually emerges, to include other
ivory-bearing species such as hippos, the walrus and the
narwhal.
Finally on the international dimension, hon. Members will
remember the outrage that followed the killing of Cecil the
lion in 2015 and, too, the announcement a few weeks ago that
the United States President was thinking of reversing the
decision of his predecessor to ban the import of elephant and
lion parts from trophy hunting. At the time it went largely
unreported that this country also allows the import of wild
animal trophies, including from species threatened with
extinction. We need to change that. It should simply be
illegal to import body parts of any animal listed as
endangered by the convention on international trade in
endangered species
The last point that I want to make moves into a different
field. It relates not to farmed or exotic animals, or to our
role overseas; it relates to puppies.
-
Dr (East Kilbride,
Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. He is a
great advocate for animal welfare. Will he join me in
supporting Lucy’s law, which was launched in Parliament last
week and looks for a ban on third-party puppy sales?
Basically, it would ensure that the scourge of puppy farming
no longer exists in this country. Also, will he support the
early-day motion on Lucy’s law launched today?
-
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention, and I
could not agree with her more strongly. I pay tribute to Marc
Abraham who led the campaign for Lucy’s law. It is probably
inappropriate to mention that I can see him in the Public
Gallery, but he has been an absolute champion for the cause.
I believe that we will see some results in the next few
months and will perhaps hear from the Minister on that
shortly.
I will cut my speech down, because I have taken far too many
interventions and am running out of time. I have provided a
long but not exhaustive list of measures that I think we
should take. It is an important list, however, and taking
those measures is the right thing to do and would put the
Government on the right side of public opinion. If there is
any doubt about that, we need only to look at the public
reaction to the albeit false stories about MPs believing that
animals do not have feelings, or at the reaction from voters
to the 2017 Conservative manifesto proposal on holding a vote
to abolish the Hunting Act 2004—something that I hope the
Government will now rule out.
I want to give the Minister enough time to respond. I know
she will be unable to respond to every point I have made, but
I hope that she will do her best in the 10 minutes we have
left.
11.20 am
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate. He
covered a wide range of issues in the first 20 minutes, and
as a consequence I am afraid I will not be able to take any
interventions.
I reiterate that the Government share my hon. Friend’s and
the public’s high regard for the welfare of animals. We
extend that regard to animals whether they are companion
animals, farm animals or wild animals. I reaffirm the
principles on which the Government’s policies on animal
welfare are based: our recognition that animals are
sentient beings, contrary to the fake news spread recently
by certain media outlets. That is certainly true of this
Government and of predecessor Governments. In fact, back in
1822, this Parliament was the first ever legislature to
implement laws to protect animals, with the Act to Prevent
the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle. The Government
believe that the direct effect of the principle of
sentience is recognised throughout the statute book, but
for the avoidance of doubt, I am sure that hon. Members
will join me in celebrating this morning’s announcement by
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of a new Bill
that will not only increase the maximum penalties for
animal cruelty, from six months’ imprisonment to five years
imprisonment, but enshrine animal sentience in law.
The draft Bill will embed the principle that animals are
sentient beings, capable of feeling pain and pleasure, more
clearly than ever before in domestic law. There was never
any doubt or question that our policies on animal welfare
are driven by the fact that animals are sentient beings.
The Government are committed to raising animal welfare
standards and to ensuring that animals will not lose any
recognitions or protections when we leave the EU. The draft
Bill makes our recognition of animal sentience clear. It
contains an obligation, directed towards Government, to pay
regard to the welfare needs of animals when formulating and
implementing government policy. That provision does not
apply to Ministers in the devolved Governments of Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland, but we will work closely
with the devolved Administrations on that important matter.
That will build on the long list of legislation that
Parliament has passed to protect animals. The first
significant general legislation was the Protection of
Animals Act 1911, which introduced the offence of causing
unnecessary suffering to an animal. That Act stood the test
of time and was used every year by the RSPCA to
successfully prosecute about 1,000 people a year for animal
cruelty. It was eventually replaced by the Animal Welfare
Act 2006, which introduced the added offence of failing to
provide for the welfare needs of an animal. That offence
had been present in on-farm legislation, but its inclusion
in that Act meant that it applied to all kept animals.
I could read out a very long list of Acts of Parliament,
but it would take too long; however, it is an indication of
how much animal welfare means to Parliament and the public,
and I will mention one or two in particular. The Performing
Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 regulates circuses and other
acts involving animals; it is still in force, although the
Government are in the process of replacing it. The
Cockfighting Act 1952, as the name suggests, made it an
offence to organise a cockfight. The Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 stepped up provision for wildlife,
including banning methods of killing certain animals—for
example, wild birds—to avoid bodily injury in a particular
way. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 imposed strict welfare and
conservation standards on our zoos.
We have also introduced regulations through EU law, and we
will bring into UK law any that are not already in place
through powers granted by the European Union (Withdrawal)
Bill. Those include the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England)
Regulations 2007, which implemented EU legislation on
minimum standards of welfare for different species of
farmed animals, and the Welfare of Animals (Transport)
(England) Order 2006, which implemented EU legislation on
the welfare standards for animals in transit. As I
indicated, the Government intend to go further on improving
the welfare of all animals, be they wild, companion or
farmed.
The UK has been at the forefront of driving global efforts
to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable species and we
remain absolutely committed to protecting global wildlife
for generations to come. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Richmond Park pointed out, that is why we are taking action
to preserve elephants and are now consulting on our
proposed ban of the sale of ivory in the UK that
contributes directly or indirectly to the poaching of
elephants. The proposals, on which we are consulting, are
designed to put the UK front and centre of global efforts
to end the insidious trade in elephant ivory.
Historically, the United Kingdom has been ahead of
international trends on trap humaneness, outlawing leg-hold
traps and establishing an approval system for spring traps
in the 1950s. We propose to consult next month on UK-wide
implementation of the agreement on international humane
trapping standards. That agreement between the EU, Canada
and the Russian Federation puts in place humaneness
standards to improve the welfare of wild animals commonly
caught in traps for their pelts. Under the agreement, we
are required to prohibit traps and trapping methods that do
not meet the standards for a list of species, five of which
are currently present in the wild in the UK: stoat, badger,
pine marten, otter and the European beaver. I know that my
hon. Friend takes a great interest in them. When the UK
legislation comes into force, only traps and trapping
methods that meet the standards for species covered by the
agreement will be permitted under licence.
-
(Cheltenham) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
-
Dr Coffey
I am afraid I cannot at the moment, but if I have time at
the end, I will.
We will tighten the rules regarding dog breeding, pet
shops, animal boarding, performing animals and riding
stables. Irresponsible dog breeders and dealers are a stain
on our national conscience and such people who exploit that
trade must be stopped. We will introduce new regulations on
the welfare of dogs in dog breeding establishments. We will
ensure that more breeders need to be licensed. Statutory
minimum welfare standards will be applied to licensed
breeders and will be enforced by local authority
inspectors. Detailed guidance will be provided to
inspectors to assist them with the new regulations.
All pet vendors will also have to provide information to
new owners to educate them about their new pet. It will be
made clear that any business selling pet animals online
will also need to be licensed. We continue to work closely
with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group on minimum
standards for such sellers. We are enormously grateful for
the input from local authorities and other organisations on
drafting the new regulations. I hope that they will be in
place by the end of next year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park highlighted
regarding farm animals, to improve welfare of animals at
slaughter and to deliver our manifesto commitment, we
recently carried out a public consultation on our proposals
to require CCTV in every slaughterhouse in England. The
consultation closed in September. There was strong support:
of the nearly 4,000 responses, more than 99% were in
favour, which is an overwhelming endorsement of the policy.
We published the Government’s response to the consultation
last month and will follow that up by laying secondary
legislation before Parliament early in 2018.
In particular, my hon. Friend raised the issue of the live
export of animals, which is of significant concern to hon.
Members. Compared with 20 years ago, there has been a
dramatic fall in the trade in live animals going directly
for slaughter. Nearly 2 million animals were exported every
year, but in 2016, 50,000 sheep were exported, with 5,000
going directly for slaughter from Great Britain. Sheep are
the main livestock species to be exported for those
purposes, and I know the issue still causes considerable
concern.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the restrictions we have
now within the EU, but we have always been clear that the
Government would prefer to see animals slaughtered as near
as possible to their point of production. We believe that a
trade in meat is preferable to a trade based on the
transport of live animals, particularly when journeys may
result in livestock travelling long distances across
Europe. As we move towards a new relationship with the EU
and the rest of the world, we have a unique opportunity to
shape future animal welfare policy to ensure the highest
standards in every area. Our manifesto commitment made it
clear that we would take early steps to control the export
of live farm animals for slaughter once we leave the EU. We
are currently considering options, but the issue is rather
complex and any future proposals would have to consider
trade between the UK and Ireland, whether that is with
Northern Ireland or across the Republic of Ireland.
On farm codes, as well as laying new statutory welfare
codes for cats, dogs and horses before Parliament shortly,
we are also raising standards on farms by modernising the
farm animal codes, a move that has been welcomed by
industry. A new code for meat chickens will be laid before
Parliament shortly and we will consult on new codes for
laying hens and pigs in the new year. The updated codes of
practice for England will provide clear guidance to
producers on how to comply. We continue to work closely
with DEFRA’s delivery bodies, including the Animal and
Plant Health Agency, on the enforcement of animal welfare
standards.
My hon. Friend raised a wide variety of issues. The
Government and the farm sectors, such as the meat chicken
industry, have taken significant strides on reducing the
amount of antibiotics used, although I recognise that that
may still not be enough for him. He also mentioned trophy
hunting, and I think he would find it worthwhile to read
Professor Macdonald’s report, which DEFRA commissioned,
about the balance of conservation and hunting for
commercial purposes in that way. The restriction that he
referred to, which President Trump was considering
removing, has put a pause to that—it was specifically from
Zimbabwe. I believe that the US does allow other elements
still to be imported, but that is done on a conservation
basis.
The measures that I have set out clearly demonstrate the
Government’s intention to avoid animal suffering and show
we are taking steps to strengthen standards. In future,
when we are outside the EU, we intend to take full account
of the scope for the UK to set the very highest standards
in animal welfare and to encourage action on a global
level.
I have 30 seconds left, so I will take a brief intervention
from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk).
-
In considering the welfare of wild animals, does the Minister
welcome the plans approved by the Government to release
beavers into the Forest of Dean for the first time in 400
years? Does she agree that that should be the beginning of a
longer process of reintroducing, when practical, species that
were previously wiped out by human activity?
-
Dr Coffey
Beavers have not really been present for 400 years on this
island, although my hon. Friend will be aware of the releases
that have happened in Scotland. I am aware of the River Otter
trial, and further trials are to come. It matters that our
approach is based on science and rigour, which is what this
Government will ensure.
Question put and agreed to.
|
