Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2021.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is to be consumed during sittings except for the water provided. Members are expected to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.

Clause 1 - Prohibition on keeping primates without a licence

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from “primate” to second “under”.

This amendment would prohibit the keeping of primates as pets in England.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and to be back in Committee Room 10 discussing these issues, which some of us have spent many a happy hour doing. I look forward to an excellent debate over the next few days. I think we all enjoyed the excellent witness sessions last week, from which we learned a great deal, and there is much common ground. Both parties promised this Bill in their election manifestos, and I am delighted that the Government have put Members on the Committee who have expertise and interest in it. I strongly encourage them to speak, intervene and vote with their hearts when the moment comes. I am looking at the Government Whip; I know that she will encourage them to do that.

On one level, the Bill is quite dry, and it is a mixture of things, but it sits within the wider framework of the Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which was published some months ago, and was well received by Members on both sides of the House. It covers a lot of ground. When rereading it, I could not help noticing that, as in many documents from Governments of all colours, there is a kind of year zero, as if nothing happened before 2010 and all the good things have happened since. Indeed, in his introductory speech on Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred to 1822 and then jumped to 2010. Of course, Labour is quite proud of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which was significant. Much that we will discuss comes on the back of that groundbreaking legislation, but we will let that pass in a spirit of generosity, as we work together.

There is a slight problem with understanding how all the legislation fits together. That starts with the amendment and clause 1. When the animal welfare action plan refers to the Bill, it talks about

“ending the low-welfare practice of keeping primates as pets”.

I immediately wonder what that means. There is not a ban, as far as I can see. I will return to that point later. The plan starts with sentience, which is quite logical, although of course, as so often in this place, we have not started with that. Debate on that started in the other place, and doubtless we will talk about it in the months, or possibly weeks, ahead.

The plan goes on to cover animals abroad. I will perhaps gently press the Minister occasionally during these discussions on where that measure has got to. There seems to be some speculation that it may have got lost temporarily. We would be interested to hear more, as some of the issues that we would have liked to raise in the Bill may well have been in that measure.

Overall, there is a slight sense of an out-of-control shopping trolley veering along the aisles of animal welfare goodies, seeking to find the odd crowd-pleaser along the way. That is not how we would have done things, but here we are. There is a rather odd mix of things in the Bill, and perhaps to everyone’s slight surprise, we begin the journey of tackling all the issues around animal welfare with primates. Amendment 91 to clause 1 deals with that. It is a simple amendment, because it merely translates what is in the Bill to what was promised in the Conservative manifesto.

I admit to being slightly unkind, but I took another look at the manifesto—during elections, we all rush around and try to find time to read manifestos—and was delighted to find a happy picture of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. I know we are not supposed to wave things around when we are speaking, but I have a copy with me: it is a very nice picture. Next to him is a list of all the animal welfare things that are going to be done, including this statement:

“We will ban keeping primates as pets.”

The manifesto does not say that the Conservatives would ban the keeping of primates as pets unless someone has a licence. That is rather different, but that is what the Bill says. It goes into great detail on how a licensing system will be set up, and we will spend a lot of time discussing that this morning. However, that is not banning the keeping of primates as pets. Despite my attempt to make this amendment, I suspect that we will go on to discuss many of those issues. There are a range of other things in the manifesto, including an ivory ban, which I have referenced, so I commend the Conservative manifesto to Conservative Members, and we will hold them to account on it.

During the evidence sessions, we heard excellent evidence from witnesses on this issue. It is clear that the number of primates in this country that are not in zoos or research institutions is hard to estimate. We really do not know the number, which makes this quite difficult. However, I understood from the evidence that there are very few people who can provide the zoo-equivalent conditions in which, the Government argue, primates can reasonably be kept. The number may be hundreds, although I am sceptical that it is as many as that. We heard from many organisations, both in oral and written evidence. Interestingly, we also heard from Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading who believe, as Labour does, that primates should not be kept as pets, whether licensed or not. That is because primates are intelligent and socially complex creatures. Their physical, behavioural and environmental needs mean that they cannot be kept properly in a household environment. However well-intentioned the keeper, their suffering is all but inevitable. I will press the Minister on what a good environment might look like. We heard what a bad environment looks like—the awful cases of people keeping primates in parrot cages—but what conditions are good enough? I do not think that that is set out in the Bill.

Primates kept in domestic settings are liable to experience a host of welfare issues that can result in profound physical and psychological harm. For good welfare, both physical and psychological health must be ensured. Primates need to be kept in social groups, in complex, specially designed indoor and outdoor facilities, as I have just said. Generally, when kept as pets, primates do not have access to such facilities, and sadly, all too often, owners lack knowledge and understanding of the species they own, with inevitably serious welfare implications. That is why we all want this to stop.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the consultation on the Bill have exposed some awful stories of primates being kept in the kind of cages that I have described. They are also given unsuitable diets and can become sick as a result of not being exposed to proper light and heat levels. The evidence against keeping primates as pets is so strong that it has resulted in broad consensus among all those concerned with animal welfare that it should stop.

The danger of a licensing system, I am afraid, is that it will potentially allow the private owning, breeding and selling of pets to continue in perpetuity. This is not a ban; it is a licence. The RSPCA, Blue Cross and Wildlife and Countryside Link have all expressed their grave disappointment that the Government have opted for a licensing system rather than a ban. The British Veterinary Association has also raised concerns about the system.

We have identified a further inconsistency. Schedule 5, which the Committee will debate on Thursday when we come on to zoos, sets out the underlying principle of the Secretary of State’s zoo standards and licensing system: that as a society we do not approve of the keeping and breeding of animals in captivity unless there is a conservational and educational remit. Zoos are not allowed to keep animals for entertainment or hobby purposes only.

If privately owned primates are to be kept and traded under licence to the zoo welfare standard, frankly we think that the accompanying principles should be the same. It is widely recognised elsewhere in Europe that personal gain or hobby is not a sufficient justification for welfare compromises on the captivity of a wild animal. We believe that there is a need for a licensing system for genuine rescue and sanctuary, but that is different, and it would require clear definition and criteria.

Let us examine a further objection. The Government argue that the Bill will ban keeping primates as pets but will allow individuals who can keep primates to zoo quality standards to maintain ownership. A recent conversation with the RSPCA reconfirmed what is palpably obvious: whether an animal is deemed a pet is based on the purpose of keeping it, not on the standard of care. That position is backed up by the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018.

An animal kept in a domestic environment, however fancy and well equipped, is a pet. I know of several cats in Cambridge that live in the lap of luxury—not mine, sadly—with a quality of life high enough to please even the wealthiest of individuals, but it would be ludicrous to say that they are not pets.

The licensing system proposed in the Bill categorically fails to live up to the promises of the manifesto on which the Government were elected, which is why we have tabled amendment 91. I am afraid that it is for the Minister to explain why she does not think that the manifesto promise should be honoured.

Our amendment would put an end to keeping primates as pets. It would avoid the inevitable failures that I fear will result from the Government’s proposed licensing system—not least because, beyond allowing the practice of keeping pets as primates to continue, licensing will effectively create a sanctioned system for breeding and selling primates, as the RSPCA noted in oral evidence. That will do nothing to reduce the primate population; it could allow it to grow and could allow people to continue to profit from the domestic ownership of primates.

In the evidence session, we also heard the likely consequences of the Government’s expectation that local authorities with no extra resources will have to pick up the pieces of what we think is a flawed system. As we all know, the past 11 years have left local authorities struggling, to put it mildly. Most are struggling, and when it comes to animal welfare duties, I fear that many lack the experience and skills to carry out the task—a point to which we will return. Now it seems that the Government are proposing that primates whose keepers fail to meet the requirements of the licence should become the responsibility of the local council.

In our discussion of the Bill’s various clauses and amendments, there is an issue that I think the Committee should address. It is not clear what will happen to the potentially thousands of pet primates that will be taken from their owners as a result of measures introduced in the Bill. Whether there is a complete ban or a licensing system, that question really has to be addressed.

Beyond the care of primates whose keepers are unable to obtain a licence, there is also the question of enforcement. I fear that the system will put extra strain on councils. They will need to oversee licensing and conduct premise inspections, which are quite likely to have to be carried out by people who are not primate experts. Potentially, the system will also leave primates at the whim of a postcode lottery: their standard of care will vary significantly, depending on which council has responsibility for them.

Then there is the licensing. Despite the claims that the Bill will dramatically improve the welfare of primates, I am afraid that the Government are at risk of presiding over a situation in which animal welfare organisations are expected to give an opinion on licensing standards that they have not seen, and we in turn are expected to vote on licensing standards that we have not seen. This is an important decision, so we will press the amendment to a vote. There is a clear choice: a ban or a licensing system. The amendment will give many Committee members the opportunity to fulfil one of their election manifesto commitments if they come with us and ban the keeping of primates as pets.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As I said at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, this House has been passing animal welfare legislation since 1635. I very much view the Bill as being on that continuum. We try to deal with all creatures great and small, but we cannot do that in every single Bill. I view the Bill as part of the ongoing journey since 1635. I see it not as a wobbly supermarket trolley, but as being on a trajectory towards better animal welfare. I will focus my remarks on the Bill, when I can; we will deal with many amendments that seek to go broader.

“Primates are long-lived, intelligent, socially-complex animals. They engage in imaginative problem-solving, form intricate social relationships, and display complex patterns of behaviour. Being social is a striking feature of primates, and perhaps the most important in terms of meeting their needs. With few exceptions, they live in complex societies that can comprise tens of individual animals.”

That statement is found in our “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates”. It is always worth remembering that we are all, of course, primates in the wider sense. That code sets important parameters within which primates thrive.

The amendment seeks an outright ban with no exemptions. We need to focus on the welfare of the primate. We propose a licensing scheme for primates who are kept outside zoos, but to very high zoo standards. The fear is that if we have an outright ban, as the amendment suggests, we would trigger a rehoming crisis, which might lead to primates being euthanised. It is possible that there are up to 5,000 primates being kept privately in the UK, and if a ban comes in overnight, they would overwhelm rehoming capacity.

We heard powerful evidence last week from Dr Jo Judge of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums and Dr Alison Cronin of Monkey World, who both supported our approach. Dr Judge said:

“there are a number of responsible, registered—with BIAZA—keepers who keep their animals to…the highest level. We are very much in favour of banning

primates

“as pets but allowing a licensing system for responsible keepers.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 24, Q32.]

Dr Cronin said:

“somebody’s back garden might have higher standards than…Monkey World”,––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 29, Q41.]

which is her own organisation.

Some of these private keepers help zoos manage excess primate stock, including primates who, for temperamental reasons, are not suited to a zoo environment. In our public consultation on this issue, only 19 respondents out of 4,500 opposed our licensing scheme.

I reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge that as part of the new standards for keeping primates, the code of practice will be backed up with secondary legislation that will be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House, so we will have many more opportunities to consider the way in which they are kept, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

The Minister gives it a good try, and I do not dispute her good intentions, but I think there is a fundamental problem. A number of responsible keepers could mean anything from zero to 5,000, and we heard in evidence that numbers are relatively low. My worry is that the crisis that she talks about will happen regardless. That is the problem, and the Bill presents no solution to it, so far as I can see.

I think we have a problem coming down the track. I suspect that, as so often happens in this place, we will pass legislation that we do not really have the means to enforce. A few years later, people will look back and wonder why it did not work, and they will have another try. That is the danger. The fundamental difficulty is what we do when we have thousands of primates in this country who, frankly, probably should not be here. It is an historical question, and, as on so many things we seem to be struggling with these days, we might ask how we got here. It was probably because of the ill-advised actions of a number of people in the past that we cannot necessarily undo now, even though we should be pretty clear, looking back, that what they did was not sensible.

What do we do? I think there are two approaches. My worry is that the crisis that the Minister describes will happen with the licensing system in the same way as it would without it, but with the added problem that we will have created a small group of people—I suspect that they will predominantly be pretty wealthy people—whom we indulge by allowing them to continue keeping primates as pets. That was not among the headline promises made by either party in their manifesto, and we will run the risk of keeping the problem going in perpetuity.

Although I do not underestimate the difficulties, and certainly do not underestimate the advice given by some of the witnesses, I think that when they were pressed last week, we could see that they would not be able to cope with such numbers. I will come back to this later, but I rather dread a situation in which the local town hall finds a primate dumped in reception. That would not be good for the primate, and it would be absolutely hopeless for the poor council officer who is left with the problem of what to do. I am afraid the Bill does not solve that problem, so we will push the amendment to a vote because we think there should be a proper ban.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “anywhere in England”.

This amendment results in Part 1 of the Bill applying to Wales. There follow a number of other amendments in the name of the Minister which enable Part 1 to operate in relation to Wales. Functions under Part 1 that in England are conferred on the Secretary of State will, in Wales, be conferred on the Welsh Ministers.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 71 to 78, 5 to 9, 79 to 81, 15 to 17, 19 to 25, 27 and 28, 30 to 35, 59 and 60, and 65 to 67.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

We have worked closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that the protections that this Bill provides to primates in England can be extended to Wales.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am not going to make a longer speech. I am very pleased to see that the Welsh Government have come forward on this Bill. I am sure they would share many of the Opposition’s objections, but we are not going to go through amendment by amendment and query it. Clearly there are a lot of technical changes that have been made, and it would be in the interest of the Committee to get them through.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

This clause, as amended, will prohibit the keeping of primates in England and Wales without a primate licence unless the primates are being kept under another licensing regime, for example, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Anyone keeping a primate without a licence, or without being subject to an exemption, will be committing an offence and will be subject to the maximum penalty of an unlimited fine on conviction. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that primates are not kept in unsuitable welfare conditions that are bad for their health. Primates are wild animals with complex needs. Where keepers have sufficient knowledge, time and resources it is possible to meet a primate’s needs in private ownership, as it is in a zoo or rescue centre. I therefore move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

This is the nub of the question: is it possible for these creatures to be kept in these kind of standards? I am not sure if the issue is whether it should be private or public ownership. We will possibly come back to the definition of zoos, rescue centres and sanctuaries, which prompt some big questions. There is a profound difference of opinion here. When one sees the documentaries one is struck by how complex and sophisticated these creatures are. There has been a long philosophical debate over the centuries considering our relationship with these complicated creatures, and I suspect that this is not the end of the story. I fear that we will look back—I am not sure we all will, but some of us will—in decades to come and think that we could have moved quicker towards a position where we treat these creatures with the respect that they deserve. I fear we have not gone far enough today. I suspect that we are now going to go on to discuss the details of a licensing system, but the Opposition do not think that there should be one.

Schedule 1 - Transitional provision relating to primates

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 115, in schedule 1, page 34, line 15, leave out—

“basic welfare needs of the primate”

and insert —

“welfare needs of the primate as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Code of Practice for the welfare of privately kept non-human primates”.

This amendment would clarify that keepers must meet the Animal Welfare Act requirements and the associated Code.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 114, in clause 15, page 8, line 29, leave out—

“basic welfare needs of the primate”

and insert—

“welfare needs of the primate as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006”.

This amendment would clarify that keepers must meet the Animal Welfare Act requirements and the associated Code.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

We are obviously disappointed that we are on to these amendments, because we hoped the strength of our arguments would see the overwhelming weight of the Government machine defeated. We are where we are, but I say to Conservative Members, the Government are not that scary—though perhaps they are scary actually, as I am terrified.

Labour will continue to work in collaboration with animal welfare groups, zoos and primate experts in pushing for a full ban. That will remain one of our key animal welfare policies, and it may well become an issue at any future election. However, if the Government are determined to steam ahead with—as we call it—this manifesto-breaking primate-licensing system, it is important that we get as good a system as we can, so we will begin to go through the proposals in detail.

I have one observation, which I will probably come back to: given the numbers of people to whom this licensing system might apply, we will spend a lot of time and effort on a very complicated system. Furthermore, I notice that, under a clause later in the Bill, the system could be modified for use for other creatures. Is this something of a Trojan horse? The Minister looks entirely innocent, of course.

We might need to think about the system in those terms, however, because a system that is suitable for primates might not necessarily be suitable for other creatures. Given how this place works, such changes can be made through regulations and, even though we euphemistically say that that is subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, we know full well that for anything in regulations to be overturned is rare—it is hard to do—so we are thinking about the measure in wider terms than just primates. I cast that as a warning.

Our amendments 115 and 114 seek to improve the welfare of primates by altering the language of the Bill to ensure that, during the transition period proposed by the Bill and during suspension periods, keepers are obliged to ensure that primates’ welfare meets the standards required by the Animal Welfare Act, to which I have referred. The Act sets out a broad set of principles that will be useful in the Bill, to apply to any licensing system such as this one. I hope the Government do not have a problem with our proposal. The wording in the Bill seems a touch meagre, because it requires keepers to fulfil only the

“basic welfare needs of the primate”.

The amendments strengthen the schedule

I hope that the Minister will explain the thinking behind the temporary, transitional registration approach. I found the extra level slightly hard to follow. I understand the concerns about a possible sudden rush, and about how we do not wish to create a welfare crisis, but if the system only lasts for a year, the real danger is that we just postpone the point at which that rush and the problem begin to happen.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Amendment 114 states that primates kept under direction must have their welfare needs met as laid out under the Animal Welfare Act, as the hon. Gentleman said. We all agree, of course—but we disagree with the need to restate it. Requirements under the Animal Welfare Act are not negated by the Bill; they simply do not need to be repeated by the Bill.

Amendment 115 requires keepers to adhere to the Animal Welfare Act—of course—and to the code of practice for primates, which I made reference to earlier. Primate keepers are already required to do both those things. The code explains what keepers must do to meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Again, that does not need restating. I would, however, like to take the opportunity to allay some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the transitional period.

The Government acknowledge that there will be existing primate keepers who cannot meet the licensing standards to obtain a private primate keeper licence, and we expect that some existing primates will need to be rehomed. The transitional provisions, outlined in schedule 1, allow existing keepers, local authorities and rehoming centres time to adapt to the new legislation. Existing keepers will have two years to either meet the standards and obtain a primate licence or rehome their primate with a licensed keeper. The one-year period relates to the application for the licence; they then have another year to ensure that they can meet it. During the second year, they must register their primate with the local authority and meet its basic welfare needs.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I hear that, and I am grateful for the clarification that it effectively adds up to two years. However, I still do not understand where the Government think these creatures are going to go.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Part of the issue, as we heard in evidence, is that we are not clear on how many primates are in private ownership. That is why we thought very carefully about the new licensing system. As people will initially have to register their primates, we will then know the extent of the problem. We are working extremely closely with rehoming centres and zoo centres to make sure that within that two-year period there will be places for all the primates that need to be rehomed. The system will give local authorities time to determine the scale of ownership, and rehoming centres willing and able to take on new primates will have time to prepare to do this once we know the scale of the problem in each area.

That is why, instead of an outright ban as suggested in previous amendments, we have selected this licensing system as the most humane way to go, and the way that we hope will lead to healthy primates not needing to be euthanised. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

This has been a useful exchange, although it also shows some flaws in the way we do things in this House, in the sense that we are having to divine the Government’s thinking through pulling apart legislation. It would be helpful to have an overview of what is trying to be achieved. I have genuine sympathy, as this is a very difficult problem. However, I remain unconvinced. In the evidence session, I asked a witness—I believe it was the RSPCA, right at the beginning—that if I were to wander around my constituency, would I randomly come across people who keep primates? To my astonishment, the answer was yes, although I will not be breaking into people’s gardens to look.

However, I am sceptical about the likelihood of the kind of people who behave like that coming forward to register in a timely manner to allow the local authority to respond in a rational way. I fear it is far more likely, as is often the case with new legislation, that a few law-abiding, sensible people will come forward, but the vast majority will not. Therefore, we will end up—at the halfway point or at two years—with the exact same problem we had at the beginning. I do not think we will have come any further forward. I do not have a clear solution to this problem, but I am sceptical as to whether the Government have a solution to it either.

We will not push this amendment to a vote, but I do think we have learned something. I suspect that as we continue this process, there will be more discussion, more thought, and maybe some suggestions as to how we can resolve it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The schedule introduces the transitional registration scheme that we were just talking about, for those who keep primates before the prohibition in clause 1 comes into force. The schedule will cease to have effect one year after the prohibition of keeping a primate under clause 1 comes into force.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I do not have much to add, other than that I am not sure the general discussion has fully appreciated the role that this schedule plays in the transitional process. As I have already suggested, I have some worries as to how successful it is likely to be. I suspect the numbers will be low. I hope I am wrong. I am not sure how the Government plan to promote this, or how people who should register will know about it or how they will be prompted. A range of questions comes to mind. I can see what the Government are trying to do with this measure, but I am sceptical about its chances of success. Let us hope it helps us find a way out of this tricky situation.

Schedule 2 - Offences relating to primates: fixed penalty notices

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The schedule allows a local authority to issue fixed penalty notices where it is satisfied that the person has committed an offence relating to the keeping, breeding or transferring of primates. Fixed penalty notices will allow local authorities greater flexibility in their enforcement of the offences outlined in part 1, and will alleviate some of the burden on them associated with pursuing prosecutions through the courts, which can take time and money. It also allows a more proportionate response to lower-level offending and will enable us to act quickly to ensure that primates are kept in appropriate conditions.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Again, there is not a great deal to be said, other than, as with my earlier observation, that we are setting up a complicated system—understandably, if one assumes that the licensing system is likely to work. I wonder how many cases we will actually see processed through this system.

There is one point I do worry about: as I read it, if someone pays the fixed penalty notice within the relevant period of 14 days, it is a bit like a parking ticket, in that there is a 50% reduction, and there will be a fine of only £2,500. Given the costs and the scale at which some who keep primates might be operating, I wonder whether that is a sufficient deterrent. To some extent that touches on another piece of legislation in the Government’s animal welfare action plan, which is the private Member’s Bill on fixed penalty notices, which I believe will soon be going to Committee. In the Second Reading debate on that Bill, I raised the concern that although I understand the benefit to enforcement agencies of having an extra, more flexible tool in the box, there is a potential risk that one could end up diminishing the severity of the penalty for the more serious offences. I feel that that is beginning to creep in here. I do not want a situation in which people for whom £2,500 is not a great deal of money just feel that this fine is like a parking ticket—they do not really bother about it and can carry on doing what they are doing. That is cause for concern, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I will be brief. The fixed penalty notice as a tool in the toolbox is a very good description. I remind the Committee that, of course, if the ultimate offence, which we have just created and which is to keep a primate without a licence, is committed, the fine is unlimited.

Clause 2 - Primate licences

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, after “species” insert “at such premises”.

This amendment spells out that a primate licence must specify the premises to which it relates.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 10 to 14 and 18.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the functions of local authorities under the new licensing regime. Amendment 4 will ensure that the premises where the primate is kept are stated on the licence. Amendments 10 and 14 allow local authorities to take into account any previous failure of the applicant to meet licensing standards, and any other conduct of the applicant that is deemed relevant, when deciding whether to grant or renew a licence.

Amendment 12 allows local authorities to decide whether to grant an application to vary the licence of an applicant who wishes to reduce the number of primates specified on their licence. That may not always be appropriate, as primates are social animals and a minimum social grouping size may well be needed to ensure that they thrive.

Amendment 11 makes it clear that licence holders may apply to vary the specified premises on their licence only when the new premises are located in the same local authority area. Amendment 13 provides that where the licence holder moves the primate to new premises, the local authority will be required to arrange an inspection before granting the application. Amendment 18 ensures that any guidance issued to local authorities on the implementation of the primate licensing regime is made publicly available.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out “six” and insert “two”.

This amendment would reduce the length of a licence from six years to two.

You will be delighted to know, Ms McVey, that this is not a complicated amendment. This is basically the question of how long the licence exists for. We think that six years is too long. I think that evidence was given by some of the witnesses that agreed with us on that. We think that two years might be a more appropriate period. I suspect that, under other amendments, we will come to the issue of who is really suited to do these kinds of checks. My suspicion is that the average local authority, because it is a district local authority, is going to struggle to have this expertise. To some extent, it could be argued that if it were going to struggle every six years, it would struggle even more every two years, but we think that this is a flawed system and that six years is just too long. We would rather the checks be more frequent, although overall, as I have said before, we would rather the provision not be needed at all.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

We believe that six years is the right length for a primate licence. The length of the licence and the number of inspections, which I will detail in a minute, is in line with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Before a licence is granted in the first place, the primate will be assessed by a veterinary surgeon. The six-year licensing period then involves at least two more inspections by an inspector appointed by the local authority. We anticipate that those inspections will be spaced relatively evenly over the six-year period.

We are also looking very carefully at, and working with expert groups on, what we can put in the regulations about the care of primates. For example, we might look at making an annual vet visit a requirement. I therefore ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

Is the licensing scheme aimed at encouraging people to no longer keep primates as pets? Perhaps six years gives the impression that this is an okay practice to continue in perpetuity, while two years would perhaps accelerate the process of people no longer wanting to keep primates as pets.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

For the reasons we set out in earlier debates, the aim of this legislation is to ensure that primates are kept to very high—at least zoo-level—welfare standards and that those who keep them comply with those conditions. It is for that reason that we put in the six-year period, in line with other zoo and dangerous wild animal licensing regimes. We very much view this provision as part of that package. There will be regular inspections throughout that period, and the main thing is to ensure that the primate is properly kept.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

I assume that the licensing will provide some financial benefit to local authorities so they are able to undertake this work. Will the pricing of the six-year licence guarantee that they are able to provide the necessary services? Would a two-year licence not provide more income for local authorities so that they can do the work asked of them?

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

That is a fair question. Local authorities will be able to charge fees, both for any initial licence application and for registration under the transition scheme that we talked about. They will also be able to charge fees in respect of any inspections carried out under the licensing regime. The fees will enable the local authority to recover any costs that it incurs as a result of carrying out these activities. We hope that the ability to charge fees will minimise the burden placed on them in implementing the legislation, although I accept that they will have to do additional work.

We are very much co-developing the guidance on the implementation of these primate measures with local authorities. That work has already started and the group is discussing issues such as the appropriate level for fees to be set at, what sort of help local authorities will need and what training inspectors might need to enable them to comply with the provisions.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

It is interesting listening to the Minister, because there is a fundamental difference of opinion here. Of course, the welfare of the primate is paramount, but I took her to say that we are talking about having high enough standards for primates to be allowed to be kept under a licensing system—that goes back to the opening debate. However, there is a fundamental difference of opinion here: we do not think that primates should be kept—full stop. In zoos, and in some research establishments sadly, we still need them—in zoos, they are for specific conservation and educational purposes. However, I do not see the case for this licensing system. There is a clear divide here.

Six years is far too long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, it is an encouragement. Essentially, it says, “It’s okay. If you have the money and you can afford to do it, it is okay.” Well, it is not okay, and we do not think that it should be happening, so we will press this amendment to a vote.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

As we have heard, the clause specifies the number and type of primate that licence holders are permitted to keep. It will ensure that licence holders keep neither more primates than they are capable of caring for nor species that they do not have the facilities or expertise to keep.

Clause 3 - Licensing standards and other requirements

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 106, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “may include” and insert

“must include but are not limited to”.

This amendment would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to include fundamental welfare requirements in the licencing conditions.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 107, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

“(g) their social grouping.”

This amendment would add the social grouping of primates to standards that can be included under licensing conditions.

Amendment 108, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

“(g) microchipping of any primate kept under the licence.”

Amendment 109, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require microchipping of licensed primates, and require licence holders to provide specific information to local authorities.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am slightly surprised that we needed to table this set of amendments, which concern the limited scope and lack of clarity on what the standards will be. We have discussed before what should be in the Bill and what should be left to regulation. In time-honoured fashion, I suspect that the Opposition want more and the Government want less. We may well find our positions reversed in a few years—who knows? Although I understand the case for flexibility and the need to adapt to changing circumstances, we think that more could be put in the Bill, which would give people more confidence that the welfare concerns that we all share are being addressed properly.

It is disappointing that the standards that the licensing system will be expected to achieve are not being published. As you know, Ms McVey, we do not think that the licence system is the way to go, but if we are to have one it needs to be tough and robust. I thought that there would be more on that in the Bill than there appears to be. Again, those of us who have been on Bill Committees before have discussed the distinction between “may” and “must” on many occasions. It is a familiar debate and, I suspect, one that the Minister will respond to in the traditional fashion. We would like to see the language toughened up so that these things must be there.

The options listed in the Bill are:

“(a) the environment and accommodation that primates need;

(b) their diet;

(c) provision for their behavioural needs;

(d) their handling;

(e) their transportation;

(f) protecting them from pain, suffering, injury and disease”,

all of which, of course, we strongly concur with. However, any licensing standards supposedly as high as those of a zoo will surely need to include standards on all those things and more. The theme that has perhaps come through in our debate this morning is the difficulty of distinguishing between the levels and standards in the various places in which primates might end up residing: zoos, sanctuaries, rescue centres, or private accommodation. There lines between those are fairly hazy.

At the end of this process, one of the questions that anyone looking at the legislation in the round will be asking themselves is whether those criteria have been accurately set out and defined. I am not convinced that they have been. If one were being generous to the Government, which of course I am, one would say that this can be achieved through regulation, but sceptics would then say, “That’s not much of a guarantee.” We are here to try and make sure that it actually happens. As such, our amendment 106 would alter the language in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State includes in the licensing conditions all the fundamental welfare requirements I listed earlier. However, we do not think that list is exhaustive. Following discussions with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, we think it is essential that provisions covering the social grouping of primates be included in the licensing standards.

I suspect that Members on all sides of the House will agree with what I am about to say: we know that primates, including ourselves, are highly social creatures, and to prevent primates from socialising adequately with other primates causes a great deal of suffering and lasting damage. I am told that isolated primates may mutilate themselves, become severely depressed, pluck their own hair, or show abnormal behaviours, and some even die prematurely. I do not think any of this comes as a surprise to us, because we know how close those creatures are to us, and we know that all those things happen when people are subjected to solitary confinement, which is effectively what we may be risking without specifying these provisions for primates. As such, our amendment 107 is essential to ensuring that any licensing system for primates takes into account their social groupings and, at the very least, prevents any primate from being kept on its own. Other than the fact that the Government refuse to ever accept amendments, I cannot see any logical reason why an amendment like this should not be accepted, but I live in the real world.

Finally, I will briefly discuss amendments 108 and 109 which, taken together, would require all primates kept under licence to be microchipped. We will probably come back to microchipping later in the Bill, but we think it would be sensible to include microchipping in the licensing standards. Microchipping has become an essential part of animal care. It is a safe, effective and permanent way to identify individual primates, and would ensure the traceability of any primates kept under the new licensing scheme. That is quite an interesting point. I think there is a further clause that touches on some of this, which we will come on to in a moment, but clearly we are relying on the keepers to provide the information. Given that not all of them are necessarily to be relied upon, and some are trading for financial gain, it would seem sensible to have a way of identifying the individual creature.

My understanding is that this proposal received broad support in the consultation on the keeping of primates as pets, so I was surprised to find that such a measure was not included in the Bill. I hope we can help the Government by proposing these sensible amendments, which I am sure they will adopt.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The code I referred to earlier, which I would be delighted to share with the hon. Gentleman, already applies. It goes into some detail about the importance of social interaction for primates and the way in which they should be kept. As I said, the regulations will develop the specifics and we are actively working on them with experts in the field. I would be delighted to share with the hon. Gentleman the details of that process as it continues.

We intend to introduce microchipping for licensed primates, but not where that is harmful, which it may be in a few exceptional cases. Microchipping primates is a significant procedure. It can require anaesthetic and carries a degree of risk to more vulnerable primates. There will be cases where exemptions to microchipping are needed—for example, if a primate is elderly or in ill health. As the hon. Gentleman said, primates are closely related to us and I sympathise with that position. Microchipping will be set out in the regulations, however, and we need to work slowly and carefully with the sector to come up with the right set of exemptions.

We also think that licence holders should provide key information to local authorities, including on primate births, deaths or transfers. That can be set out in secondary legislation, after we have worked with relevant experts. As we develop our standards, we are consulting widely. We want to set the bar high and aim for zoo-equivalent standards, and we need to ensure that the standards include species-specific requirements. Some of these are set out in the code, but learning has developed since the code was written, and it is important that we have the most up-to-date advice.

We need to work in a collaborative and expert-led way. I do not want to presuppose exactly what the standards should be now, so we will introduce our licensing standards via regulations made under the affirmative procedure and Parliament will be able to scrutinise their detail. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

I want to talk a little more about social groupings. We do not need to be experts in the field to know that this is an important standard that should be met under any licensing conditions. It is incredibly important that it is on the face of the Bill and I would be pleased if the Government thought again.

On the issue of microchipping, I accept that there might be some stress for certain animals, but “may” is too weak a word. If we are asked for exemptions, and as long as the exemptions are clear, “must” is entirely acceptable.

Although microchipping can help us trace animals, I am concerned that there is no standard way in which it is done across local authorities. As we know from other types of microchipping, there has been confusion about different systems. Given the nature of primates, without a microchipping system or some other relevant form of identification, I am concerned about how people would know if the primates they are looking at today are the same primates they looked at five years ago,.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I listened to the Minister carefully and I too would not want to go against expert advice on this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam just said, we would like to see the issue addressed more strongly in the Bill, rather than in guidance and advice, but I hear what the Minister says.

We will have a longer debate about microchipping in relation to other parts of the Bill. It is complicated, not least because of the way the various databases have grown up, probably in a rather disorganised and difficult way, which makes access to them complicated for vets.

I heard the Minister’s point about the difficulty of microchipping primates. The Whips do not yet have plans to microchip MPs, have they? I am looking at the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. I am sure it could be useful under some circumstances.

Heather Wheeler (Conservative, South Derbyshire)

Breathe in, breathe out.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Yes. We will all do exactly as we are told.

I understand the Minister’s arguments, so we will not press this amendment to a vote, but I hope she heard our points. There are challenges involved in dealing with creatures that are so close to us. We want to make sure they are treated properly and respectfully. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause sets out that the Secretary of State will provide licensing standards via regulations for the care and management of primates kept under the licence. They will be developed in close collaboration with experts on primate welfare. The licensing standards will be introduced via regulations made via the affirmative procedure and we will have the chance to scrutinise them.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

To reprise the debate: as ever, the danger with licences that may include things is that they may not. While we have no reason to not trust the Government on that, we would much rather it were stronger. We see no reason it could not have been strengthened in the Bill and although we will not push to a vote, we continue to worry that far too much has been left to regulation.

Clause 4 - Applications

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The Bill provides for the creation of a primate licensing scheme that exempts licence holders from the prohibition on keeping primates in England and Wales. Clause 4 outlines who is eligible to apply for a primate licence and the steps involved in the application process. The clause is necessary for establishing a common set of application principles.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I have little to add, other than to say, yet again, that we worry about the licensing system. I was quite struck by clause 4(4)(a), in which the application was to state the “name and sex” of the primate. That brings home to us that this is different from many other animal regulations, although we all ascribe names to our pets. This is almost like the registration of a birth or a death and it reflects the different way in which we treat primates compared with other creatures. I find it both moving and slightly chilling, because we are saying that a creature has a name that is recorded that we are allowing, under licence, to be imprisoned or kept as a pet. That does not feel right.

Clause 5 - DETERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 110, page 3, line 27, leave out “veterinary surgeon” and insert

“competent veterinary surgeon with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the licence relates to”.

This amendment would require premises inspections for licence applications be conducted by a competent veterinary surgeon with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the licence relates to.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 111, page 5, line 10, leave out “veterinary surgeon” and insert

“competent veterinary surgeon with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the licence relates to”.

This amendment would require that premises inspections for licence renewals be conducted by a competent veterinary surgeon with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the licence relates to.

Amendment 112, in clause 10, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a “suitable person” means a person with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the license relates to who is—

(a) a competent veterinary surgeon; or

(b) a competent zoo inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would require enforcement inspections to be conducted by a competent veterinary surgeon or a competent zoo inspector appointed by the Secretary of State who has appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the license relates to.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

The amendments are about the level of expertise required of a veterinary surgeon. Our view is that more specialist expertise is required for primates. Looking to expertise in the room, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may wish to comment.

All veterinary surgeons have skills and qualifications, but given that this will be a relatively unusual occurrence one wonders whether they will be in the right place to do what is needed. I understand that a range of organisations, including Born Free, the RSPCA, Wild Futures, the British Veterinary Association, the Ape Alliance and others have expressed concern that premises inspections for licences, renewals and check-ups should be conducted only by competent veterinary surgeons with suitable knowledge and experience of primates. We have discussed how infrequent those checks could be. We do not know what the geographical spread will be, so it is possible that people will be doing this very rarely. Therefore, the question is: do they fully appreciate what is required?

I hinted earlier that the Government have failed to spell out the ideal conditions. I understand that further work may be done in regulations and so on, but, as we have just been reflecting, these creatures have extremely complicated welfare needs. They are long-living, intelligent —highly intelligent, in some cases—social animals. It is hardly surprising that many animal welfare organisations believe that a high level of expertise should be a prerequisite of assessing whether a keeper will be able to provide the right environment for a primate.

Amendments 110 and 111 address the aspects of the Bill that cover premises inspections for licence applications and renewals, which under the Bill currently can be carried out by a veterinary surgeon. An average veterinary surgeon will have a broad and extensive knowledge of a wide variety of animals, but how rarely will this arise? I genuinely do not know how many primates the average vet sees, but I guess it is a few. I shall happily take an intervention from a vet. How many primates does the average vet see?

Neil Hudson (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I declare an interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am not competent or experienced when it comes to treating or examining primates, and that is the nub of the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge is making. I am sympathetic to what he is saying.

When veterinary surgeons train, certainly in this country, they have the potential to practise on any species; they are described as being omnipotential. That is very different from being omnicompetent. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are very sensible, but I respectfully disagree with the detailed wording. Committee members will recall the evidence we took from the president of the British Veterinary Association about the term “specialist”—unfortunately, the amendments contain the word “specialist”. In the veterinary world, that will conflate and confuse the issue. As the president of the BVA said, she is not a specialist as per the definitions, but she is experienced in zoo medicine, having worked in it for many years.

The intention behind the amendments is good and I strongly urge the Government to take the sentiment behind them and adapt it by not using the term “specialist”. Using the word “competent” and referring to a veterinarian who has the appropriate expertise or experience in the relevant species would be a helpful and sensible change. The people who look after such animals and inspect their premises need experience in dealing with them. The term “specialist” would rule out many people who have experience in looking after primates. If the Government could consider the amendment holistically and remove the word “specialist” and substitute it with “competent” and “experienced”, we would have a resolution of the issue.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expertise. When I looked through the amendments last night, I sighed, realising that he was very likely to make exactly the point he has just made.

I hope the Minister has heard the broad gist of what has been said. We do not know the numbers who will come forward through the licensing system, but even if it were the upper limit of 5,000, there are, I am told, 10.8 million cats in the UK. That gives one a sense of how likely it is for any individual vet to be asked to provide an opinion on these cases and it offers a comparison with what they do in their normal daily work.

Amendment 110 is as drafted on the amendment paper, but there may be scope down the line to revisit the issue. It is important that we get this right. We can help local authorities by making sure that the Government sort out a list of people who have the necessary skills. As I have already hinted, I worry that the average district council will consider the issue and wonder how it will cope with the provisions in the Bill. Clearly there are parts of the country where zoos and rescue centres have the necessary experience, but there will be other parts where they do not. If they came up against an application, they would struggle and it would make it far simpler if the Government did what we are suggesting and compiled a list of the names of competent veterinary surgeons and zoo inspectors who have the skills to carry out the work.

Despite the suggestions from the hon. Gentleman, we think the issue is sufficiently important for us to push it to a vote. We know what the outcome will be, but we want to put it on the record that the Government should take another look at the issue. When the Bill is passed, we hope it will have been improved in this regard.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

We all agree that those carrying out inspections should be competent to do so. With his depth of knowledge, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border reminded us that vets have established competency standards. It is important that the regulations use the right terminology—competency, experience and expertise—as they are developed.

We have provided flexibility in the Bill about who can undertake inspections. The aim of that was to avoid creating delays to licence processing, which could be bad for primates awaiting inspection. We are looking to support training for vets and inspectors so that they have the right knowledge to carry out inspections. We hope that the training will increase the pool of people local authorities can call upon. I say once again that primates vary enormously: someone with expertise in one type of primate may well not be competent to deal with another.

We will certainly include material on the selection of inspectors as part of our guidance for local authorities—the list that the hon. Member for Cambridge wanted—and we intend to ensure that local authorities are given details of suitably qualified inspectors, including specialist vets and vets who have undergone primate training.

Local authorities already undertake a lot of that work for us in the space of zoo inspection and dangerous wild animal inspection. They can already request information on competent zoo inspectors from the Animal and Plant Health Agency. We do not need to include that in the Bill, but I will look carefully, having heard the debate, at the language that we use in regulation. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

This has been a helpful discussion—hopefully, we will come to a sensible resolution. I hear what the Minister says about the advice and guidance. My reflection, having been some years ago a district councillor in a rural area that had some areas that needed to be licensed, is that we struggled with expertise.

Much of the discussion in the end is not so much about primates but about licensing, and how we go about it. Having spent a number of years trying to get the taxi licensing system improved, I am beginning to draw on my conversations with the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers; I remember some of the complexities that can be brought up. None of this is simple or easy. We need expert advice, and the right people. If we do not have them, we will not get a very good outcome. We think that amendment 112 is sufficiently important to vote on, but I will withdraw the others.

Neil Hudson (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I support the Government on this issue, but we heard evidence last week that the number of veterinarians with the relevant competence and expertise to look at primates is unclear, but in the order of 50. If we had the word “specialist” in the Bill, we could whittle that down to single figures—or it could be 10 or 20 —because that term means that a person has either their royal college boards or their European college, American college, Australasian college or many others, and that then the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has accredited them as a specialist.

The current wording would really complicate things. I strongly urge the Minister and the Government to take on board the Opposition’s comments about competence and experience so that the licensing protocol is not merely a box-ticking exercise by someone who will potentially be very much out of their comfort zone.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause outlines the steps that local authorities will take when determining an application for a primate licence. The clause ensures that a licence is granted to those who have demonstrated that they are able to keep primates to the required standards, while ensuring that local authorities have the flexibility to make allowances for those who are very close to those standards but have not yet quite met them.

Schedule 3 - Decisions relating to primates: representations and appeals

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The schedule clearly sets out the circumstances in which a person may appeal a local authority’s decision. That includes decisions on applications for a primate licence or registration, rectification notices issued under a primate licence or registration, and the revoking or amending of a licence to keep primates.

Clause 6 - Conditions

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause places the requirement on licence holders to meet certain conditions in order to fulfil their obligations.

Clause 7 - Variation and surrender

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause provides licence holders with the ability to apply to local authorities to vary their licence to account for changes in their circumstances. It is needed to ensure that the licensing process is dynamic and can respond to changes in the circumstances of both the licence holders and the primate.

Clause 8 - Renewal

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Under this clause, a primate licence lasts for six years, as long as the licence holder meets the conditions of their licence.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

We are seeing exactly what I predicted earlier: a rolling process of permanent licensing. The Bill absolutely does not stop primates from being kept as pets, and I regret that. We have had the discussion about six years and two years—we do not need to go back over it—but this shows that the process is a constant and ongoing one, which will allow primates to remain being kept as pets.

Clause 9 - Death of licence-holder

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause sets out the steps to be taken in the unfortunate event of the death of a primate licence holder. It is necessary to allow the deceased licence holder’s personal representative—who, obviously, will often be family members—time to make arrangements for the primate in their care. Primates might otherwise be subjected to unnecessary stress from being moved to other premises without sufficient time for preparations to be made.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

The dialogue around this issue is becoming interesting. The clause further shows the potential problem: not only are primates being kept as pets, but they are being kept in perpetuity, rolling forward, when the licence holder dies. I quite understand the necessity of setting up a licensing system, but this is where it leads—it quite clearly leads to these creatures being kept in perpetuity, and we do not think that should be happening.

Clause 10 - Inspections of licensed premises

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause gives the local authority the power to arrange for an inspection of the premises specified in the licence as a means of assuring that the licence holder is meeting the requisite standards and any rectification conditions that they have received.

Clause 11 - Fees

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause gives the local authority the ability to charge fees for the processing of applications and for conducting inspections relating to a primate licence. It will ensure that the administration of the licensing scheme is not a significant cost to the taxpayer. It will also ensure that local authorities have the resources to implement the scheme effectively.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

As I have already reflected on, this has become a discussion around how to license. Once again, as ever, I defer to the legal expertise of the Minister. I am sure that she knows full well from other legislation how that is done, and I imagine that it will be done in the same way here. However, the clause raises slightly difficult questions about the other criteria that the local authority will use to determine what is an appropriate fee—how many, how often, to what standard and by whom. It is a bit of a moveable feast, and I confess that I do not understand how a local authority might arrive at a reasonable judgment and whether the Government will give guidance. I seek some clarification on that point.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Of course. We cannot specify at this point, for the reasons given, what a typical fee for this licence may be. The fees will reflect local authority costs for administration of the licensing regime, and therefore will be dependent on the costs associated with the licensing scheme in the area. However, we will most certainly be providing guidance to local authorities on the range of fees that should be applicable and we would expect all fees to fall within this range, unless there is good reason why not. We would expect fees to be similar across different local authorities, although there will be some variations.

We are working closely with local authorities and we have a working group dealing with this at the moment. The Welsh Government will be providing guidance in relation to Wales, and again we are working closely with the devolved Administrations on this matter.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I understand the difficulty the Minister has trying to license something of which we have very little knowledge. That goes back to my basic point that this is a slightly flawed process. What we are hearing is that we have no idea how much the fees might be, which is a problem for anyone applying. Do we not have any sense at all of what an appropriate fee might be for this kind of inspection?

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The work is going on at the moment, and I would be delighted to keep the hon. Gentleman in the loop as it continues. Licence holders will have the choice as to whether they wish to apply for a licence and continue to keep their primates. It is right that the financial burden should rest with them. Under existing legislation, zoo licence holders and dangerous wild animals licence holders are also expected to pay a fee to their local authorities, so there is some precedent for this.

Clause 12 - Offences

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause makes it an offence for a licence holder under this part to fail to meet the general licence condition attached to their licence. The penalty for this offence is set at a fine of up to £2,500, although, as I said earlier, the penalty for not having a licence is unlimited. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Rectification Notices

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Clause 13 authorises the local authority to serve a rectification notice on a licence holder if they fail to meet any of the licensing standards. This will provide licence holders the opportunity to take any remedial action to provide better for the welfare and management of their primates before further enforcement action is taken. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Revocation etc. of licence

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

This clause sets out the circumstances in which a local authority is obligated, or has the option, to revoke or vary a primate licence unilaterally. These powers should enable local authorities to act to prevent people who have acted in contravention of this Bill, or the Animal Welfare Act 2006 more generally, from keeping primates. This will help ensure primates are protected from any potential future harm. I move that this clause stands part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Directions

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

This clause will enable the local authority to monitor the welfare of any unlicensed primates, and ensure their basic welfare needs are met while they remain in the care of their keeper. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Determination of applications

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 16, page 9, line 15, leave out ‘put down’ and insert ‘humanely euthanised’.

This amendment would bring the language in the Bill in line with existing animal welfare legislation.

This is not a complicated change; it is self-explanatory. In my correspondence with animal welfare organisations, they expressed their misgivings about the use of the term “put down” in the Bill. I am told that currently the wording used in the majority of animal welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, is “humanely destroyed”. However, I have had conversations with the RSPCA, and it suggests the most suitable language would be “humanely euthanised”, as that, I am reliably informed, is the correct veterinary term. This is a fairly technical amendment, and I hope that if colleagues want to ensure the accuracy and suitability of the technical language in the Bill, the amendment might be fairly uncontroversial. I have never had a successful amendment in Committee, so I am hoping this may finally be it.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I am so sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. It is already the case that when an animal is euthanised—this is an awful subject to be discussing—it must be done humanely. Under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is already an offence to cause an animal unnecessary suffering, and that includes the method of the animal’s death. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify that primates must be euthanised humanely, though, of course, all of us here feel they should. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Neil Hudson (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Again, I am sympathetic to the hon. Member for Cambridge and understand his intention. We have to be sensitive about the language when euthanasing animals. In different contexts, we use different terms. In small animal practice, “put down” and “put to sleep” are often used. In the equine profession, where I have spent many years, we will not use “put down”, but will often use “euthanased”. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments that in some of the legislation “humanely destroyed” has been used, which is often used in clinical and scientific literature.

To the Government, I say that in considering changing the terminology, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and would not prefer “euthanised”. If we look at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ website and the section on euthanasia, we often use the term “euthanased”, in that a vet euthanases an animal. There is that matter of semantics. In America, they talk about “euthanatizing” and “euthanizing”. I cannot support “humanely euthanised” for some of the reasons I have just given and I suggest that “humanely euthanased” would be a suitable substitution. I wish the Government would have a look at this to get to more clinical and scientific language.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His expertise is extremely helpful to the Committee and shows how complicated this is. Clause 16(2)(c) is just too aggressive in this context. While I accept the Minister’s explanation of the legal situation, I cannot see why that cannot be put in a different way, given the kind of creatures we are dealing with. I suspect the Minister agrees, but she has to do what she has to do. We are not going to push this to a vote to embarrass people—there is no point—but if there is an opportunity, perhaps it could be amended at some further point in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause will help to ensure compliance with the new licensing system, and provide local authorities with a better ability to enforce higher standards of animal welfare. I urge that it stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Selling primates to unlicensed persons

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause will prohibit anyone from selling, gifting or transferring a primate to a person who does not hold a relevant licence, with the knowledge or with reasonable grounds to suspect that that person does not hold such a licence. This provision will cover both private traders and third-party sellers and prevent them from selling primates to individuals who cannot care for their needs adequately. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Breeding primates

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause sets out that a person who does not hold a relevant licence commits an offence if they take steps to breed a primate under their care with another primate, or where they keep two or more primates together in conditions in which they are able to breed. It should prevent unscrupulous breeders from continuing to fuel a market for pet primates kept in low-welfare conditions. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I need say no more than that we totally agree. This is a very strong and important provision.

Clause 19 - Powers of entry

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause, together with schedule 4, gives power of entry to a person authorised by the local authority; it is to be used in relation to one of the offences that we have already discussed. The power of entry will enable local authorities to investigate whether an offence is being, or has been, committed at the premises, and should allow them to enforce for the offences and penalise those responsible. This will in turn ensure that primates are not being kept, bred or sold in contravention of the Bill. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Powers of entry relating to primates

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The schedule provides local authorities with a power to support investigation and enforcement in respect of offences in the Bill relating to the keeping, breeding and sale or transfer of primates. The powers in the schedule are necessary to ensure that the offences introduced in the Bill can be effectively enforced against. The powers will allow local authorities to investigate those who keep, breed and sell primates illegally, which in turn should help to ensure the high welfare of all primates kept in England and Wales. I urge the Committee to agree to the schedule.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Once again, this is an important additional set of powers, which we think will be helpful. I suspect that this is also an exercise in updating the powers available in order to take into account changing technologies and circumstances, and we strongly support it.

Clause 20 - Guidance

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 20, page 11, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to local authorities.

This is the familiar “may” or “must” argument, and I suspect that we will go over old ground yet again with it, but it does allow me to speculate on what happens if the Secretary of State is tardy in providing guidance to local authorities. This takes us back to the equally long-standing issue of support for local authorities, or lack thereof. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill and in the evidence and submissions that we have had from various organisations—we have talked about this at some length this morning already—real concern has been expressed about the capacity of local authorities to enact the system that we are talking about. We all look forward to a time when we can talk about local authorities without adding such adjectives as “underfunded”, “cut” and “on the brink of collapse”. We all know the circumstances in which local authorities find themselves. What strikes me is that the Government continue to load extra obligations on to local authorities without necessarily giving them the help that they need to take on yet more responsibilities.

I have already summed up the Kafkaesque picture of the monkey dumped in the reception of the guildhall in Cambridge. Quite what the monkey or the council officer is supposed to do in those circumstances I am not sure, and it may superficially seem quite amusing, but my partner used to work for a local authority, and quite often they are the last resort, particularly with animals and where people have mental health issues and so on. It is the poor old social worker who ends up at 6 o’clock on a Friday evening trying to find a home for the primate who has been dumped in the lobby.

We need clear guidance. In the evidence session, I asked Dr Girling, chair of the Zoos Expert Committee of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what happens to animals when zoos or others fail to meet licensing standards. The answer was:

“They become the responsibility of the local authority in the first instance”.––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 28, Q40.]

Well, good luck to the local authority. The guidance ought to be there. It should not be a “may”; it has to be a “must”. I very much hope that that will be done in a timely manner. Were we to transfer this provision to “must” rather than “may” we would be insisting upon it.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

As I have said several times, we certainly intend to develop guidance on the implementation of these primate measures, and in doing so we will continue to engage closely with local authorities, vets and specialist primate keepers. Local authorities do much good work, included in which is their work with dangerous wild animals and other licensing. I have already referenced how they will be able to charge fees to enable them to carry out that work.

I very much hope that the Kafkaesque situation that the hon. Gentleman envisages never comes to pass, and that we are able, because we have brought into play a sensible and proportionate licensing system, to have transitional arrangements that mean that a suitable space in a zoo or rehoming centre where appropriate can be found for primates that need to be rehomed. Government amendment 18 will ensure that any guidance developed for local authorities will be published so that it is fully transparent and available to all. In those circumstances, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

(Afternoon)

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

Good afternoon. I remind Members that they are expected to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.

Clause 20 - Guidance

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. The clause indicates the intention that the Secretary of State will give guidance to local authorities in respect of their functions under this part of the Bill. With that guidance, local authorities will be better able to fulfil their functions in a consistent way. Where keepers are unable to provide for primates’ welfare needs, local authorities can be confident that Government guidance can advise them how best to improve the situation for primates in their area.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I may have inadvertently given my speech on this clause before lunch. I feel no need to test anyone on whether they noticed, nor any need to repeat it, other than to say that we feel that the Government really ought to do provide this guidance, and it ought to be a “must” rather than a “may”.

Clause 21 - Information

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The information required under the clause will enable the Government to build a national view of how different local authorities use their powers under the Bill. It will also provide information on the number of primates being kept under licence. It will help to ensure that the legislation is implemented and enforced effectively and consistently.

Clause 22 - Power to extend Part 1

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 22, page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to second “provision” in line 2 and insert

“The consequential, supplementary, or incidental provision that may be made under this section includes”.

This amendment is a drafting change that is consequential on the new clause about regulations.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 23 stand part.

Clause 38 stand part.

Clause 49 stand part.

Government amendments 56 and 58.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

New clause 3 brings provisions relating to the parliamentary procedures that must be used when making regulations under parts 1, 2 and 3 into one clause that will be inserted into part 4. At the appropriate times, I will move that clauses 23, 38 and 49 should not stand part of the Bill. Amendment 26 makes minor changes, all of which are consequential on the removal of clauses 23, 38 and 49 and the introduction of new clause 3.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I find this set of amendments baffling. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why it was necessary to bring forward these amendments to the Government’s own Bill and what that means, not least because clause 22 seems to give the Government permission to extend the licensing system to any other kind of wild animal. I am not sure why they want that power. It is important that that is explained. As I argued earlier, the fact that everything will be done by regulation leads us to wonder what is planned and how it might be challenged in future. An explanation would be welcome.

Members of the Committee may have read the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It is quite helpful on this Bill. I am struck by the fact that these amendments are subsequent to that memorandum. Is there a revised memorandum, and when might we see it?

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that he may have got ahead of himself again in talking about clause 22. With your permission, Mr Davies, I will deal with clause 22 stand part later. New clause 3 and amendment 26 merely bring the Bill into line with itself, as amended. Clauses 23, 38 and 49 will be removed, so we have made insertions to make that operable. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the power to introduce regulations to regulate the keeping of other wild animals. Is that right?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

The Minister is correct.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

On the clauses that we are now discussing, we have carefully considered the parliamentary procedures. All powers to make regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee are happy with that.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. This clause provides the Secretary of State with a power to introduce regulations to amend part 1 of the Bill to regulate the keeping of other wild animals. The power will allow the provisions to be extended to other kinds of wild animals that are not normally domesticated in Great Britain. The use of this power would be dependent on our gathering significant evidence in support of extending the primate provisions to another type of kept wild animal. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State is required to consult appropriate persons before making regulations.

The Government do not have any immediate plans to extend the measures in the Bill to other wild animals, and the power will be used only when there is evidence to show that Government intervention is necessary to ensure that the complex welfare needs of an animal are met. It is in the Bill that the Secretary of State will consult relevant experts before using the power, which ensures that we can prevent other wild species from suffering as pets and being kept in inappropriate conditions. We can ensure that any further regimes are in line with the primates licensing regime. Environmental non-governmental organisations have expressed considerable support for the extension of this regime to other kept wild animals, should the need arise.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. To go back to points I made earlier, we seem to be designing a licensing system for a relatively small number of cases and then, at the end of the discussion, saying, “Ah, yes. This can also be used in wider circumstances.” That seems to be the wrong way round, and I think we will have the same discussion a bit further down the line on the extensive changes to the regulations applying to dogs. Although I do not necessarily have any objection to that, it is a curious way of proceeding. To some extent, it would have altered the discussion on Second Reading or more widely if people had known that the Government were setting up a new system, which is fine, but this started off being about primates.

Although we will not oppose the clause, I observe that it seems, from my conversations with organisations in the world outside, that they are not entirely clear what the provision is about. As one always says in these circumstances, I have no doubt that Ministers are well intentioned, but not all their successors may be. There is a considerable power to set up a new system for a whole range of animals well beyond primates.

Clause 24 - Meaning of “keep”

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause defines the meaning of the word “keep” in part 1. It is necessary to ensure that the provisions apply to the right people. A person does not “keep” a primate if they are in temporary possession of a primate in order to prevent it from causing damage, in order to transport it on behalf of somebody else, or when providing it with vet treatment. The clause also confirms that a person who ceases to be in possession of a primate while it is in England or Wales will continue to be treated as the keeper until another person takes possession of the primate.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I repeat what I said earlier: we do not think that people should be passing, keeping or transferring these creatures. We just think they should not be kept.

Clause 25 - General interpretation

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause provides definitions of the terms used in the primate provisions in the Bill. It confirms that “primate” means an animal of any species other than man that belongs to the order of primates.

Clause 26 - Offence where dog attacks or worries livestock

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause provides that a person who owns or is in charge of a dog will be guilty of an offence if the dog attacks or worries livestock on any agricultural land or a road, path or verge thereof. The clause explains under what circumstances a person does not commit an offence even if a dog attacks or worries livestock. An owner will not commit an offence if they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person without their consent—for example, if the dog had been stolen. The penalty for the offence is a fine up to level 3 on the standard scale.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

We have moved beyond primates. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Exactly. We are into a new part of this curious Bill. I start by welcoming the Government’s decision to update the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which I had the pleasure of reading over lunch. It is extraordinary how much more succinct the legislation was in those days. It did it all in three pages—and, apparently, for thruppence. The Act has been on the statute book for a long time, and although it has been updated periodically, it clearly needs bringing into the modern period. We are all aware of the horrific impact that livestock worrying can have and the concern it creates for livestock owners across England and Wales.

Equally, we all welcome the increased access to the countryside that there has been in recent years and that many of our citizens have made good use of, particularly in the past couple of years. We also recognise the economic impact that those people bring to the rural economy. That is a positive. However, if more people are coming into such areas and walking in the countryside with their dogs, and if they are not well informed about the need to behave responsibly—and, sadly, some do behave irresponsibly—there is always the risk that the owners will fail to take good care of their dogs when they are close to livestock. This has clearly had an harmful impact on a number of communities. When the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare looked into livestock worrying, I am told that it estimated that about 15,000 sheep had been killed by dogs in 2016. In 2019, NFU Mutual stated that livestock worrying cost the sector £1.2 million. The National Sheep Association’s annual survey on livestock worrying in 2020 found that 95% of its respondents had experienced livestock worrying on their farm, with the average cost being more than £1,000. As you would expect me to observe, Mr Davies, at a time when farmers are open to being undercut through the trade deals being cut by the Government, every single penny counts.

Livestock worrying also leaves dogs open to harm. SheepWatch UK has told us that in 2016 at least 49 dogs were shot and killed for chasing or killing sheep. These are complicated issues, and we know just how much distress can be caused to a huge range of people—the owners of the livestock, those who witness such events, and the emergency services who have to turn up and deal with the problems. It causes great pain and distress and, sadly, often death to the attacked animals. It also puts the life and health of the dog and the owner in danger, as horses and cattle, for example, are quite capable of causing harm not only to a dog that is attacking them, but to the people with them. I am sure that we will discuss that later.

I welcome the Government’s decision to take action in this area, but we believe that there is scope to improve the measures, and we have a number of amendments, which we will come to this afternoon, that would do that. A final point on this introductory clause to part 2: we are slightly disappointed that there no mechanism for compensating victims of livestock worrying. A later amendment of ours may address that issue. On that basis, I am quite happy with the clause.

Clause 27 - Seizure and detention of dogs

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

This clause targets reoffending—cases where either the same dogs are found attacking livestock repeatedly, or where an owner has several dogs that worry livestock. It is important to bear in mind that about two thirds of livestock worrying incidents happen when an owner is not with their dog, and it has escaped or run away from them. Under the clause, the dog can be detained until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses. The police will be able to seize and detain a dog if they have reasonable grounds to believe that it has attacked or worried livestock, or may make further attacks on livestock.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

We have come to a series of clauses that get into the detail of how we address this issue in the new world. We have no objection to much of the detail, but as I said earlier, we seem to be designing new systems for dealing with dogs—and their owners, in some cases; we will look at that further in other clauses. I wonder a bit about how the measures will work and overlap with existing legislation. There are frequent debates in Parliament about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, for instance. I worry that we are designing a new system that starts from livestock worrying, but that could cover many other aspects of how dogs behave, and we could be duplicating measures, or creating a system that will be extrapolated from to cover other circumstances. Obviously, livestock worrying is an important issue in itself, but a whole range of things follow from it that it may be relevant to discuss and consider in the round in another way. However, when it comes to how one might deal with livestock worrying, there is nothing in the clause that we object to, and we are happy to proceed with it.

Clause 28 - Collection of samples and impressions

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause introduces powers to improve the ability of the police to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock. In creating the Bill, we worked closely with the police, and the provisions have very much been co-designed with them, so that they have the tools that they need in the modern world to enforce the legislation. This clause enables a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog, livestock, or, sadly, the body of a livestock animal if it might be evidence of an offence committed under clause 26. The police say that that is a very welcome development that will really assist in prosecuting this offence.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am afraid I will be making the same point consistently on these clauses. I am glad to hear that the measures were developed in consultation with the police, but I suspect that the powers could also be used in other circumstances. That is my ongoing concern about the way we are proceeding, although as far as we can see these are sensible proposals.

Clause 29 - Power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Clause 29 enables a justice of the peace to authorise the police—again, this has been asked for—to enter and search premises in connection with offences where a dog is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. That includes the power to take a sample or impression from the dog.

Clause 30 - Control order upon conviction under section 26

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Clause 30 enables the courts to make control orders after conviction of an offence under clause 26, if the dog was found not to have been under proper control at the time of the offence. The control order must specify one or more measures that the offender or the owner of the dog, or both, must take to ensure that the dog is kept under proper control in the future. The owner of the dog, as well as the offender, may appeal against a control order to the Crown court. It is an offence to breach a control order; the penalty is a fine not exceeding level 3.

Clause 31 - Destruction order upon conviction under section 26

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Clause 31 introduces a power for the court to order that a dog be destroyed after a person has been convicted of an offence under clause 26, if the court is satisfied that there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again. The offender and the owner, if different, have the right to appeal against a destruction order to the Crown court.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

We are working here with a series of proposals to deal with these very difficult cases. No one wants to see a dog destroyed.

My question is about whether any work has been done to consider how many control orders the Government anticipate being used under these proposals and how many destruction orders might follow. When we come to discuss the orders in future debates, in Westminster Hall or wherever, people may be rightly concerned that the orders have led to too many dogs being destroyed unnecessarily. Possibly it will be the other way round: perhaps the orders will not have been used strongly enough to deter people from behaving irresponsibly—if that is the purpose of this legislation, which I hope it is.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Destruction orders are, of course, already available to the courts in relation to dogs that are dangerous and not kept under proper control, including in some cases—through other legislation that is already enforced—when a dog has worried livestock. It is important to remember that we are designing these changes with proportionality very much in mind. The ancillary orders being brought under this legislation would be available to a court only post-conviction. The courts will of course need to consider proportionality when making any control, disqualification or destruction orders.

The Bill gives additional powers to the police—particularly in the collection of samples or DNA, for example. That will help them prosecute these serious crimes.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I apologise for my lack of detailed knowledge about the complex interrelationship between existing laws and the new proposals. I suppose what I am trying to get at is the problem that the Government are seeking to solve through this new legislation given that, from my limited understanding, there is already legislation that could be used to achieve something that looks broadly similar.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, legislation has been in place since 1953. It was amended substantially in 1981 and is operable at this point. The new legislation, following our close work with the police, works on ways to make things easier and on modern tools and technologies, such as DNA sampling, to ensure that the police can prosecute the offences. As we have seen, the police will have that power, having had the authorisation of a JP to enter and search a premises in order to take a sample from or, where necessary, seize a dog.

This part of the Bill is designed to make existing powers more operable—easier and better to prosecute, giving the police extra tools to use in the prosecution of their duties. Yes, that is true of many of the powers, including the power to destroy a dog where necessary, although rehoming is also very much on the cards in many cases. Destruction, where that is decided to be necessary, however, is already an option. Such options remain in place, but this part of the Bill will help the police go about the course of their duties.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

That is a helpful explanation, but only up to a point. I am left concluding that the Government seem not to be taking away the existing legislation and necessarily improving it, but adding additional legislation, which creates potential confusion. I understand the need to collect samples or use new technologies—absolutely right—but I am not clear why the destruction orders in particular need to be added to with this extra legislation in the Bill. I am not objecting; please do not—

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I might be able to help. I am trying to find the right clause, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that one of the clauses repeals the 1953 Act. Much of the wording is the same, but the Bill will replace the 1953 Act. The legislation has been put into this Bill. I hope that is clear. While I am on my feet, the other thing I should have said earlier is that we have extended the meaning of “livestock” in the Bill to include species that were not kept routinely in 1953, but now are, such as alpacas.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am grateful. It was clause 41—I am sure we are not expected to commit these things to memory. I was aware of that, but I am still not entirely clear whether all the existing legislation stems from the 1953 Act. In this case, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to pass judgment on that, but I suspect that it may not be, so my continuing concern is that when we look at other things, such as the Dangerous Dogs Acts 1989 and 1991, we will find overlapping and duplication that it might have been a good idea to sort out in general. As a general proposition, the clause provides a framework for dealing with livestock worrying, and we support that.

Clause 32 - Disqualification order upon conviction under section 26 or breach of control order

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause allows the courts to make a disqualification order if a person is convicted of an offence of a dog attacking or worrying livestock, or of breaching a control order imposed by the courts under clause 30. A disqualification order may disqualify the offender from owning dogs, keeping dogs, or both. A person that breaches such an order commits an offence.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

This is becoming a fascinating exchange. What is being done here is the putting in place of a range of measures, whether that is control orders, disqualification orders or destruction orders. A structure—though not necessarily a new one—is being created to deal with that set of issues. Again, I can see nothing wrong with the structure, but how it will interact with others bothers me.

Clause 33 - Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause makes provision for the seizure and disposal—we hope by rehoming, where possible—of dogs in connection with disqualification orders introduced in clause 32. The clause also clarifies the right of appeal in relation to orders made in respect of dogs kept by a person to whom a disqualification order applies, whether or not that person is the owner.

When a court makes a disqualification order, if the person to whom the order applies owns or keeps a dog, the court may order that the dog can be taken away from them. If the owner is not the offender, they may appeal to the Crown court against the order made for the disposal of their dog.

Clause 34 - Termination of disqualification order

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause provides further detail on how the disqualification orders introduced in clause 32 will be put into practice. The clause sets out the rights of the offender to apply for the order to be terminated and explains the rights and responsibilities of the applicant and the court.

Clause 35 - Sections 31 and 33: supplementary

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause provides further detail on how the disqualification and destruction orders will work. A person who fails to comply with the requirement to deliver up a dog as imposed under a disqualification order or a destruction order commits an offence and is liable upon conviction to pay a fine not exceeding level 3. Directions given by the court may specify how a dog is to be disposed of or delegate the decision about this to a person appointed under the order.

Clause 36 - Control, destruction and disqualification orders: appeals

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause ensures that control, destruction and disqualification orders are not acted upon until the offender or dog owner has had the opportunity to appeal and had that appeal determined. The clause lists possible arrangements that the court can authorise, including directions for the dog to be taken into possession. It is an offence not to deliver up a dog subject to arrangements made by the court. Any expenses incurred in relation to the care of the dog can be recovered as a civil debt.

Clause 37 - Crown application

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

This is an interesting clause—

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

Wake up! [Laughter.]

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

If the Committee wants to know a fun fact, the Crown is not bound by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Corgis are not dangerous—well, certainly not under that Act, anyway.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

They are Welsh.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

And they are Welsh—yes, indeed. From Pembrokeshire, not from the Gower.

The clause sets out how part 2 binds the Crown. The Crown should be bound by clauses 26 to 41 on livestock worrying in due respect for the duty to keep dogs under proper control and to mitigate the risk of harming the welfare of livestock. In the interests of national security, powers of entry in this part may be restricted in relation to Crown premises and are restricted in relation to Her Majesty’s private estates.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I found the clause slightly puzzling. I am not entirely sure what it means, as usual. Maybe the Minister will be able to elucidate. I am not sure whether it is referring to land owned by the Crown, although of course Crown premises apply to extraordinary places—I believe some Cambridge colleges are considered to be Crown premises. I am not sure—I could get myself in trouble here, couldn’t I?

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Crown premises are defined as

“premises held, or used, by or on behalf of the Crown.”

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Yes, that helps hugely.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I thought it might.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

There is a serious point here, which is that there seem to be some exceptions being made that relate to certain land, possibly even to certain animals. I am not entirely sure why that is in place. Can the Minister explain?

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

There are two types of corgi. I know one in Pembrokeshire and one in Carmarthenshire.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

You are of course right, Mr Davies.

This part of the Bill is trying to bind the Crown—to ensure the Bill applies to the Crown. As I said in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way, the Crown is not bound by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but this Bill will apply to the Crown, as set out, with the exemption of national security, which I highlighted earlier. I hope that assists the hon. Gentleman.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am grateful to the Minister. That is reassuring. I am thinking about my old college, King’s, and the cows grazing outside it. I certainly would not want to see them being troubled by dogs. Our understanding is that this clause is fine.

Clause 38 - Regulations

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I ask that clause 38 does not stand part of the Bill. New clause 3, in my name, will bring the parliamentary procedures for all regulation-making powers in the Bill into one place.

Clause 39 - Meaning of “worrying livestock”

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 39, page 23, line 9, leave out

“or a pack of hounds”.

This amendment would remove the exemption for working packs of hounds from provisions covering livestock worrying.

We now move on to some of the definitions. As we have already heard, some of the wording has been lifted from the 1953 Act. There are probably some in the Government who wish we were still living in 1953. Looking at the events of last night, some of them still are living in 1953 in my view, but the world has moved on and our amendment reflects that fact.

I know that hunting with dogs is a controversial issue. It is something that I and colleagues on the Opposition Benches have sought to stop over many years. We are pleased that many on the Government Benches have come to that conclusion too. The Conservative manifesto in 2019 was quite clear:

“We will make no changes to the Hunting Act.”

“Good,” we say, but we would like to see that strengthened and the wordings, which have come from legislation from a different era, should reflect the new realities we now live in. The inclusion of hunting dogs in the list in clause 39 is part of that reference back to a different world.

With trail hunting, which is clearly now the only form of acceptable hunting, there is absolutely no need for the trail to be taken close to livestock. If that is happening, we have to ask ourselves why. It should not be happening, so we do not think this exemption is necessary and we would like the phrase taken out. We will press this amendment to a vote.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have carried over the existing language from the 1953 Act relating to assistance and working dogs. I listened to what he and colleagues said on Second Reading about the wording of this section generally, and I am certainly prepared to look at it. I think we need to look again at the language. It might, for example, be simpler to make a general exemption for working dogs while they are being worked, which is the situation in the Scottish legislation that was passed relatively recently. I also believe that “assistance dogs” is the modern terminology for guide dogs, although I would need to look at that further. Of course, assistance dogs, when they are being used, are usually—although perhaps not always—on the lead in any event. I feel that further work needs to be done on the wording, and I am happy to consider that before Third Reading. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am grateful to the Minister. I think that is a sensible compromise, and I am very tempted by her offer, but on something as totemic as this I am afraid that we still have to press the amendment to a vote. What we have before us is what we have before us, and we do not think it should be in the Bill.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 39, page 23, line 12, at beginning insert

“where keeping a dog on a lead of 1.8 metres or less would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog,”.

This amendment would broaden the definition of “at large” dogs, by requiring non-exempt dogs in fields with relevant livestock present to be on a lead to be deemed under control unless keeping the dog on a lead poses a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.

During the evidence sessions on the Bill, much of the debate on this topic came down to whether a dog should be on a lead or not, and we heard many people give their view on that question. As we understand it, the position in the Bill is that it is acceptable for a dog to be in a field with livestock without a lead as long as the owner is aware of its actions and reasonably confident that the dog will return to the person on command. We heard a number of people discussing that, and I think many of us feel that that is not always likely to be the situation. Certainly, the majority of wildlife organisations feel that it is time to make a change here. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross, the Canine and Feline Sector Group and many more have come out in support of a provision that would require dogs to be on leads when in a field that contains livestock.

Ultimately, dogs on leads are not in a position to run off from their owners and attack livestock, so, in my view, keeping them on a lead protects farm animals. That seems fairly straightforward to me. I appreciate that there may be more complexity, but that is the basic proposition. Given the serious financial and mental hardship that livestock worrying has been causing farmers, the need for someone to keep their dog on a lead does not seem to me to be a major sacrifice.

This was probably the issue that came up most in the evidence sessions. So far as I recall, most witnesses wanted dogs to be on a lead, and we agree. We recognise that near cattle, there is a risk to human life should the person with the dog not be able to release it swiftly. However, by my reading—I am willing to be corrected—clause 39(4) defines the relevant livestock for those purposes as

“poultry, enclosed gamebirds or sheep.”

The memo to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is helpful, referring on page 6 to the relevant livestock:

“It covers animals that will respond to being scared by a dog by running and clumping together, which can result in these animals getting trampled and smothered, sometimes leading to fatalities.”

While keeping the dog on a lead may not stop that altogether, I cannot help thinking that it would help.

When preparing for the Bill, Baroness Hayman—who worked on Labour’s 2019 animal welfare manifesto, and who is a guiding light for us—told me that requiring dogs to be kept on leads could, in some instances, result in harm to the dog owner. Most notably, if a dog on a lead attacks a herd of cows, they may decide to protect themselves by attacking the dog. When a dog is off the lead, it can run away fast enough to avoid danger.

I think that the Government have solved the problem. Amendment 89 strikes the right balance between the two issues. It requires dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead in fields where the relevant livestock are present, except in instances where doing so would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.

Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mr Davies. I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge.

Last week, we heard quite a bit of convincing evidence on the need to curtail and clarify the definitions in this regard. Mr Rob Taylor from the police force explained that although the Bill, as worded, might not necessarily cause a problem for the prosecution or investigation of such crimes under the Bill, such clarifications might help public understanding—so that people know, when walking in the countryside where there are livestock in the fields, that they need to keep their dog on a lead.

Furthermore, we heard from both the National Farmers Union and Dr Hazel Wright of the Farmers Union of Wales that such clarifications would perhaps embolden farmers to look at their signage and keep it current. Dr Wright mentioned that, as the law stands, farmers do not always feel encouraged or, indeed, incentivised to keep signage up to date, especially when it pertains to whether livestock are present in a particular field. Her argument was very convincing: if we were to clarify and strengthen the law so that it is clear when a dog needs to be kept on a lead, farmers would react positively and make the effort to keep their signage current and up to date. That would benefit those wishing to enjoy the countryside and be in the interests of farmers.

Representing a rural constituency, I have sadly had to see many photographs of the consequences of a dog attack. If we were able to clarify the law in this regard, it would not only greatly benefit farmers, but improve public understanding. Ultimately, that is the only real way to tackle and reduce instances of dog attacks. I again place on record my support for amendment 89.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

Diolch yn fawr.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Diolch yn fawr. The debate has been useful and thoughtful, and I thank the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Ceredigion for their contributions. I am afraid that we will not accept the amendment, but I have no doubt that the debate will continue in order to find the way to get the balance right.

To avoid committing the “at large” offence, a dog walker would need to be aware of their dog’s actions and ensure it stays in sight. The person must be confident that their dog will come back promptly on command. It is not enough for the dog walker to merely think that their dog will come back when called. There are dogs who come back when called—not ones that have ever been members of my family, but I do know of such dogs—but for the rest of us, I would refer us very firmly to the recently refreshed countryside code. That document, which advises dog owners on how to walk their dogs responsibly, is worth a google when Members are out of Committee.

That document is supported by a public awareness campaign, which we tried to ramp up during lockdown because we found that there were many new dog owners who needed to be told very firmly that unless their dog was really under control, it needed to be on a lead. In the majority of cases, of course, if a person’s dog is not under control, they would be caught under the chasing offences in the Bill that we have just discussed, so it is very rare that this particular “at large” offence will be needed. I also remind the Committee once more that two thirds of livestock worrying attacks are by unaccompanied dogs, who are clearly not on leads because they do not have an owner with them. Their owners would be caught by the “at large” offence, but we do not think it is sensible and proportionate to catch responsible dog owners whose dogs are not on a lead and are not at risk of worrying livestock.

We will continue to work to raise public awareness. The countryside code is quite clear that owners should keep their dog under effective control,

“always keep your dog on a lead or in sight”,

“be confident your dog will return on command”,

and, on open access land and at the coast, owners must put their dog on a lead during periods of the year that are effectively lambing season. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I thought that the evidence we were given was pretty overwhelming. I think the concern that a number of people have expressed to us about the potential danger with cattle has been dealt with by the Government themselves in their definition of relevant livestock. I was grateful for the hon. Member for Ceredigion’s expertise and knowledge, and his point about the signage—which was strongly made in the evidence session—was well made.

I suggest to the Minister that people of my generation, and possibly hers, grew up with many of the promotions about the countryside code and so on. It was drummed into people, but I am not convinced that younger generations have got that message in quite the same way. Sometimes, when I see accounts of some offences by younger people, I am struck by the fact that what would seem obvious to me does not seem obvious to them. One of the most difficult things for a person to do is to put themselves in other people’s shoes. Particularly during lockdown, people went out with dogs for the first time, and we know that on a whole range of issues—not just livestock worrying—people behaved in ways that were challenging to many of the authorities.

Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

In support of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, one of the most surprising aspects of lockdown was how few people understood that they needed to close gates, which can cause a whole host of issues, both for the farmer and for the local communities that find a herd of cows or a flock of sheep going down the road. Those of us who are well versed in the countryside perhaps have a higher sensitivity to things such as the countryside code, but the younger generation and also, perhaps, those visiting or enjoying the countryside for the first time would respond with a very bemused expression if the countryside code was ever raised with them.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Listening to his comments, I realise that I am in danger of stigmatising younger people. I do not think it is their fault at all. It is partly because we have moved away from some of the public health and public information campaigns that we used to have.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I absolutely understand the tenor of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Precisely for that reason, I refer him to the new and refreshed countryside code that was put out by Natural England during the last pandemic period. It is genuinely done in a way that is accessible and fresh for a new audience, so I politely suggest that members of the Committee have a good look at it and promote it wherever possible.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I gently reflect that, in the modern information age, that is sometimes more challenging for those of us who grew up on a diet of three channels on black and white TV. I am sorry to give away my age. However, you could not get away from a lot of the public information messages. In the modern world, there is far more. It is just my sense that there are a lot of people who have come into the countryside—and that is good; we want people to come and understand—but they do not necessarily understand. The message has to be simple and very clear.

Neil Hudson (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

We are reaching a degree of consensus about this, in terms of the importance of education. Like the hon. Member for Ceredigion, I represent a rural constituency and we have had a lot of access to the countryside during the pandemic.

I take on board the Minister’s comments about the new countryside code. We have a spirit of agreement across the Committee and we encourage the Government, the Department for Education and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advocate the countryside code going into schools. That way, it becomes part of the education process for the next generation so that people appreciate the countryside, appreciate how and where food is produced and how to be respectful of that countryside that we all enjoy. We are in agreement and we just need to get the message out there, into schools and into the education system.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Everyone would agree with all that, but that is for the future. We are dealing with a generation now. It is not just a generational issue, but groups of people are going into the countryside who are either not cognisant of those recommendations, or just not behaving very well, frankly. I am afraid there are people who do not. That is why we think a simple measure like this one would help alleviate the problems that people in the countryside face. We think that the amendment is important and quite straightforward, and on that basis, we will put it to a vote.

James Grundy (Conservative, Leigh)

I declare my interest as I did before: I live on a working family farm. Some people might be surprised to learn that Leigh is a county constituency and it has large rural parts. The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, in which it sits, is also rural.

I have seen the aftermath of a dog attack on sheep. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, it is grim. I have immense sympathy on the issue, but believe the amendment as worded may prove to be a blunt instrument. However, I hope that, by the time we take the Bill to the next stage, the Minister will have some reassurance for those of us who have firm concerns on this issue and believe that dogs should be on a lead around sheep, poultry and other animals that would be at risk if they were let off the leash, given the terrible consequences that can happen when dogs become out of control in those circumstances.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I am sure the Minister has heard the strong words from her own side.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who set out well why we think the amendment is necessary. I want to pick up on something the Minister said. The confidence people have around being in control of their dogs is interesting and has definitely taken hold of some internet memes. Dare I say the word “Fenton”? I wanted to have more understanding of that element. I take the point that two thirds of dogs are unattended. However, the amendment is important because in that third of cases in which they are with their owner, should we not push for as much control as possible over an animal in the presence of the relevant livestock?

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I remind the hon. Lady that it is not enough for the dog walker merely to think their dog will come back when called. The dog must actually come back when called.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause defines exactly what constitutes worrying livestock and sets out the exemptions.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Without re-rehearsing the previous discussion, we would have liked the clause to be strengthened, but our amendment has been rejected, so let us go forward.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

Order. I am suspending the Committee for six minutes for a comfort break. We will have a new batch of clauses to go through when we return.

Clause 40 - General interpretation

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 40, page 23, line 32, at end insert—

“‘enclosed deer’ means any deer so long as they are being kept for business purposes on land enclosed by a barrier intended to prevent their escape;”

This amendment and related Amendment 42 are drafting changes.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 38 to 42, and 44 and 45

Amendment 88, in clause 42, page 25, line 17, at end insert—

“(f) adult poultry.”

This amendment would add adult poultry to the list of livestock species that may not be exported for slaughter.

Amendment 87, in clause 42, page 25, line 17, at end insert—

“(7A) An appropriate national authority may by regulations extend the definition of ‘relevant livestock’ in subsection (7).”

This amendment would enable an appropriate national authority to extend the list of the livestock species that may not be exported for slaughter.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Government amendments 37 to 42 make minor and technical drafting changes to the definition of “livestock” that applies in part 2 of the Bill. The definition is intended to cover the types of animals that are kept in agricultural settings and may be vulnerable to attacks from dogs.

I do not believe that amendments 87 and 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, are necessary. The definition of “relevant livestock” in clause 42 is drafted to cover all species that might be exported for slaughter or fattening. I have tabled Government amendments 40 and 41 to clarify that definition further.

We carried out a wide-ranging consultation on banning live exports and received no evidence at all that a ban on poultry was necessary. There are no exports of poultry for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU. Poultry exports are either for breeding or other purposes not covered by the ban, such as exhibition. There have been no such exports of poultry for several years.

There are significant exports from Great Britain to the EU of day-old chicks, however, which are transported for breeding. Those movements do not generate major welfare concerns. The chicks are transported in high-welfare conditions, with a yolk sac or the equivalent gel for them to receive nourishment during the course of their journey. We have looked at this matter extensively and do not have welfare worries about the transportation of day-old chicks.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I hear what the Minister says, and we appreciate that there are no exports at the moment, but we do not quite see why the Government would not want to cover the export of adult poultry or give themselves the potential to change things in the future, which amendment 88 would allow them to do.

Looking back at our discussions on previous clauses, it is quite clear that the Government want—sensibly, in my view—to future-proof the legislation and give themselves and future Governments the opportunity to amend legislation. In fact, the delegated powers memorandum repeatedly makes the point that one of the problems with past legislation is that it has not been able to keep up with changing circumstances. In the modern world, given the uncertainties around our trading relationships, it is really hard to know how trading patterns will develop.

It is curious that we would not want to include adult poultry, which are just as capable as other animals of suffering poor health and welfare caused by long-distance transportation. I have been advised that a 2017 paper by Wageningen University & Research studied the transportation of live poultry for slaughter. It found that:

“During the transport, birds with broken bones suffer from pain, are not able to stand up and reach water supply, are stepped upon by other birds, and are prone to die”.

Clearly, that is the transport of adult poultry rather than export, but we cannot necessarily conclude that there will be no such trade in future. We have tabled amendment 88 because we cannot see why the Government would not want to include adult poultry. The Minister says that is not needed, but I cannot see why we would not include it when we have the opportunity.

In the future, science may well develop in such a way to show that a number of other species suffer from these problems in transport. Amendment 87 would give the Government the opportunity to future-proof legislation in a way I have suggested. However, these are essentially probing amendments and we will not push them to a vote.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I think I have made my point, which is that there are, in fact, no poultry exports. In many ways it would be lovely if the Government could take all powers on to themselves for evermore, but I fear when we overreach in legislation. The fact that there have been no poultry exports for several years makes me feel that we should not take powers when we do not need them.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The clause sets out the definitions for terms used in part 2. They include definitions for agricultural land and livestock. The clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend, through regulations, the definition of livestock for part 2 where that might be necessary.

Clause 41 - Repeal of the 1953 Act in England and Wales

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

This clause repeals the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 in respect of England and Wales. The 1953 Act is replaced by clauses 26 to 40. Much of that Act, as we heard earlier, has been copied over into the new clauses where appropriate.

Clause 42 - Prohibition of export of livestock for slaughter etc

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 42, page 25, line 7, leave out “3 months” and insert “6 months”

This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment for an offence under this clause committed in Scotland from 3 months to 6 months.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 46 and 53.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

These are minor and technical amendments to clauses 42, 43 and 46, which relate to the prohibition on the export of relevant livestock for slaughter and the power relating to the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets.

Amendment 43 increases the maximum term of imprisonment in Scotland for a contravention of the prohibition on live exports from three months to six months. This change was requested by the Scottish Government and will bring the penalties in line with the penalty that will be available in England and Wales.

Amendments 46 and 53 clarify the regulation-making powers in clauses 43 and 46. They will allow regulations enforcing the prohibition on the export of livestock for slaughter, and regulations prohibiting or restricting the importation of dogs, cats or ferrets on welfare grounds, to provide that summary sheriffs as well as sheriffs and justices of the peace in Scotland can issue warrants to authorise entry into private dwellings.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Clause 42 is essential for ending unnecessary journeys of livestock and horses for slaughter and fattening, and for improving the welfare of those animals. The clause also removes provisions from the Animal Health Act 1981 in relation to the export of horses. The provisions were originally intended to prevent the export from Great Britain of low-value horses and ponies for slaughter on the continent.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I think we all welcome the end of exports of livestock for slaughter and fattening for slaughter. It has clearly rightly exercised many of our fellow citizens over many years. The numbers have of course declined, but there are still too many. This is an excellent opportunity to do something and we strongly support this part of the Bill. Excessive journey times in the shipment of live animals cause significant welfare harms, including the deprivation of food and water, lack of rest, extremes of temperature and humidity, handling by humans, exposure to novel environments, overcrowding, insufficient headroom and noise. There is still sadly the danger of animals being exported to countries where they are slaughtered in situations with standards that are significantly lower than the standards that apply in the UK. Consequently, the Government’s decision to bring this provision forward is welcome.

We thought that there should have been some additional provisions, and we have already had that discussion. There is more to be done and we are slightly worried— this has been pointed out by the British Veterinary Association—that the focus on exports has perhaps missed the point that the real issue is the length of the journey. I know that the Government are bringing forward measures for consultation to look at that, but that gives me the opportunity to point out—I suspect the Government would strongly agree—that there is a dearth of local abattoirs in this country. Animals are regularly required to travel longer distances to slaughter than many of us would like. That can cause significant harm.

We very much hope that the Minister will look at how best we can tackle that problem by re-establishing a local network of slaughterhouses in this country. On my summer tour around the country, which I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for helping me to secure, I was struck by the number of times that this point was raised. Many farmers across the country would like to find a way of returning to mixed farming, but the lack of a local abattoir is a major disincentive to that. I had exactly this conversation with a former colleague of the hon. Member for Keighley who made the point strongly to me. I suspect that many others have had exactly the same conversation. It is not an easy problem to solve, but it is pretty clear that it will need some sort of Government intervention. We would certainly do that, and I encourage the Government to do so in the meantime.

On that basis, we are delighted to support the prohibition of the export of livestock for slaughter.

Clause 43 - Power to make provision in connection with the enforcement of section 42

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Clause 43 provides us with the ability to introduce regulations to implement and enforce the ban on the export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. Powers of entry, inspection, search, seizure and/or detention will enable us fully to investigate any potential breaches.

Clause 44 - Powers to amend or revoke retained direct EU legislation

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 44, page 27, line 15, at end insert—

“(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””

This amendment enables regulations under section 12(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to amend or revoke instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (implementation of EU obligations etc).

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 48 to 50.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

The amendments make changes to powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and to powers to make regulations under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. As we have heard, both Acts provide powers to promote animal welfare and introduce licensing and registration schemes for the keeping of animals. The amendments allow us to amend or revoke retained direct EU legislation or secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

Previously, the UK shared competence with the EU to make legislation relating to animal welfare. The EU made a number of regulations on welfare matters that now form part of our statute book. The amendments will ensure that we can amend or revoke those regulations when we introduce our reforms. The enforcement of EU law was implemented through the power in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Act was repealed following our departure from the EU, so it cannot now be used to amend or revoke regulations under that power. I should remind the Committee that animal welfare is a devolved matter, and the amendments will enable Scottish and Welsh Ministers to do likewise when exercising their own powers under the 2006 Acts.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Clause 44 provides us with an important power. Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and section 26 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 enable the UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments to make regulations that promote the welfare of animals. The clause amends those sections, giving us the ability to amend or revoke any retained direct EU legislation and to replace it with new regulations that promote animal welfare. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Reduction in limit on non-commercial movement of pets

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 45, page 27, line 29, leave out “five” and insert “three”.

This amendment would restrict the maximum number of dogs, cats and ferrets that may enter Great Britain in a non-commercial motor vehicle to three.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 51.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

This is my first Bill Committee as a Front-Bench spokesperson, so I am excited to be here. As a dog lover, this is an issue that is close to my heart. My two rescue dogs are the pride and joy of my life, and I know that many dog owners feel the same.

The amendment is very important. Clause 45 is about puppy smuggling, which we know is a lucrative business. In 2015, the Dogs Trust set up its puppy pilot project to offer support to puppies that have been illegally imported. The organisation calculates the total market value of the puppies that it has helped to be more than £2 million. However, this is not just about puppies, as the clause also covers cats and ferrets. They are in high demand, especially kittens, which provides a huge incentive for illegally importing them.

One way that animal smugglers avoid the authorities is by posing as legitimate owners of the animals as they cross a border. Currently, clause 45 proposes to crack down on this practice by limiting the number of animals that can be transported in a non-commercial vehicle to five, but we are concerned that it does not go far enough. The Government could make the law much stronger and more resistant to abuse by smugglers if they were to agree to our amendment.

As we heard in evidence, five seemed a strange number, given that a survey of a quarter of a million dog owners by the Dogs Trust found that 97.7% of respondents have three dogs or fewer. Others have estimated that around three quarters of dog owners have only one dog; roughly a fifth—18.9%—have two; and only 4% have three, so our amendment to reduce the number from five to three should be considered. Only a tiny fraction of dog owners have more animals than that. The idea that they would regularly travel across borders is a bit strange, given how five animals would fit in one vehicle. Strengthening the law would make it much harder and far less lucrative for puppy and animal smugglers involved in this cruel practice to operate. We should seize the moment that the Bill affords. I hope that the Minister will agree to our amendment today.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

Are there any other contributions? I know that members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have considered the issue.

Neil Hudson (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

rose—

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

Get on your hind legs.

Neil Hudson (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and as a veterinary surgeon. Opposition Members will probably be relieved that I rise in strong support of what they say. We need an evidence-based response, and the evidence that we on the EFRA Committee took from the Dogs Trust during our inquiry was powerful. I refer Members to our report on the movement of animals across borders, where we looked at a lot of the issues, from farm animals and horses to pets and so on. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam has said, the research suggests that 97.7% of owners have three dogs or fewer, so if we changed from five to three it would strengthen the legislation and make it a significant deterrent to the unscrupulous people who try to exploit loopholes in the law.

We took evidence from the British Veterinary Association as well. The Government could put in exemptions for people who are permanently relocating—they could apply for a special dispensation—but moving from five to three would strengthen the law.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

I welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to her first Committee. I am afraid I am going to resist the amendment while speaking to Government amendment 51. I appreciate the concerns raised about the number of pets that can be moved in a single non-commercial movement. I want to assure hon. Members that we completed extensive engagement with relevant groups, including authorised pet checkers, carriers, animal welfare organisations and veterinary bodies to determine a suitable limit. The aim was to strike a balance between disrupting the illegal trade, which we all want to do, while minimising the impact of genuine owners travelling with their pets—cats, dogs and ferrets. It is already a large change for a traveller to go from five pets per passenger to five per vehicle.

However, we have heard the arguments from across the House, and we would be willing to look at any further evidence that shows genuine pet owners would not be unduly impacted by a decrease to three pets per vehicle. I am particularly concerned about two pet owners travelling together with two dogs each, for example, but I am willing to look at evidence that hon. Members wish to send in, or to discuss it. If we decide to make the change at a later date, we could use the enabling power in clause 46, which allows us to make regulations on the importation of relevant animals on welfare grounds. In these circumstances, I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 51, in my name, simply ensures that consequential amendments are made in relation to the relevant Welsh regulations, as they are for Scotland and England.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

I must say that I am disappointed. I will press the amendment to a vote because we think that the evidence was quite powerful. As was said, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have considered the question in a lot of detail and believe that this is the right way to go. I take the Minister’s point about people travelling together, but a balance must be struck between what could be seen as a loophole and a way of allowing this practice to continue, especially when we know how many puppies can come from one dog. There are large concerns around the issue and that this would remain as a potential loophole to allow puppy smuggling. I would ask the Minister to reflect again, but we will press the amendment to a vote.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

We will have to suspend for two minutes to consider this.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

Bad news. I have the casting vote, but I have an obligation not to vote in favour of an amendment that changes the Bill, even though I am on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—Neil, I love you. I will have to vote against the amendment, because I am obliged, as Chair, to do so. Unfortunately, the amendment falls.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Thank you for your casting vote, Mr Davies. I would like to reiterate that we will continue to look at any evidence, and I am very happy to meet colleagues to discuss further. This is clearly an issue on which there are genuine differences of opinion.

Clause 45 limits the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that may be moved into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement. There is evidence, as we all know, that commercial importers abuse our non-commercial pet travel rules to bring in lots of puppies at once for sale. The welfare of these puppies, as we have heard many times and as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee reminded us, is frequently compromised. The clause will help to prevent the misuse of these rules. The new limit will be five per vehicle or three per air or foot passenger. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

I thought I had just made history with my first amendment. The Minister has obviously heard from across the House how important the issue is and that it warrants further consideration. I am disappointed that we did not win that vote.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Having moved some hundreds of amendments and never gotten that close, I am extremely jealous. Would my hon. Friend agree that the vote we have seen this afternoon reflects that there are many others in the House who will come to a similar conclusion, and that it would be sensible for the Government to move sooner rather than later on their position?

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On Second Reading we heard many concerns from colleagues across the House. I ask the Minister to look again as quickly as possible to come up with a conclusion. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Clause 46 - Powers relating to importation of certain dogs, cats and ferrets

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 46, page 28, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the banning or restriction of importation of relevant animals which are below a specific age, have been mutilated or are below a specified number of days pregnant.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 46, page 28, line 23, after “age” insert—

“, with six months being the minimum age”.

This amendment would ban the importation into Great Britain of dogs, cats and ferrets aged six months or less.

Amendment 118, in clause 46, page 28, line 25, after “pregnant” insert—

“, with 42 days being the maximum length of pregnancy for cats and dogs”.

This amendment would prohibit the importation of heavily pregnant cats and dogs.

Government amendment 52.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

The Bill is a bit of a mixed bag of random measures, but it offers an opportunity to speed up the approach to animal welfare. Amendment 117 is a policy of Labour’s animal welfare manifesto. It is frustrating that the Bill has been half-hearted in its approach. I am afraid that we will be seeing procrastination on the issue even now. Although I welcome the steps in the right direction, the Government could go a lot further, which our amendment seeks to do. We want to see it in the Bill.

Having a firm commitment in the primary legislation is important in order to get to grips with the cruelty inflicted on not only very young and pregnant animals but animals that have been mutilated by their owners. Rather than saying that the Government “may” prohibit or restrict the importation of animals below a specified age that have been mutilated, or that are a certain number of days pregnant, the legislation should say “must”. I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House agrees on the importance of taking action on that issue, so let us get on with it and ensure that it is in the primary legislation.

The demand for pets such as dogs and cats is booming, and some of the biggest profits have been made on very young animals. The number of young animals that are imported legally continues to grow every year. Often puppies, kittens and others have been bred in horrendous conditions, and face further cruelty as they are transported over borders. They can be subjected to long journeys in cramped conditions, and when they arrive few questions are asked about where they have come from, or how they or their mother and father were treated.

The first aim of amendment 2 is to ensure that young animals that are legally imported and sold in the UK have not been subject to cruel practices such as puppy farming abroad. It also affects the illegal international trade of young animals. More and more we are seeing serious organised criminal groups involved in animal smuggling, generating massive profits through illegal imports. Just as in the legal trade, the biggest money is often made from the very young animals because of the cuteness factor, further incentivising smuggling.

For example, puppy smugglers exploit the fact that it is very difficult to tell just by looking whether a very young puppy is over 15 weeks. One outcome of the amendment would therefore be to aid law enforcers in identifying underage puppies, because it is a lot easier to tell the difference between an underage puppy at six months than at 15 weeks. There is also a much smaller market for animals that are around six months old. That makes it less profitable for smugglers to pass off animals at four or five months, because their market value is far less than that of an animal at around 15 weeks.

The amendment would improve the welfare of extremely young animals to ensure that the UK market is not complicit in animal welfare violations, and would make life harder for smugglers. That is why it is backed by a huge range of stakeholders, and is already law in countries such as the USA, which has a ban on imports of puppies under six months old. I hope that the Government will back that element of the amendments, and write it into the primary legislation.

We have discussed the lucrative smuggling market and some of the methods that are used to illegally import animals into the country. In addition to the forms of deception that we have already dealt with, another way of getting puppies into the country is by importing pregnant bitches that give birth to puppies in the UK. Again, it is a very lucrative market. The approximate total market value of the puppies born to pregnant bitches admitted to the Dogs Trust through its puppy pilot scheme, which I mentioned earlier, is around £400,000.

The practice has obvious detrimental impacts on the wellbeing of both the bitch and the puppies. For that reason, amendment 118 calls for the prohibition of importing heavily pregnant bitches, by which we mean those more than 42 days pregnant. That would enhance the welfare of the animals and crackdown on the activities of smugglers, while acknowledging that sometimes the non-commercial movement of animals in the early stages of pregnancy is unavoidable.

I will talk about some of the new clauses—

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

You are doing a great job.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

Great. I think Members on both sides can agree that the practice of moving pregnant cats and dogs across borders to avoid checks on the welfare of the puppies or kittens is abhorrent. We have already said that it might be unavoidable in some non-commercial circumstances; however, there is no commercial reason to move a pregnant dog or cat across a border, subjecting it to a long and arduous journey that will, in all likelihood, have a negative impact on its wellbeing and welfare. New clause 14 therefore seeks to end the commercial importation of pregnant cats and dogs. There is no justification for it; the loophole in the law is just being utilised by unscrupulous illegal importers.

People have now got wise to illegal puppy imports and are insisting on seeing the mother of the puppy. That is one of the simple steps that the many people who are seeking to own a puppy can undertake. Unfortunately, that has led to the importation of pregnant bitches to ensure that prospective buyers can see the mother before they buy. It is really quite sad, because the bitch is then returned to her country of origin to breed again. This puppy farm on wheels is a horrific situation for the dogs involved. This new clause would end the practice—a move that we would support fully.

I hope that new clause 18 will be welcomed. It should be uncontroversial; the practices outlined in it are undoubtedly cruel. This new clause seeks to ban the importation of dogs and cats that have been subjected to fashion-based mutilations, such as cropped ears, docked tails and declawed paws. Despite being illegal in the UK, those cruel practices are still carried out in other parts of the world. However, it is currently legal to import a dog that has been abused in that way. That is clearly wrong. It impacts on the wellbeing of animals domestically and can act as a smokescreen for those who illegally mutilate animals in the UK. Unfortunately, we are seeing those kinds of mutilations more regularly. For example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that calls about ear cropping have risen by 621% since 2015, which is absolutely horrifying. Sadly, it is also the case that fashion mutilations often go hand in hand with other kinds of animal abuse and form part of a pattern of mistreatment. The new clause would stop dog and cat imports fuelling animal abuse internationally and would make it harder for anyone to abuse domestically.

To put it simply, we also support objectives to reintroduce tick treatment and for all dogs and cats to have rabies blood tests prior to being imported, as covered in new clause 24.

Neil Hudson (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I rise in support of what the hon. Lady has said, and again I refer hon. Members back to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report entitled “Moving animals across borders”. We on that Committee took significant amounts of evidence, and we saw some of that last week on the Bill Committee as well. I understand what the Government are doing with the Bill, and I very much support the Bill and the Government’s wanting to get things on the statute book quickly and then have the powers in secondary legislation to tweak and amend things as we go further on. I firmly believe, when it comes to the health and welfare of animals, that we can crack on and do things. We have left the European Union.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made the point about tick treatment. That was stopped in 2014. We have the power to reintroduce that treatment of animals before they come into the country, and that will protect those animals travelling and protect the animals in this country as well. The concept of pre-import screening and checking of animals, before they come into the country, has huge implications for the health and welfare of those animals and animals in this country and also, indirectly, people in this country. As we have seen—we have also taken evidence on this—there are diseases potentially coming in that have zoonotic potential. I am thinking of things such as canine brucellosis. Animals being imported from countries such as Romania and Macedonia are potentially coming in with a disease that can be transmitted to people.

I urge the Government to act on this. I have been submitting written questions, as the Minister well knows. She mentioned the other day that I am quite repetitive on it. I will keep banging on about it. As I said, I have been submitting written questions, and there are no plans to make changes. I really encourage the Government to crack on and do this to protect the animals coming in and protect the animals in this country.

I firmly support the suggestion in the amendment to specify six months in the Bill. Another issue is stipulating what we mean by “heavily pregnant” animals. At the moment, bringing in animals is illegal in the last 10% of gestation; Dogs Trust, for instance, has suggested that we could extend that to the last 30% of gestation. I think that we are all agreed on mutilations, and as I said on Second Reading and many other times in this House. Animal welfare unites us in humanity, and we abhor some of these procedures carried out in other parts of the world, such as the ear-cropping of dogs and the removal of cats’ claws, and are stipulating that those procedures are not acceptable in this country or for animals brought into this country for sale. I very much support that.

Again, I agree with the points about pre-import checks. The rabies titre test and introducing the wait time post-rabies vaccination will be a great help in terms of that pausing and that period to allow the animals to get older, as well. If we not only put “six months” in the Bill but reintroduce the rabies stipulations, the dogs and other animals coming in will potentially be older than the animals coming in now.

We received harrowing evidence on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I strongly encourage the Government to look at this issue closely. I think that we are all agreed about what we want to try to do, although we may differ on how we would do it. Nevertheless, there is the scope in this Bill to do some good stuff for the health and welfare of both animals and people.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I was tempted to push for a vote just now, but we can continue our discussion.

There is plenty to discuss, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam for moving the amendment and then speaking to the group so forcefully and powerfully. However, I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who speaks on the basis of huge knowledge. I think that what he is saying—he said it on Second Reading, as did others from across the House—is that there is acknowledgement of the widespread public interest in and concern about these issues. While I can understand from a kind of technical point of view why the Government might want to do this thing through regulation, the politics of it are very clear: people expect this to be done now. We are giving the Government the opportunity to do it now through these amendments. I have lost count of the number of Government Members who raised these issues, so the Government ought to be able to see what is coming. It is a question of how to deal with this matter in as graceful a manner as possible because, frankly, I do not think there is any dispute about it.

When we consider some of these practices, many of us find them extraordinary. Why would anyone declaw a cat? I do not think that anyone here could possibly imagine why anyone would do that.

One of the issues that we will come back to in some of the later debates is that there has been a lot of emphasis on puppy smuggling—rightly so. However, there is a slight sense on the part of organisations representing cats that there is a danger that those who seek to gain a commercial benefit out of these awful practices will just shift to other practices. I know there is some debate about how likely that is. Nevertheless, we should be mindful of the fact that many of our constituents are looking at this Committee closely and will want to know why we are not being as robust as we could be to guard against all these eventualities.

I do not have the expertise on this issue that some other members of the Committee do, but when I listen to the accounts and to the arguments being put, I find it hard to imagine why we would not want to introduce all the things we are discussing into the Bill as speedily as possible.

We will pursue this matter relentlessly, through every opportunity open to us, because we think that is where the majority of feeling in the House is, so the Government would, as I say, be sensible to move as swiftly as possible. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, because I cannot see any reason not to do this thing as swiftly as we can.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Swansea West)

Swiftly to the Minister.

Victoria Prentis (Conservative, Banbury)

Neatly done, Mr Davies.

I agree—indeed, it is clear—that there is a great deal of consensus across the House on our manifesto commitment to crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies. Where we differ slightly is how to bring that crackdown about. I want to reassure all Members that I am absolutely committed to bringing in further restrictions in regulations.

One of the reasons we are using regulations is to enable Government to act in a way that is relatively nimble. What we have found is that after we restricted the import of puppies, the criminals started to import pregnant bitches instead.

What we need to do is to remain one step ahead of the criminals. We feel that the best and speediest way to do that is through secondary legislation. There is absolutely nothing half-hearted about our determination to crack down on illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies. I am determined to do that in a fair way, but as quickly as we possibly can.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.