Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 18 May 2004
[Mr. Kevin Hughes in the Chair]
Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) (Amendment) Order 2004
9.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) (Amendment) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004, No. 828).
It might speed up proceedings if I said a few words about what the statutory instrument does, because there may be some misunderstanding about that in the Committee. The order brings into force, in advance, two elements of new EU regulations that we expect to come into force in the autumn. First, it ends the requirement under the pet travel scheme for cats and dogs to be brought into the country in sealed containers. That change has been widely welcomed by all organisations representing people who use assistance dogs, not least the Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. The only other thing that that statutory instrument does is end the requirement for animals to be brought to the United Kingdom directly, not via a third country in the EU. The requirements placed on animals arriving in the United Kingdom in order to safeguard our rabies-free status are still in place. The statutory instrument does nothing else.
9.56 am
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I thank the Minister for his admirably brief introduction. I crave the indulgence of the Committee, because I fear that I cannot be as brief as he was. I am sure that your chairmanship is welcome to both of us, Mr. Hughes.
The Minister is right to say that the statutory instrument is relatively straightforward, although the explanatory notes certainly do not make it plain that it is the result of an unsuspected EU directive, which is to come in the autumn. Had the notes made that plain, we might have thought it better to wait until the directive came in and to consider then how it should apply in the UK, but that is a matter of detail.
We have prayed against this statutory instrument, but not necessarily because we are opposed to it on principle. Indeed, there are elements of it that we very much support, and it would be quite wrong to think that we were opposed to the detail. We prayed against it for two reasons. The first was because that was the only way that we could have a debate on the issues, which is worth doing as these are important subjects, worthy of consideration. Secondly, the way in which the pet travel scheme—for which I campaigned for
Column Number: 4
many years, and which I fully supported—is expanding, little by little, is worthy of examination. We in this country are proud of the fact that we have had rabies-free status for so many years. One can imagine the pet travel scheme becoming wider and wider by imperceptible degrees, and the certainty of that rabies-free status therefore being chipped away, little by little.
I make that point particularly with regard to the representations that we have received from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People and other organisations for assistance dogs. They have properly and sensibly made the point that, in some parts of the world, particularly Australia, it is perfectly legitimate for guide dogs for the blind and hearing dogs to be in the cabin with the people whom they are assisting. The statutory instrument will allow that to happen in the UK. That is absolutely to be desired; we are wholly supportive of that.
The work that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and Hearing Dogs for Deaf People do is outstanding. One of the great advantages of the pet passport scheme is that it will allow people who rely on dogs to travel overseas in a way that they might not previously have done. I welcome that use of the pet passport scheme, and the fact that those dogs can now be carried in cabins. We support and endorse that.
I am grateful to, among others, Michael Osborn from Assistance Dogs, who has brought extensive concerns to our notice, and has raised the issue of the importance of assistance dogs being carried with a human partner in the cabin of the aircraft. I am also grateful to Tom Pey, director of policy and development at the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, who has been very assiduous, and to Andrew Cook, deputy chief executive of Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, who brought his very real concerns to our notice. I am happy to reassure them that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition would never have or have had anything other than total support, now or in the past, for the notion of carrying assistance dogs in the cabin. [Interruption.]
The Minister laughs, raises his hands and asks why, if that is the case, we pray against the measure. A moment ago I explained to the Minister precisely why. First, it is important to look at the way in which this statutory instrument applies, and secondly, the way in which the pet travel scheme is expanding little by little is worthy of proper examination. If the Minister does not agree, perhaps that says more about him as a Minister than me as his shadow.
It is important to consider such matters and to praise the work done by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association; he obviously does not. However, I am glad to be able to do such things in public today. [Interruption.] The Minister finds that amusing. Leaving that to one side, the important thing is not that this statutory instrument would allow guide dogs to be carried in the cabin, but that it would allow all dogs, all cats and all pets of any description being brought into the United Kingdom under the pet travel scheme to be carried there.
Column Number: 5
That might raise a variety of consequences, which we should at least examine. We should ask the Government what thought they have given to the possible unintended consequences of what otherwise would have seemed a perfectly good statutory instrument.
For example, we can imagine a situation in which an owner turns up at Heathrow airport—or, more likely, a foreign airport such as Malaga airport—with six dobermans on a leash and says, ''Under this statutory instrument, I require these dobermans to be carried in the cabin. They are properly microchipped and have been in quarantine for six months. All the conditions have been fulfilled, and I want to bring them into the cabin.''
Another situation might involve a plane coming back from a place overseas where many British people live and most passengers having with them a dog or a cat. Under this statutory instrument, that would be perfectly possible. We are not talking about guide dogs or hearing dogs, for which I have the greatest support. I seek reassurance from the Government about whether this may open the doors to the more frequent carriage of dogs, cats and possibly other pets in the cabin of the aircraft.
That is important, and not only from the point of view of the health and security of other passengers. Many people, particularly those with asthma, are allergic to dogs and cats. If there were an unreasonably large population of dogs and cats in the cabin, that might well have consequences for the comfort and security of many other passengers, particularly as we are talking about long-haul, not just short-haul, flights.
A flight from Australia with potentially 20 or 30 dogs in the cabin is not something that all passengers would like. What arrangements are being made for feeding and watering the animals, and for their toilet facilities? That is an important issue on a long-haul flight. What is to be done about the fact that those dogs and cats will have to carry out their natural functions on the plane? Have the Government thought about that? Will areas of the plane be set aside for animals or will they be allowed anywhere where the owner happens to buy their seat? Will other passengers be allowed a preference on whether they sit next to people with dogs?
Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): Putting aside the question of whether the pets might be better behaved than the passengers in some cases, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with the airlines and their representatives. Those are questions for them, not for the Government.
Mr. Gray: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman. Most animals that I know would behave better than their owners on many occasions. However, these are not matters for the airlines; this is a statutory instrument brought in by the Government. It is a Government matter, and the airlines will have to do what the Government say.
Column Number: 6
I look forward to being reassured by the Minister, but I may be right in my guess that I will be able to turn up at an airport with six hunting dogs and say, ''Under this statutory instrument, I am allowed to bring these dogs into the plane, and you, British Airways, are required to let me because Her Majesty's Government have said so''. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and says that that is not right. That is exactly the reassurance that I seek from the Government.
Mr. Bradshaw: I have already counted at least three factual inaccuracies in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He can continue in that vein and embarrass himself further, but I suspect that they derive from a complete misunderstanding and misreading of what this statutory instrument does. I am happy for him to continue and I will keep totting up his mistakes.
Mr. Gray: In the spirit of a sensible discussion about quite a technical matter, rather than treating it in the way that the Minister just has, if there are technical or factual inaccuracies in anything that I am saying, I would be only too happy to be reassured and corrected by him. The reason for calling the debate is in order for him to reassure us and set our worries at rest, and I am merely asking these questions in the hope that he will do so. Perhaps he would like to intervene on me, point out what those technical and factual inaccuracies are and put me at ease.
|
