Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies Langholm Moor Demonstration Project’s findings that when snares and other predator control methods are used, curlew numbers increased on average by 10 per cent per annum.
Answered by Trudy Harrison
The management of predators, such as foxes and carrion crows, plays an important role in supporting the recovery of some of our most vulnerable species, particularly ground nesting birds including the curlew.
We have recently published an update on environmental land management schemes which confirms that we are exploring how actions to do with managing predatory species - when those species are impacting threatened species recovery - will be made available.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust's findings in the document entitled A future for curlew that the curlew population declined by 17 per cent. per year without legal predator control and increased by 14 per cent. per year with legal predator control.
Answered by Trudy Harrison
The management of predators, such as foxes and carrion crows, plays an important role in supporting the recovery of some of our most vulnerable species, particularly ground nesting birds including the curlew.
We have recently published an update on environmental land management schemes which confirms that we are exploring how actions to do with managing predatory species - when those species are impacting threatened species recovery - will be made available.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if he will publish the outcomes of his recent review of environmental land management schemes.
Answered by Mark Spencer - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
We remain committed to our environmental land management schemes and are looking at how best to deliver the schemes to see where and how improvements can be made. We will continue to work closely with the sector in developing the schemes and publish more information by the end of the year.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 30 September 2022 to Question 53520 on Animal Welfare: Electric Shock, what comparative assessment he has made of the power of electric (a) livestock fences and (b) training collars; and on what basis his Department concluded that electric livestock fences only produce slight discomfort for the animals which touch them.
Answered by Scott Mann - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
The proposed ban on the use of electric shock collars controlled by hand-held devices was developed after considering a broad range of factors, including the potential impacts of such a ban. HM Government considered academic research, public consultation responses, and direct engagement with the sector and concluded that these devices present an unacceptable risk to the welfare of dogs and cats and that their use should not be permitted.
The Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock states, users of electric fences should ensure that they are designed, constructed, used and maintained properly, so that when animals touch them, they only feel slight discomfort. As stated in our answer to Question 53520, anyone causing unnecessary suffering as a result of a poorly installed electric fence may be prosecuted under relevant animal welfare legislation.
In addition, please note that the statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs includes guidance and reminders for owners about their responsibilities to provide for the welfare needs of their animal, but also to keep their dogs safe and under control. The code of practice is available here:
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the welfare implications for dogs which (a) touch a livestock fence delivering 15,000 mJ of electricity and (b) are startled with an electronic collar delivering 5 mJ of electricity.
Answered by Scott Mann - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
Defra’s "Action Plan for Animal Welfare" demonstrates our commitment to a brighter future for animals both at home and abroad. Electric fences used to deter animals from crossing a boundary and which deliver a shock directly to the body are different to e-collars. The use of electric fences in agricultural settings is subject to statutory guidance which requires anyone installing an electric fence to ensure that it is designed, constructed, used and maintained properly, so that when the animals touch it they only feel slight discomfort. Installers and users should also comply with any relevant local regulations and ensure that their responsibilities under other relevant legislation, including the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974, are properly discharged.
Animals are protected from suffering as a result of poorly maintained or installed electric fences by animal welfare laws, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it is an offence to cause an animal unnecessary suffering. Anyone who is cruel to an animal may face an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to five years, or both.
The Defra commissioned research into the effects of e-collars was robust and showed that e-collars have a negative impact on the welfare of some dogs. The research showed that many users of the handheld devices were not using them properly in compliance with the manufacturers’ instructions. As well as being misused to inflict unnecessary harm, there is also concern that e-collars can redirect aggression or generate anxiety-based behaviour in pets, making underlying behavioural and health problems worse.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 25 May to Question 3747, on what date did his officials become aware that academics his Department commissioned to research electronic training collars for dogs had previously made representations to the Department to ban them.
Answered by Victoria Prentis - Attorney General
I refer the hon. Member back to my answer of 25 May to PQ 3747. In particular, the Government is satisfied that the processes for tendering and considering bids, relating to the research on e-collars in 2007, were conducted in accordance with the rules on government procurement exercises. The Government is also satisfied that the resultant peer-reviewed Defra-commissioned research carried out between 2007 and 2010 is robust.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 18 May to Question 1492 on Livestock and Wildlife: Dogs, whether he has made an assessment of the potential difficulties of introducing dogs gradually and positively to (a) sheep and (b) deer using reward-based training methods.
Answered by Victoria Prentis - Attorney General
Defra understands that the right approach for pet owners to take in managing and controlling their dog’s behaviour differs from both person to person and from pet to pet. Consequently the department has not undertaken a specific assessment of the potential difficulties of gradually introducing dogs to livestock but instead, and as stated in answer to Question 1492, advises owners who are concerned about controlling their dog’s behaviour, for whatever reason, to take advice from their vet or a suitably qualified dog behaviourist or trainer. Such specialists would be best positioned to advise on the best approach for their specific case and can be located through The Animal Behaviour and Training Council which can be found at: https://abtc.org.uk/practitioners/.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of a ban on electronic training collars on the number of dog attacks each year on (a) deer and (b) birds.
Answered by Victoria Prentis - Attorney General
The Government has considered evidence from Defra-funded research, the results of a public consultation, and information from other relevant sources to inform its policy on the use of electric shock collars for the control of dogs.
The proposed ban on the use of electric shock collars was developed after considering a broad range of factors, including the effects of such a ban. When considered alongside the academic research, the public consultation responses, and direct engagement with the sector, the Government concluded that electric shock collars present a risk to the welfare of dogs and cats and that their use should not be permitted.
Defra’s statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs and Natural England’s refreshed version of the Countryside Code apply to handling dogs in the vicinity of livestock and outline the actions that can be taken by dog owners to reduce the occurrence of attacks or chasing.
The livestock worrying measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which is currently before Parliament, introduce further protections including in relation to enclosed deer and enclosed birds, including poultry and game birds.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if his Department will make an assessment of the number of academics that his Department commissioned to research the training of dogs with e-collars who had previously campaigned for an e-collar ban by (a) writing to the Department (b) signing a petition.
Answered by Victoria Prentis - Attorney General
The concerns that e-collars can cause harm have been made by a number of trainers and behaviourists, the animal welfare sector and dog keeping organisations. In light of these concerns Defra commissioned a research study.
The Government is satisfied that the processes for tendering and considering bids, relating to the research on e-collars in 2007, were conducted in accordance with the rules on government procurement exercises. The Government is also satisfied that the resultant peer-reviewed Defra-commissioned research carried out between 2007 and 2010 is robust.
Data from the research was published separately in two different reputable scientific journals, which required additional independent peer review exercises involving scrutiny from experts in the same field prior to publication. This gives the Government further confidence that the results are robust.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Buckingham)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of Natural England’s progress in reviewing the consents for the release of gamebirds (a) on Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation and (b) within a 500 metre buffer zone of those sites.
Answered by Rebecca Pow - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Natural England are in the process of reviewing the historical SSSI consents issued under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, that relate to Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation.
Natural England’s SSSI consenting regime provided by section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 only extends to land which is designated under this provision; it does not extend to the adjacent 500-metre buffer zone around the site.