Westminster Hall

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

Monday 9 January 2023

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: Summary of public engagement by the Petitions Committee on requiring motorists to stop and report collisions with cats, reported to the House on 19 December 2022, HC 73.]

18:19

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 607317, relating to requirements to stop and report road traffic collisions involving cats.

It is indeed a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris. The petition calls for Parliament to amend legislation

“to make it a legal requirement for a driver to stop & report accidents involving cats.”

It has been signed by 102,436 people throughout the UK, with the highest number in Tunbridge Wells. It is often said that Britain is a nation of animal lovers. As I am sure all Members’ inboxes will attest, issues of animal welfare, from the use of animals in research to livestock transport, move people from all walks of life to engage with their representatives.

As a nation, we are particularly attached to our pets. According to the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, around 52% of UK adults own a pet. Our pets play a huge part in our lives and many of us consider our pet another member of the family. Although dogs are the most common pet in the UK, cats are not far behind: one in four households are home to at least one cat. The choice of a cat as a pet is often not understood; non-cat owners may wonder what is to be gained from a pet who operates completely on their own terms. Cat owners will know that that is just one part of the mystique of having a cat. Cats Protection’s 2022 “Cats and Their Stats” report found that

“companionship, reducing loneliness, and reducing stress were collectively the top reasons for owning a cat”.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have seen, certainly during the covid pandemic, the ownership of cats and dogs increase because of the companionship that they offer? That is particularly important for people who live on their own. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is heartbreaking for an animal to be run over, whether it be a dog or a cat, and for the owner in many cases never to find out what actually happened. Cats are pets and should be treated in the same way as dogs.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. It is true: we love our pets and they are a huge part of the fabric of our families and our lives. He is right that we saw an increase in ownership during in covid, and that the necessary measures must be put in place so that there is not such heartache—I will go on to talk about that—when pets disappear and are unaccounted for.

We have spoken about the importance of pet cats for the wellbeing of their owners, especially during covid, and in relation to loneliness. The Cats Protection report also showed that 92% of owners see their cat as part of the family and that 67% say their cat gives them something to get up for in the morning. Alongside their independent nature, inquisitiveness and aloofness, that has helped them to be one of our favourite pets.

It is a reflection of the nation’s love of animals that the UK ranks highly on the world stage in respect of animal welfare, but there are gaps in the legislation, particularly in relation to our feline companions. We do all that we can to protect our pets, but sometimes it is not enough. The sadness of losing a pet—a part of the family—is only exacerbated by not knowing what has happened. That sad state of affairs is the reality for many cat owners across the United Kingdom. For many of them, a missing pet will lead to an assumption that the cat been hit by a vehicle and simply left by the roadside to be picked up by the local authority’s refuse services. I know that is a blunt description.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making such an important speech, and this debate is vital to many constituents. Does she agree that further support should be given to local authorities to ensure they have the necessary resources to scan cats when they are found—and dogs too—and make sure that owners are notified?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. I will go on to talk about local authorities, but it is a case of them having the necessary resources to be able to scan animals and know that they are accounted for.

The petitioner, Olivia, is here in the Gallery and is an avid campaigner for the protection of cats. When we spoke before Christmas she was thankful that the situation when she lost her cat was not the same as the one I have described. Their beloved cat, who was very much part of the family, was killed by a car; however, a good-hearted neighbour who found the cat knocked on all the doors until the owner was found in order to let them know. It should not be down to luck or a good Samaritan.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Most residents of our communities would want to do the right thing. They would want to make an owner aware of the tragedy that had happened because they would appreciate the hurt and sadness the family would feel and would not want to leave them in the dark. Does the hon. Lady agree that groups such as Cats Protection Giffnock in my constituency have done really valuable work on this issue? They ought to be commended for making sure that it is kept in the public eye. I hope we see some progress.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. Doing the right thing gives us heart, does it not? The work of Cats Protection and all the organisations that have campaigned for cats is to be commended, because it is excellent in keeping the issue in the public eye, which is really important.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work on this issue. I introduced a presentation Bill on the compulsory microchipping of cats, and we are waiting for legislation to come in. I thank the Government for that.

The second part of my Bill was on the issue of reporting after an accident. Of course the great majority of people in our great country would do the right thing, but it comes down to a basic principle: parity of esteem. People love their dogs and cats. We currently have legislation under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that covers horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep, pigs, goats and dogs, but not cats. People in my constituency and throughout the country ask, “Why not?” If the primary objective is to alleviate pain and suffering, we need to make sure we have parity for cats.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for his very good contribution. Unfortunately, the 1988 Act was not put in place with this issue in mind, but I am going to talk about the microchipping issue that he has done significant work on.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Following on from what the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said, the Government previously committed to bringing forward regulations to make cat microchipping compulsory before the end of last year. Many charities are concerned that they have not yet been laid; does the hon. Lady share those concerns?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. That is exactly what I am going to talk about. I agree that the microchipping legislation should be brought forward.

Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are required to stop and report incidents of hitting a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). The Act reflects an understanding of animals as having a financial value attached to them as livestock or working animals. As such, cats are not covered. The petitioner, Olivia, and organisations including Battersea and the Blue Cross want this to change.

Because there is currently no legal requirement to report, we do not know how many cats are killed by vehicles. One needs only to have a quick search through their local area’s Facebook groups to know that. It is sadly very commonplace. Some 52% of respondents to the Petitions Committee’s survey for this debate said they had lost a cat as a result of a road traffic accident, with a further 40% suspecting that their cat had been killed but without any proof.

The reality is that not all drivers comply with the 1988 Act as it stands. For example, one particular road in my constituency has become notorious for cattle deaths at night, with the deceased animals being found by other drivers in lighter hours and reported then. Whether or not there is a place for cats in the Act, we know that it is not fully fit for purpose as it stands. How can the Government help to ensure that cat owners such as Olivia are not left in limbo when it comes to losing their beloved pet?

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I had the pleasure of hosting a Cats Protection event just before Christmas. Some 76 MPs and peers turned up, which shows where the sympathies of Members lie. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a shame the Government are out of step with the view of Members and that they should look at this matter again? They have dismissed it rather out of hand in their response to the petition, but this issue goes hand in hand with microchipping. The Government said they would bring forward microchipping by the end of last year; they should now do so, in tandem with introducing provisions on reporting.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and for hosting Cats Protection before Christmas. That event really was well attended. The point of such events is to raise awareness of legislation that is not fit for purpose and to talk to peers and Members of Parliament about the importance of cats. We do not need a huge uprooting of legislation to get this right: small changes would make a huge difference to cats and cat owners.

First, we need the Government to finally make good on their promise to make it a legal requirement for cats to be microchipped. In its 2022 “Cats and Their Stats” report, Cats Protection estimated that 2.8 million cats are not microchipped, meaning they do not have any permanent identification. Microchipping is a hugely important part of responsible pet ownership, and making it compulsory for cat owners would send a vital message that it is an integral part of looking after a cat. The Government had planned to lay regulations by the end of 2022 to bring compulsory cat microchipping into force after a transition period, but sadly that has not yet happened. I would be most grateful if the Minister could confirm a timetable for the enactment of that legislation. He has a wonderful opportunity to come forward with that change, which the Government have supported.

Secondly, requiring local authorities to scan and log cat fatalities would make a huge difference. National Highways contracts already include a requirement to identify and inform the owner of any domesticated animal fatality on main trunk roads, with keepers given the opportunity to come forward and collect their pet’s remains. The local authorities that cover the rest of the road network are duty-bound to remove deceased animals but not to scan and log, although many do—the situation is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, but the infrastructure already exists.

By requiring local authorities to make attempts to identify cat fatalities, comfort and certainty can be given to owners whose cats are killed in accidents. A freedom of information request carried out by Cats Protection in May 2019 found that 92% of local councils in England have some sort of arrangement in place to scan cats, but only 75% inform the chip company. It is clear that there is a lack of consistency on this front, and intervention from the Government would only improve the situation.

It is true that cats and dogs, while both beloved choices of pet, have different legal standings. We should be creating parity between the two and making things less difficult. Dog owners are legally required to keep their dog under control in public, whereas cats are said to have the right to roam, although owners are still responsible for making sure that their cats do not cause injury or damage to property. The so-called right to roam has often ended conversations on cat welfare legislation, for reasons I have already discussed, but that need not be the case.

Unlike so many of the issues we discuss within these walls, this is not a complex problem. The infrastructure needed to implement the changes already exists and charities such as Cats Protection are already working with local authorities to provide scanners and support their work. The changes requested may not save cats, but they can prevent any added heartbreak. I extend my deepest thanks to Olivia for starting the petition and starting the conversation. She is asking not for an overhaul of legislation but just the chance for other owners to feel the closure that she has felt at such a traumatic time.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that should they wish to speak they need to bob.

16:46

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris—I genuinely mean that.

It is a pleasure to follow a speech that I did not disagree with a word of. I congratulate Olivia, who is sat in the Gallery. This is probably one of the easiest legislative exercises in the whole of this Parliament: we simply add the word “cat” into legislation and achieve what has been set out in this debate. As much as we all love goats, we should not be differentiating between animals in respect of their value. We differentiate and judge things in this House on their meaning to our fellow citizens. To me, it is utterly bizarre that the law does not take into account cats, considering how many people in this country own cats and how important they are to our fellow citizens.

I hope the Minister, well-known animal lover that he is, will listen to this debate and look into doing something straightforward that will make a lot of people very happy. Although we struggle from time to time in this House, we have the opportunity to do something that will make people extremely happy.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend has made the point clearly that this change is easily done if we consider the purpose behind the legislation. The Government have put forward the argument that one type of animal is a working animal of financial value; does my hon. Friend agree that legislation to require people to stop and report should be designed with regard to the alleviation of pain and suffering, irrespective of what animal it is? That ties into the Government’s commitment to animal welfare. We can move forward and do the right thing. Does he agree that that principle needs to be behind the legislation?

[James Daly]

I am probably going to agree with everything that everybody says in this debate. My hon. Friend makes a very articulate point. If it is the Government’s position that the change is not enforceable—in the sense that stopping and reporting if a car hits a cat is somehow not an enforceable legal responsibility compared with hitting another animal—I just do not accept that. In my view, there is not a logical argument in respect of the criminal-law side of this issue. I was a criminal lawyer for a long time and it is a straightforward matter to enforce reporting. There is no ambiguity.

Let me speak to and develop some of the points colleagues have made about criminal law, and what happens afterwards. I recognise Members present who have listened to what I have had to say at least two or three times previously. I think I am on my third or fourth time of trying to persuade the Government about my private Member’s Bill. I have not been successful yet, but I continue to live in hope. My nattily titled Pets (Microchips) Bill relates to Gizmo’s law, the campaign for which was begun many years ago by Heléna Abrahams in my constituency. In essence, the proposed law would do what has been articulated in this debate. It is a campaign for a legal requirement, which sounds like a grand statement, but it basically asks local authorities to do the right thing.

When a deceased cat is found, whether on the highway or elsewhere, the proposed law would require the local authority to scan the chip, if there is one—that relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) made about the Government’s commitment to the microchipping of cats, which would clearly help. It is a simple thing. People want to know what has happened to their pet—what has happened to their cats. I spoke today to Heléna, who works 20 hours a day in her job. She has set up a website for this purpose and works with local authorities to reunite cats with their owners. That is a wonderful thing to do, because it is about love, care, commitment and doing something for people who have no other way of finding out what has happened.

As the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, local authorities approach this matter very differently. Some just do not scan and do not make any effort whatever—I will not name and shame them—and some are better. We are simply asking for there to be a duty to take the cat and scan it. A pet food company has agreed to provide scanners for every local authority in the country that does not have one, so there is no cost to that. All they need is a fridge or deep freezer. The cost and time involved is absolutely negligible. There is no cost.

My Pets (Microchips) Bill and Olivia’s proposal are about care, love and doing the right thing. We sometimes miss those things in our debates in this House. This is very simple and straightforward. An amendment could quite easily be made to criminal law and could quite easily be enforceable. We can certainly trust our police and other law enforcement bodies to ensure that cats have parity of treatment with other animals, and we can legislate for that. On Gizmo’s law, I hope Members will support the Pets (Microchips) Bill, which would cost nothing but would do a lot of public good and make a difference to a lot of people’s lives.

16:51

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Harris. I thank all those who have participated in the ongoing campaign to have the law changed to protect cats, including those who tweeted #Act4Cats, those who signed and shared the petition, and the MPs who signed my early-day motion calling for the Road Traffic Act to be amended.

I also congratulate my constituent, Olivia Holland-Rose, who is here today; her hard work and campaigning efforts led to this debate. She started this petition in response to the tragic accident that resulted in the death of her beloved pet, D’Artagnan or Dart for short. In January last year, Olivia sadly got a knock at the door. Her neighbour gave her the tragic news that Dart had been struck by a car, killed and left by the side of the road. It was only thanks to the kindness of a stranger, who found D’Artagnan’s body and proceeded to inquire about his owner, that a neighbour was able to recognise him and inform Olivia and her husband about the accident. Had the driver who hit D’Artagnan done that, and had the law required them to report the collision, there is a possibility that D’Artagnan could have been taken to the vet in time to save his life. As section 170 of the Road Traffic Act requires drivers to report accidents involving horses, cattle, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs, but not cats, the driver had no legal obligation to report the collision and so drove off.

Olivia and her partner are sadly not alone in that experience, as we have heard. Statistics about cats in road collisions are getting harder and harder to gather because the driver does not have to report the incident in the first place. A recent report from Petplan revealed that approximately 230,000 cats are run over each year, equating to 630 every day, and that 35% of drivers admit to having hit a cat. There are approximately 12.2 million cats living in UK households, so those figures are likely to be considerably higher today.

We are a nation of animal lovers, so we can all sympathise with the devastation that pet owners feel when their beloved pet passes away. I do not have any pets myself, but a member of my team has a dog that often stops at our constituency office. Coincidentally, she is called Belle, although she was not named after me—she was named years before we met her. Anyone who has visited my constituency office or has been out campaigning with me is likely to have met Belle, who has become a beloved member of the team. I know that I, my team and Belle’s owners would be absolutely devastated if she were to be struck by a vehicle, but if this were to happen, at least we would have the reassurance that the driver would be legally obligated to report it and we would stand a higher chance of getting her to a vet in time, if that were possible, to potentially save her life.

Cat owners do not have that luxury because cats are inexplicably excluded from section 170 of the Road Traffic Act. It seems ridiculous that pigs, dogs, cattle and horses are protected, but cats are not. The law was created because of those animals’ status as working animals, but we have evolved beyond appreciating animals solely for their economic value, and it is time our laws changed to reflect that.

In response to the petition, the Government stated that, rather than changing the law, they wish to make roads safer and introduce compulsory microchipping. Microchipping cats is certainly a good policy—it is one that we seem to agree on right across this House—but a cat is no more likely to survive being hit by a car just because they are microchipped. The odds are already stacked against the cat. Microchipping cats will not increase their chances of survival. While I also agree with the ambition to make roads safer, in major cities, where cars are ever present and cat ownership is high, collisions are almost always going to be likely.

Those measures must be paired with a change in the law to require drivers to stop and report the collision, thereby increasing the chances of the cat getting to life-saving treatment and potentially saving another family from losing their beloved pet—or, if they do lose their beloved pet, at least giving them the closure of knowing. There is no reason that we can see for the law to exclude cats, and there are no excuses to justify not amending the law. It is such a small change; indeed, I would like the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is something that could be changed by a statutory instrument in a Delegated Legislation Committee. It would take just a few of us in this House very little time to insert that word, as we have heard. I am sure, or I hope, that we all agree that cats deserve to be treated the same as dogs, horses, pigs and all the other animals cited in the Act, and it is about time the law was changed accordingly.

16:56

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I have to declare an interest as the owner of two very pampered and special cats: Milly, who is 14 years old, and Louie, who moved into his forever home with us during lockdown, from the comfort of the Cats Protection adoption centre in Exeter. I should also make Members aware that I have another interest, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

In my mind, a home is not a home without a cat. Both my cats could be described as sharing their house with my husband and me. They have Natalie and Caroline, who visit and look after them while we are in London, and they certainly greet us on our return—although that is probably just to secure more Dreamies.

I believe that cats should receive the same treatment as other animals under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, under which, as has been described,

“a driver is required to…report an accident involving specified animals including horses, cattle, asses, mules”

—I will not go on; it has already been said—

“but not cats or wild animals.”

The Government have said:

“This requirement arises from their status as working animals rather than as domestic pets.”

But let us not forget that cats often do work, particularly in the countryside, where they keep vermin down, so I cannot see how a cat cannot be described as a working animal. The Government also say:

“To introduce such a measure within the provision of section 170 would require primary legislation.”

I would ask the Government to consider introducing the required legislation at the earliest possible time.

I would like to share something I witnessed happening in my division when I was at Cornwall county councillor. It involved a cat called Topsy, who belonged to my son’s best friend. I was following a car that hit a cat and saw the driver get out and carefully place the cat in his car. It looked like Topsy, but I was not sure. The mother of that five-year-old told me the next day that her son was distraught at the loss of his pet, who had not returned home. I relayed to her that I may have witnessed an accident involving Topsy the cat, but had not been able to get the car registration number. This story has a happy ending. The young man who had lifted the cat carefully into his car had taken her to the vets. She received treatment and an advert was placed in the local shop window, calling for the owner to come forward—I emphasise that this incident happened before social media was widely used to publicise things. Topsy was reunited with her owner and lived a long and happy life.

My own experience does not have such a happy outcome. I had a little black cat called Biscay. He would happily hunt in and around the gardens and the neighbourhood. One day, a neighbour informed me that little Biscay was seen in the driveway of a house behind mine, and when I got there, I realised that he had been injured and had died. Many more cats in my neighbourhood have suffered the same fatal ending to their lives, and as the local councillor, I explored what could be done to make this very narrow lane safer for both pets and pedestrians. I explained to council officers that the road was regularly used by primary school children, and that each cat that had suffered a fatal accident could have potentially been a child. I was told that there were no statistics kept for cats, as these incidents were not reportable. Fortunately, I persevered and managed to get road traffic calming in place on the road, to slow the traffic. This would have been far easier if each accident involving a cat had been reportable and official statistics readily available.

It is a shame that we do not hear more positive stories, such as that of Topsy. It is essential that we remember that cats are more often than not family members, and we should ensure that they are respected. We should also remember that, as I have mentioned, statistics can often be used to introduce road safety measures that help pedestrians, and I urge the Minister to explore introducing legislation as soon as possible.

17:01

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairpersonship, Ms Harris.

Cats get a bad rap. They are working animals. The reason that cats are in this country and widespread around the world is because they had, and still have, a job to do in many different guises, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said, is to keep vermin down. But they constantly get a bad rap. I am loyally owned by two rescue cats, and my family have constantly had cats throughout our lives. As a child growing up, my cats were my constant companions, and it was devastating when a cat ended up being knocked over and left for dead.

Sadly, while I was walking around my constituency with a friend this autumn, we came across a cat in a very bad state on a pavement. The cat was still alive, so I suggested that my friend went to get her car, and I did what the car owner who hit the cat should have done: I randomly knocked on doors to see who would answer. It is quite a nerve-wracking thing to do—how do you tell somebody you have never met before that they may have a very poorly pet in front of them?—but as a good neighbour and somebody who knows what it is like to lose a pet, I hope that somebody would do that for me.

I knocked on doors and managed to find the owner, and I said, “If you’ve got a black and white cat, he is still alive, but sadly I think he has been hit by a car.” Quite a few people owned black and white cats, but when I took the owner to see him, it was their family pet Stevie. Stevie was in a really bad way. I took my jacket off and cradled him with my constituent Helen Bampton, and we were able to take him to the Blue Cross. The Blue Cross was absolutely fantastic but, sadly for Helen and her family and for Stevie, his injuries were too terrible for him to survive. Sadly, he had to be put to sleep

It is really sad that, but for the insertion of just one more animal into the legislation, we are not making sure that cats are protected, although we know that that is not a panacea. Thanks to organisations such as Cats Protection, there are very few stray cats in this country; most have an owner and a family. Anyone can be involved in an accident involving a cat or another animal—it can happen suddenly because cats can move very quickly, especially if their owner is calling them and they are trying to get home—but we want people to realise that that cat is usually a pet. The police have told me that if a cat were stolen, they would treat the case as theft. I do not understand why cats are viewed as possessions important enough for the police to investigate if stolen, but are not considered important enough for it to be a legal requirement for drivers to report a collision involving one.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Member is making a good point. National Highways requires its contractors, where possible, to identify cats in such situations. That seems entirely anomalous. As far as the Government are concerned, if they require reporting in relation to collisions on major trunk roads and motorways, why do they not require it generally?

[Lia Nici]

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There is another anomaly. Rule 286 of the highway code advises that drivers need to report any accident involving an animal to the police and, if possible, to make inquiries to ascertain the owner of domestic animals such as cats to advise them of the situation. I do not quite understand why that is already advised in the highway code but we have no legal protections for owners and their cats. I would like the Minister to go back to his Department and really ask that question.

As hon. Members have said, there are more than 12 million cats in this country, which means that about 28% of homes own a cat or cats. This issue is important to people, especially to those who have experienced the loss of their cat—either never knowing or, sadly, knowing that somebody has hit their pet and deemed it not important enough to take care of the situation. Even if it is not currently a legal requirement to report such an incident to the police, people should at least be neighbourly, have some community heart, knock on a door and find out who the owner is, and provide them with some consolation. That is just the right thing to do, as everybody knows these things are rarely done on purpose. Will the Minister consider the fact that the highway code already advises such reporting for road users anyway?

17:07

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I welcome you to your place, Ms Harris. I am delighted to participate in this important debate, which arises from the e-petition relating to requirements to stop and report road traffic collisions involving cats. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening the debate with a comprehensive overview of the situation. I also pay tribute to charities such as Cats Protection, Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which do so much to promote the wellbeing of animals and have provided us with some important briefings for the debate. I should declare that today I am using my Cats Protection pen, which I received at the charity’s event just before Christmas.

Everyone appreciates the importance of family pets, and we can all appreciate the distress and trauma when a family pet goes missing. Thankfully, many cats who wander off on their adventures soon return home safely when they are hungry enough. However, there are cat owners whose cats wander off and never see them again; sadly, on occasion, that is due to the cat being knocked down by a car and left on a roadside, or staggering away from the scene of an accident only to die before it can reach home. Owners are left distressed, often with no information, and, sadly, as those who have pets will understand, they feel as though a beloved family member has simply vanished. Those who own pets—as I once did; I owned the much-missed Kitty sand Misty, and hope to own cats again at some point—benefit from them in so many ways. That is why they are loved as members of our families. They provide huge comfort and health benefits, and also go a long way to combating loneliness; I speak as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

This petition is not party political, as has been shown by the consensus in this Chamber. It is about doing the right thing—a simple thing that will do so much for cat owners. It calls for cats to be accorded the same legal recognition as dogs, and for the same obligations to apply to collisions involving cats as to those involving dogs, under the Road Traffic Act 1988, which requires drivers to stop and report accidents involving a cat. It is not in any way a controversial request for our feline friends to be accorded parity in law with dogs when it comes to road collisions. We last debated the issue in 2019, and I honestly cannot understand why we are still debating it.

We all understand that for such a change in the law to really work, we would need joined-up thinking. We need to get to the compulsory microchipping of cats, so that their owners can be informed if they are involved in an accident. Compulsory microchipping of cats has not yet happened, but I remind the Minister—I am sure that I do not need to, but I will—that the Tory manifesto in 2019 committed to

“bring forward cat microchipping, giving cat owners peace of mind”.

That is a Tory policy that I and everybody else in this Chamber can support—and it is not often that the Minister will hear that! However, there has been no movement on that commitment, and that needs to change.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The Government’s stance has been that there is no need to legislate and create a requirement for local authorities to scan cats for microchips, because the majority already do so as best practice. Does she share my concern that that leaves policies at local authority level too open to change, for example where budgetary restrictions mean there are fewer staff available to perform the task?

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes. Many local authorities currently work very hard to screen cats for microchips, where possible; I will talk about that in more detail later. Local councils are under pressure, but it is important that there is leadership and support from a central Government level in both Scotland and across the UK. I will talk a wee bit later about how Cats Protection provides very important support in that regard.

The Scottish Government recommend that all cat owners should microchip their pets, so that they can be reunited with their owners if they are lost or injured, but they have not yet moved towards compulsory microchipping, which is a move I want to see. However, the Scottish Government are willing to examine and reflect on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs call for evidence and the recent public consultation on the matter. I am confident that we will get to a place where cat microchipping will be a compulsory element of cat ownership, just as it is with dog ownership. Like many others, I am keen to reach that point as soon as possible, because the responsibility of owning a cat and the responsibility towards cat owners ought not to be different from the rights and benefits currently accorded to dogs and their owners.

In the UK Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which was published in May 2021, the commitment to cat microchipping was repeated. The plan said:

“We will introduce compulsory cat microchipping to ensure lost or stolen cats can be reunited with their owners as quickly as possible.”

But we are still in the dark as to what is happening with the implementation of that plan, just as we are—incidentally—with the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which ought to legislate on very important aspects of animal welfare; undoubtedly, we will debate that Bill again soon. It matters, because it is all part of the same conversation about the small amendment required to the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The vast majority of cats in Scotland—around 70%—are microchipped, which demonstrates that most cat owners understand the benefits of doing so. About 29% are still not microchipped, which amounts to about 227,000 cats with no permanent form of identification; that is a problem.

We have heard from around the Chamber of the heartbreak of cat owners who either do not know what has happened to their cat, or who have to deal with their cat being struck by a car and finding that out—sometimes by accident. The sad reality is that we do not know how many cats are involved in road traffic accidents, because it is a not a legal requirement for a driver to report a collision with a cat, but Petplan believes that about 630 cats are run over every day. That is a huge amount. Some 35% of drivers admit to having hit a cat, and it is believed that between 7 million and 9 million cats are at risk every day of being involved in a road traffic accident, given the free-roaming nature of our feline friends.

If we are seeing an increasing number of cats being microchipped, and seeking to move to a point where all cats are microchipped as soon as possible, it is important that measures are in place so that those microchips can be scanned. I applaud the work of Cats Protection, which has worked with some local authorities to provide scanners to ensure that cats found on roads can be identified. Local authorities are also working hard to ensure that they are able to do this, as revealed by the Cats Protection freedom of information request, but there is still some way to go.

The call for the creation of best practice guidance for local councils will be supported by all responsible cat owners, because it will ensure that all cats found on our roads are scanned for a microchip and have their details logged, and that owners are informed so that—as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) said—as heartbreaking as that news can be, they can find out what has become of their beloved pet.

[James Daly]

Why use best practice guidance rather than the legal requirement?

[Patricia Gibson]

I think we are speaking at cross purposes. As I said, there should be a legal requirement for microchipping, but we want to look at the best way that local authorities can manage that information and roll it out so that it can be completed as soon as possible. I believe that microchipping should be a legal requirement.

I echo the eminently sensible concerns expressed by Blue Cross that if all this work is done in the way we wish, in the interests of cats and cat owners—picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly)—there must be well-administered and efficient communication between database companies to ensure that microchip details and information on lost, stolen or injured pets is properly shared and centrally available.

The suggestion of a single point of access would considerably streamline and simplify the current database situation, incomplete though it is, and make it more user-friendly for the designated approved users. It would save time and resources, and provide the best outcomes for cats and their owners should the worst happen.

It is no surprise that over 102,000 people signed this petition to appeal to the UK Government to amend legislation in a simple and straightforward way to make it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and report accidents involving cats as they are already required to do with dogs. Many of us engage in the debate about whether we prefer cats or dogs, but I think we would all agree that cats deserve parity under the law when it comes to road traffic accidents. Across the UK, we love our pets, and animal welfare is important to every one of us. We just need to look at our inboxes to see that; every single Member of this House receives more emails about various aspects of animal welfare than any other issue. I have to say, that took me a little by surprise when I was first elected in 2015.

Animal welfare really matters to our constituents, and it matters to MPs across the House. Our pets keep us healthy and add to our happiness, and they are treasured family members. Cats do this just as much as dogs; some would say even more so, but that would start a whole UK-wide argument that would keep us here all day. It is clear that if we can give protection to dogs through compulsory microchipping and reporting of accidents when collisions happen, we can certainly do it for cats. There is no reason for us not to do so.

I urge the Minister and the UK Government to make the required amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and give our cats and their owners the consideration they deserve. Alongside that we need to ensure that cat microchipping is an integral part of cat ownership so that they are given the protection currently accorded to dogs. Let us get on with it and stop any further delays. A promise was made in the Government’s 2019 manifesto. This is one of those rare measures that will have support from across the House—from every MP in every party—so there is no reason to delay. It will encounter no opposition, so I urge the Minister to speak to his colleagues and get it done.

17:20

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Harris. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing this important debate, which will be closely followed by many of our constituents. I also thank all Members who have contributed; they have all made extremely relevant points. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who eloquently explained the issue, and Olivia, who some time ago started the petition, which 102,000 people have signed.

We are a country of cat lovers. I have had cats since I was a toddler and have gone through very many. I have been in the position where my cat has gone missing and we did not know what had happened to her, even though we scoured the streets and she was chipped. I only found out what had happened a few years later, by accident, when I was at the vet’s with another cat, and the woman I was sitting next to, who lived near me, could remember seeing my missing cat dead on the roadside. It took me a bit of time to get to the bottom of it, but, like most people when their cat does not come home, I eventually came to the conclusion that it had come to harm. As an animal lover, I know the pain caused by losing a pet.

Believe it or not, one day I found a cat behind my bin. I took it to the vet and had it scanned, but unfortunately it did not have a microchip. I eventually managed to rehouse it with another member of my family, as I already had three by then and had been told I could not have any more. If that cat had had a chip—if it had been compulsory for it to be chipped—we very likely would have been able to return it to its owner instead of having to rehouse it, albeit with a very nice family.

Under rule 286 of the highway code, drivers involved in an accident involving a domestic pet are advised to make inquiries to find the owner. However, the wording of the rule is quite vague and covers a wide range of driving incidents. It is time to change that and include cats. It is true that many owners ensure their beloved cats are microchipped, but it should be legislated for. Will the Minister look into updating the legislation to ensure that drivers are aware of what to do if they collide with a cat? The vast majority of drivers would want to do the right thing in such situations, but the highway code offers little in the way of guidance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower mentioned the local authority resources that will be needed if they are to take on the responsibility of scanning animals and informing owners of the fate of their cats. I thank Cats Protection, which has done so much work to talk to people about the issue and raise owners’ awareness.

[Rehman Chishti]

The point about local authorities needing resources for scanning absolutely needs to be looked at, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) mentioned the principle that local authorities should scan deceased cats so that they can be identified. How that is done across the country is a different matter, but the principle is that all deceased cats should be scanned so that they can be reunited with their loved ones; that is the change required, so that there is consistency and not a postcode lottery around the country.

[Gill Furniss]

I totally agree with the hon. Member’s sentiment that it should be put into legislation that it is compulsory for all cats to be scanned. That is the only way they can be identified.

I wonder how we can get around the problem about which we heard earlier—that 70% of cats who are scanned have not been registered with the microchipping company. The Government and the House should look at ways of encouraging registration or of doing microchipping differently, to ensure that it is not a waste of time or money. We must ensure that microchipping means that cats will be reunited with their owners, or that their owners will be informed of what has happened to them.

I was a little disappointed that, in their response to the petition, the Government say that they want to make roads safe for everyone. The reality is often quite different: road safety targets are non-existent; the road safety strategic framework has been delayed; and highway maintenance funding has been cut. After four decades of progress in reducing in road fatalities, since 2010 the numbers have plateaued. The Government are dragging their feet on measures to protect road users—human and feline alike.

We all know about the enormous pressures facing local authorities, and the cost of living crisis means that scarce resources are rightly focused on supporting struggling households. However, that means that if we are to be serious about this issue, additional resources for road safety, and particularly scanning, should be given to local authorities so that they can carry out the vital job of identifying cats and informing cat owners of what has happened. For that to work, there has to be some resource attached.

While we have the Minister here, I want to ask when his Department will publish the long-awaited road safety strategy framework. It would be good to see something about animal welfare in that, because it is so important to our constituents. I am also somewhat disappointed by the Government’s wider record on protecting animals, which seems to be one of delays and broken promises. Where is the ban on keeping primates as pets? Where is the action to tackle puppy smuggling? Where is the ban on fur imports? Those measures all have overwhelming public support, but this Government have been dragging their feet on all of them for too long.

I hope that the Minister will carefully consider all the points raised by Members today. The motivation behind the petition is one we all share: for beloved family pets to be better protected. We do not need more empty promises that are destined to be dropped or kicked into the long grass; we need the Government finally to take the wheel and deliver real progress to improve road safety for all users of any species, including cats. In particular, we need the Government to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988—I hope that they can do so by statutory instrument—so that no one has to wonder what has happened to their beloved cat, and that cats have the same protection as other animals.

17:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. As the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) pointed out, Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and Members on both sides have made heartfelt speeches. I want to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), who has had to leave early, on Gizmo’s law and the private Member’s Bill that he introduced. I am grateful to Members who have spoken in this debate on the subject of making it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and report collisions with cats. I also thank Olivia, and the thousands of people across the country who signed the petition that brings us here.

As a Back Bencher, I spoke out in support of microchipping in Westminster Hall less than two years ago. I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government take road safety extremely seriously; it is at the core of the Department’s agenda, and any death or serious injury on our roads is unacceptable. Our deepest condolences go out to the victims of road traffic incidents and their families. A focus of the Government is to make roads safer for all users; that will in turn help reduce the risk to all animals on them. We must all be clear about the heartbreak that the loss of pets—particularly cats, as we have discussed—cause people. For many, it is like losing a family member, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said. Other Members reflected on how, during the pandemic, in what was a particularly difficult time, pets, especially cats and dogs, were particularly important to people’s mental health and physical wellbeing.

The Department is working on the road safety strategic framework, which—to give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) some assurance —we hope to publish in spring this year. That framework will be based on a safe system approach, and we are considering what supporting indicators on casualty reduction might be appropriate. The key principle in a safe system approach is to recognise that people make mistakes and things can go wrong. The approach accepts that responsibility is shared, and that collisions can be the result of a combination of factors that can be mitigated. The road safety strategic framework provides the instruction needed to deliver a safe system approach effectively and efficiently. That approach has been accepted in many other sectors, including health and safety and public health. It is already adopted as best practice in other countries that have gone on to make further significant reductions in road deaths and casualties. While Britain has some of the safest roads in the world, we can always do more, and we intend to do just that.

Let me quickly address an issue raised by the hon. Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough: I have been advised by officials that primary legislation, and not a simple statutory instrument, would be required to change the law in this area. However, if that does not prove to be the case, I will write to both hon. Members to clarify further.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and for all he does on road safety. On stopping and reporting after an accident, is the Minister saying that the road safety review will specifically look at what parliamentarians have said today about adding cats to section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988? At the moment, it is not clear whether it will.

[Mr Holden]

I am happy to take that question back to the Department, and will write to my hon. Friend about that, as well as to the hon. Member for Gower. That is something that we need to look at urgently.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am most grateful to the Minister for clarifying that the question will be taken back to the Department. The Prime Minister said in his speech in January that the Government would look at doing things differently—at innovation, and at trying new ideas. Will the Minister look at amending the legislation, so that it does not simply deal with the value of the animal or whether it is wildlife, and so that its aim is to alleviate pain and suffering and ensure parity? That would be in line with the Prime Minister’s commitment, and with what has been said today.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that issue forward. It is an important issue, and I will take it back to the Department and write to him about it.

As I have been saying, we are looking at the holistic, best-practice approach that has been adopted in other countries, and that we have adopted for public health and health and safety legislation, in order to both minimise the impact of road traffic accidents on humans, and prevent further injury and accidents involving animals. For example, not that long ago, when I was in the Department as a special adviser, we brought forward some road signage designed to protect small mammals. The change is something that the Government are prepared to look at, but as I have said, primary legislation would be required.

I would like to speak more broadly on this issue, because Members have brought up different aspects of the legislation, including microchipping, which I would like to touch on.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Just to be clear, the Minister is saying that he is 100% sure that the change has to be made through primary legislation, so what exactly would he be getting back to us about, if that is not flexible?

[Mr Holden]

That is what I was advised, but if that is not the case, I will write to the hon. Lady and make it clear what can be done. My understanding at the moment is that primary legislation is needed.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

If the change can be made through secondary legislation, will the Minister take steps to bring that forward?

[Mr Holden]

If the change can be made through secondary legislation, we would have to look at that, but I am assured by officials that it has to be done through primary legislation. That would obviously require a significant piece of legislation to go through both Houses. It is not a quick fix. We then get into timetabling and all sorts of other issues well beyond my remit as a junior Minister. On whether the change can be made through secondary legislation, I will definitely write to the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Murray]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if primary legislation is needed, Members may be able to bring forward a ten-minute rule Bill or private Member’s Bill that amends the Act?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If primary legislation is needed, then the way to change the law could indeed be via a private Member’s Bill. Whether it would get Government support and time is a matter for others, but that would be a way to do it.

While we must do all we can to improve the safety of our roads, we must be careful not to make any decisions that could make things worse or have unforeseen effects in a rush to resolve concerns about how the law operates. Hon. Members from across the House have made important points about doing the right thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) gave the personal example of Stevie, and set out how she stepped in and did the right thing.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) also said that doing the right thing is particularly important. As hon. Members have pointed out, although there is no obligation to report all animal collisions on the road, rule 286 of the Highway Code advises drivers to report any collision involving an animal to the police; if possible, they should make inquiries to ascertain the owner of a domestic animal, so as to advise them of the situation.

As Members, including the hon. Member for Gower, have made clear, cats tend to roam unaccompanied and are likely to go out at night. Drivers may not realise that they have had a collision with a cat in some instances, as they are small animals, similar to rabbits or other wild animals that can cross roads late at night. There are also hazards associated with stopping to check whether animals are alive after people have knocked them over, especially with very small animals. A requirement to report road collisions involving a cat would be difficult to enforce, especially when, as hon. Members have made clear, Petplan suggests there might be hundreds of thousands of these incidents brought forward a year.

In 2021, there were 348 reported road collisions in which both an animal and a person were involved directly. That is just an animal and a person. If we were talking about hundreds of thousands of cases, there would be a huge extra impact and administrative burden, especially given the free-roaming nature of cats. It is for that reason that the Government do not plan at present to make it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and report collisions with cats, but I would like to go into what we are attempting to do in this space, because we recognise how painful it is for owners to lose a pet. I remember going home from school as a youngster and learning—this was when I first realised that animals could die—that my family dog had sadly passed away. I think we have all had that experience at some point in our life.

In the last few years, we have pushed microchipping. It is the best way of reuniting owners with pets that have been tragically killed, stolen, or had a variety of other issues. Since the introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs in 2016, over 90% of the dog population has been microchipped. That has been particularly successful in increasing reunification rates for stray dogs.

As hon. Members from across the House have pointed out, we have a manifesto commitment to introduce compulsory cat microchipping, and we consulted on that last year. The consultation showed that there was well over 99% support for that measure, which is fantastic. I spoke about the issue in Westminster Hall a couple of years ago, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned it. We are committed to introducing it, and we will lay the legislation for England before Parliament in the coming weeks. I hope that the devolved Administrations will follow closely, as this is a devolved issue in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I welcome the words of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). She has used her platform in this place to press for similar action in Holyrood and across the rest of the United Kingdom. I recognise that it is terribly sad when a cat is injured or killed on the roads, and it does not matter what side of the border it is on.

As the hon. Member for Gower mentioned, National Highways already requires its contractors to record details of any cats or dogs found on the roadside, and the location in which they were found. Some of that is due to the importance of strategic roads. We do not want stray animals on the national highways, so we want to know of any gaps in fences and so on. There is a different health and safety dynamic to that, but it is something that we implemented. National Highways is under the Department for Transport and so is a direct responsibility of the Government. National Highways must also scan for a microchip, and store the animal, with the aim of reuniting it with its owner where possible.

Similarly, we understand that the overwhelming majority of local authorities have arrangements in place to scan cats and dogs found by the roadside, and to endeavour to reunite the animal with its keeper. Many pets will therefore be reunited, but we recognise that there may be challenges to successful reunification in some cases. For example, sadly reunification may not be possible if the nature of the animal’s injuries affect the functionality of the microchip, or if a microchip’s records are out of date. That is particularly the case with cats.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am delighted to hear the Minister talking about moving towards making microchipping compulsory for cats. Does he share the view put forward by Blue Cross, which is that cats should be registered on a single database, to make attempts at reunification as efficient and successful as possible?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member makes a very good point, and I am just about to come on to the best practice issues that she raised. The legislation on compulsory microchipping that will be brought forward is England only, because this matter is devolved to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I hope that these issues will be looked at by the devolved Administrations in the coming months.

Local authorities may adopt different approaches to reuniting cats and dogs found by the roadside. As the hon. Member for Gower mentioned, 92% of local authorities have the necessary facilities, but only 75% use them. It is important that we address that inconsistency. To show our commitment to the issue, we will shortly commission a research project to help us better understand any barriers and to explore best practice. We will then work with local authorities and other stakeholders to develop and promote best practice in this area, which is particularly important.

I pay tribute to Cats Protection and other volunteers, including Mandy and her team from CatsMatter, Heléna Abrahams and the team behind Gizmo’s legacy campaign, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North for their tireless efforts to help reunite animals found by the roadside with their owners. We recently consulted on improvements to the pet microchipping regime, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. We are analysing the results and will publish them soon.

A key area of the consultation was about how to make it easier for approved users, including local authorities, to access database records, and that will be covered in the response to the consultation. We also consulted on the introduction of a single point of portal search, which would allow approved users to quickly search compliant databases for animal records without needing to contact the database operator directly, which can obviously be time-consuming and can act as a deterrent, as I found when speaking about this issue to vets in my constituency of North West Durham. Quicker access to database records also supports other campaigns that seek to make better use of microchip scanning, as we have all discussed.

I pay particular tribute to Sue and Dawn, who are behind the Tuk’s law campaign, which would require vets to scan microchips and check for rescue back-up contact details prior to euthanising a healthy animal. Members from both sides of the House have been glad to get behind that. We worked closely with the campaign and the veterinary profession to find an approach that worked for everyone, and have incorporated the principle of scanning before euthanasia into the guidelines that underpin the code of professional conduct for veterinary surgeons. That is now in place.

The new single point of search will also support the aims of the Fern’s law campaign, led by Debbie Matthews, which calls on vets to scan the microchip of an animal at the first presentation to check whether it is stolen. That issue can also affect cats, which, as we know, have a tendency to roam a little further than other animals.

In summary, the Government believe that microchipping is the most effective and quickest way of returning a cat to its owner. We are progressing further with it, both through the call for evidence and through the new best practices guidelines that are coming down the line. In coming weeks, microchipping legislation for England is being introduced, and we hope to see that happen across the rest of the United Kingdom as well. We remain committed to microchipping; we look forward to the introduction of legislation that will make it compulsory, and to making further improvements later in the year.

17:47

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Ms Harris, I know how much your cat, Benji, means to you and your beloved husband and family. I am 51 years of age, and we have always had a pet in the family; I know how much it hurts to lose a pet. I thank the Minister for what he said about the legislation on compulsory microchipping that will be introduced in the coming weeks. On behalf of our petitioner, Olivia, I hope that Members from across the House will seek to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill or private Member’s Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988, because it is not fit for purpose.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) for his private Member’s Bill, which goes a long way to helping pets owners, including cat owners, to be reunited with their pet. I thank everyone who signed the petition, the Petitions Committee for bringing about the debate, and all Members who participated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 607317, relating to requirements to stop and report road traffic collisions involving cats.

17:48

Sitting suspended.

Snares

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

18:00

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 600593, relating to the use of snares.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The petition received over 102,000 signatures and the petitioners, who are in the Public Gallery, ask that the Government prohibit the sale, use and manufacture of free-running snares by amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That would put free-running snares in the same category as self-locking snares, which are already illegal. Today’s debate follows on the heels of other events in Parliament last year, such as the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) to the Environment Secretary about the use of snares, as well as an early-day motion on 31 January calling for a ban on the use of all snares.

Before going into the general points, it should be noted that both Scotland and Wales have different rules to England on snares. Scotland takes a more rigorous approach, in that the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 demands that snare users must achieve an approved accreditation, receive a personal identification number from the police and attach an identification tag to every snare when set. It is also true that the Scottish Government’s wildlife team are conducting a statutory review on whether snares should be banned altogether. Wales announced in 2021 that it intends to completely ban the use of snares, and a Bill is set to go through this year, which was laid before the Senedd on 26 September last year.

In England, the last review on the use of snares was almost 19 years ago, in October 2004. In the review, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asked for a working group to be set up to look at the use of snares. It found a series of uncomfortable truths occurred whenever such devices were used. Those included stress and anxiety for the captured animal, fear of predation, friction of the snare as the animal tries to escape, dislocations and amputations, ischemic pain due to lack of blood circulation, compression injuries, thirst and hunger. There were more—the list goes on. The petitioners argue that those things are inexcusable in the 21st century.

What is worse is that the snares are often snaring the wrong animal. They often catch cats, dogs, badgers and deer and when they do it can often lead to a painful death. A post-mortem on a badger caught in a snare read:

“He was in good body condition but had been dead for at least 48 hours. X-rays show an indentation around his neck, which corresponded to visible bruises around his throat. This was consistent with the snare being placed around the throat. There were also recent wounds to the pads on both his front feet. The vet said those injuries were consistent with him ‘having scrabbled violently to try and get free prior to death’. He also had bruised gums around his canine teeth, consistent with him having tried to bite a hard thin object (such as a wire) before he died. His windpipe contained some stomach contents and also bloody, frothy mucous.”

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Member has just shared with us a horrible set of words. But I think that is the point. Would he agree with me that what he has described is indiscriminate cruelty that obviously causes horrific suffering to animals? That is the reason the petitioners are so concerned, and we should likewise be deeply concerned about that kind of behaviour.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. No one could say that what I have just read is how we would want any animal to die—the petitioners would no doubt agree. In the vet’s opinion, the young male badger died as a result of asphyxiation caused by a ligature placed around his neck—probably a snare. That is not a pleasant read.

I posted on social media that I was to lead this debate and it was widely shared. Many, many people posted comments, the vast majority, if not all, of which were totally opposed to the continued use of snares.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

We should always be slightly cautious about self-generation on social media, although it can be indicative. Even more relevant is the opinion polling, which shows that well over three quarters of the population believe that snares should be banned. The opinion of this House over several years, even decades, has been very clear, so is it not time for the Government to introduce legislation on this and other animal welfare issues? We do not seem to have a great deal of business holding us up at the moment, so perhaps they should get on with it.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I will talk about that further. As he says, the opinion polls show that people definitely lean towards banning snares, but we need to debate the subject, which is why the petition has been brought to the Chamber today.

My starting point is the same as that of the commentators and petitioners: nobody wants to see any animal harmed, never mind killed, unless there are very strong reasons to do so. Nevertheless, animals are killed and people support that. For example, dangerous dogs that have harmed or even killed a child are put down.

Our feelings make it difficult to move to the other side of the debate, but we must do so. It is a debate, not a platform where only one view can be heard. There must be no cancellation here. We therefore need to ask why snares are being used in this day and age. Are there good reasons for their continued use? In life, we learn that there are always two sides to a story, and that is especially the case for MPs. I have never found that everybody has agreed with me about everything I have said. We all have different views, and I welcome the fact that we live in a democracy—a country in which freedom of speech is so strong. Many countries are not so blessed.

I have made efforts to speak to those who support the continued use of snares. I wanted to know why they believe that snares are a good thing, given what the DEFRA review found. One gamekeeper I have been in contact with told me that if snares are used in compliance with current legislation, they are a humane way of protecting not only the farming world’s livelihood but the environment. I am not convinced that the aforementioned badger would agree with any of that, but for the record I have not had clarification about whether the incident involved an illegal snare or a legal snare.

That brings me to the snare itself. We talk about snares, but what is a legal snare? Not all snares are illegal, and there are regulations in force determining what is. Let me tell Members what I discovered. The snares, now called humane cable restraints, are engineered with five safety devices. Two swivels—an anchor swivel and a middle swivel—reduce entanglement. Next, it is a legal requirement in the UK for the running eye to be free-running to help reduce strangulations. Previously, snares were ratcheted, and strangulation often occurred not just to the intended creature but to non-target animals. Ratcheted snares are now illegal. A fixed stop allows smaller animals to remove themselves, and also reduces the chance of strangulation of the target animal—apparently mainly foxes. The final component is a break-away device so that if animals of a certain size pull hard enough against the snare, it will break and they will be set free. Those devices were initially tested by 34 gamekeepers across the country and proved to be much improved on the previously used snares.

The law says that snares should be checked every 24 hours. The code of practice states that it should preferably be before 9 am each day, and if the gamekeeper is able the snare should be inspected again at the end of each day. If that procedure is rigorously followed, it should minimise the number of captured animals that go through the pain that the previously mentioned post-mortem report described. Whether it is rigorously followed is a fair question. The device should also be inspected daily for signs of rusting or fraying of the cord. It should also be checked to ensure it is working—in particular, the effectiveness of all the safety devices should be checked.

The subject is emotive and I can understand the petitioners’ point of view and why, in an animal-loving country such as ours, many people want to stop this method of capturing animals. It is natural to feel that way, and I share those feelings, too. However, gamekeepers do much to look after our countryside, and they say they need snares to enable them to do their job. I have heard that they are stopping some birds becoming extinct. Lapwings and curlews are two examples of birds that are in danger of becoming extinct to the west of the UK; foxes are to blame for much of their demise.

A relative townie like me can easily sit in an armchair and say that the use of snares is wrong and even barbaric, but I am conscious that I have little understanding of the countryside and the steps necessary to protect it. Those who have spent their lives in the countryside say snares are necessary. We need to know who is right and who is wrong—we need evidence. I am therefore pleased that the Government consider it timely to open a call for evidence to make sure they have the very latest understanding on the issue. It is essential that both sides of the argument are listened to. Cancel culture is iniquitous and has no place in a functioning democracy.

I believe I speak for many, if not all of us, when I say it is also essential that we reduce any inhumane treatment of our wildlife while still helping gamekeepers to protect our countryside. I believe there are many areas in life where there is a solution if legislators, animal rights groups, activists, concerned citizens and all those in the countryside sit down and talk things through. This surely must be one such issue.

With Wales and Scotland moving quickly towards a complete ban on snares, time is of the essence for such talks and solutions such as humane snares, reflective dishes, electric fences or even high-sonic devices could be used. I am told that many in the countryside do not believe that tighter legislation will work, but gamekeepers believe that mandatory training will. That issue also needs to be addressed.

I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing the debate to Parliament. We need to establish the evidence and make any necessary adjustments to the legislation that are appropriate and proportionate. What they should be is not exactly known yet. However, the process must start, and I look forward to its conclusions. I therefore hope the debate is the start of a sensible conversation, where tempers are not frayed and a solution can be found.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. I intend to start calling the Front-Bench speakers at around five past seven, so if Members could limit themselves to seven or eight minutes, all will be guaranteed to get in.

18:12

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am very pleased to speak in the debate. I have been a long-time sports enthusiast and I love the countryside. I live on a farm and am a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and the Countryside Alliance. I am also a member of Country Sports Ireland. I say that because I want to put things in context, and it is important that I do so.

I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for setting the scene, and I understand that he is here to represent the petitioners, but I feel that I must represent what I believe to be a balanced point of view about ensuring the survival of lapwings and curlews, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On our farm, we used to have hundreds and thousands of lapwings along the edge of Strangford lough, where I live. Those numbers have decreased. Why? I would suggest that it is because of the predation of a number of animals and the move towards using the main restraints, as I would refer to them. We have to acknowledge that there has been a very clear movement among the people.

I am proud that the main thrust of country sports is conservation and preserving the countryside for future generations, and I have certainly passed on my love of country sports to my son Jamie and my granddaughter Katie. They have learned at first hand that our first duty is to sustaining the land and to the farmers who live around us, which is really important.

As the representative of a mixed urban and rural constituency, I have an acute awareness of the needs of the farming community. I am often guided by the needs of the agri-industrial sector in co-operation with advancing information and ways forward in our modern world. I am certainly not against change, but I am in the business of realism in what we are trying to achieve. I am proud of how farmers have taken on diversification and made changes that their grandfathers may never have understood. At the same time, I have a real respect for the generational learning that cannot be understood and felt through a report on a page alone.

I made contact with the Countryside Alliance, which provided the following statement for the debate. I will quote it in its entirety, as I think it is important that we hear it all. It says:

“Snaring is one of a range of essential measures used to manage certain species, the control of which underpins agriculture production, farm animal husbandry, the sustainable harvesting of gamebirds and the protection of species of the highest conservation concern, including the curlew. Specifically, it is a legitimate and effective form of fox control, especially in habitats where other control techniques are either ineffective or impractical.”

Whenever we say, “Do away with everything”, we must have an alternative. That is what I want to put forward. I think the Government have the alternative. That is the position we are at. The Countryside Alliance statement continues:

“In response to previous calls for the Government to ban the production and use of snares, the Countryside Alliance and other countryside organisations work with DEFRA”—

the Minister’s Department—

“to produce a code of best practice on the use of snares for fox control in England, which was published in 2016. That code reflected the current state of knowledge, following extensive research into the use of fox snares by different interest groups, snare design, operating practices, selectivity, and the condition of captured animals.”

[Kirsten Oswald]

The hon. Member is making a point about DEFRA and its involvement in this area. Could he reflect on his views on DEFRA’s independent working group on snaring and the paper that it produced, which details the kind of suffering and injuries that animals that are snared might experience? There is pain associated with dislocations, and there is fear, stress, anxiety, injuries to muscles, thirst, hunger, exposure and inflammatory pain, as well as malaise associated with infections. I could go on at significant length. I wonder if that is a part of the report that he has reflected on.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very happy to reflect on the opinion of the hon. Lady and others as well. What I am saying is that the snares of yesteryear are not acceptable, but the humane restraints that the Government permit today are a way of moving forward. When the hon. Member for Don Valley introduced the debate, as well as in conversations we have had before, he mentioned how the Department has moved forward. I say quite clearly that to have the snares of yesteryear would be totally wrong, because there is little or no humane control in them. What we have today with the humane restraints is a methodology, and that is what DEFRA has. I think there is a way forward.

The Countryside Alliance further states:

“Code compliant snares are a restraining, rather than killing, device, and only these can be used in England. Although fox trapping is not subject to the Agreement of International Humane Trapping Standards, research has also indicated that code of practice compliant snares, operated according to best practice, past the Agreement’s requirements for humaneness. As a humane and effective means of fox control, snares are an essential management tool that we cannot afford to lose.”

It also says, very clearly:

“Any changes to current legislation and regulations must be proportionate and justified.”

I accept what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) is saying, and I agree with her, but I think what the Government have on humane restraints is the right way of doing this.

The hon. Member for Don Valley referred to gamekeepers. I am a shooting man; that is no secret. I understand that we have to pest control animals, including birds. I want to see curlew and lapwing in the numbers that there once were. We have heard that on the Yorkshire moors, for example, where there were once 20 or 30 curlew and lapwing nesting, there is now just one. That is down to predation. These things have to be addressed.

The BASC has also highlighted that we must remember that the manufacture, sale and use of snares in the UK is already subject to legislation and various codes of practice, and that snares are a vital predator management tool that enables land managers to protect livestock, game birds and ground-nesting birds from predation by foxes where other methods of control are not viable. We must look at getting the balance in the countryside right and I believe that humane restraints achieve that balance. The shooting organisations—the Countryside Alliance, the BASC and the organisation that I belong to, Country Sports Ireland—believe that, too.

A ban on all snares would remove the latest, most modern fox snare designs, which should correctly be referred to as humane cable restraints. They are the solution and the right way forward, because they give a balance to the countryside and ensure that predators, including foxes, can be restrained. Humane cable restraints are used by conservationists and landowners to prevent foxes from predating on rare ground-nesting birds such as curlew, lapwing and golden plover.

I mentioned the area where I live, on the edge of Strangford lough in Northern Ireland, where the numbers of lapwing, curlew and even golden plover have reduced greatly. As I say, this is about getting the balance right, and control of foxes is critical so that some of our nesting waders do not become extinct. The hon. Member for Don Valley referred to that possibility, and it is the danger if we do not have some sort of control.

Humane cable restraints are also used by wildlife biologists carrying out research, with the foxes that are caught being released unharmed and a number being recaptured. Removing the lawful use of humane cable restraints to catch and hold foxes at times of the year and in locations where other methods simply do not work would have serious and unintended consequences for nature conservation.

I am a conservationist, and I am sure that everyone else present is too. As a conservationist, I believe that we have to find a balance and a means of control. I have seen at first hand—I suspect some others have too—the fox’s own “blood sport”, whereby he has been in a henhouse and killed hens. It must have been about 35 or 40 years ago, but I remember it well: two sisters had every one of their prize hens killed. I am also aware of a situation in which someone’s flock of ducks was decimated by the predation of a fox.

When it comes to finding a balance, I recognise that the snares of yesteryear are not acceptable, but I believe that humane cable restraints are. Indeed, it has already been proven that they are by biologists and others involved in conservation. It is important that we acknowledge that. The Countryside Alliance and the BASC, along with my local farmers—I live on a farm; I made that declaration early on—have made it clear to me that we must ensure that there is a viable, humane and effective alternative to snares. I am not sure that we have that yet, although I remain open to having my mind changed. I believe that humane cable restraints are that alternative.

The fact is that foxes do not merely decimate flocks of livestock—this applies to sheep too, by the way; a farmer contacted me after a dog had chased sheep around a field and some of them had aborted, and a fox will take a new-born lamb when the ewe is vulnerable—but destroy livelihoods. This serious problem must have a serious solution, and I feel that humane cable restraints are and must be accepted as such.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I respect her and I know that she looks deeply into these subjects and tries to come up with a methodology that works. The hon. Member for Don Valley referred to gamekeepers. The code of practice is clear that gamekeepers should check their humane cable restraints twice a day. They agree to that, the Countryside Alliance agrees to that, the BASC agrees to that and Country Sports Ireland agrees to that. Let us have something with balance, not something skewed by different interpretations. I recognise that the snares of the past were wrong, but humane cable restraints are the right way forward.

18:24

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

First, it is important to say that no civilised person will view the taking of any animal’s life lightly, or do anything other than limit or mitigate any suffering involved. Animals are not just chess pieces to be knocked off the board. As a farmer and a countryman, I understand the need for humane tools for the control of predators. We have no livestock on my farm at the moment, and I am not a game shooter, but I understand the importance of having a balance.

We no longer have the predators, such as lynx and wolves, that will take out foxes—in the main, we are talking about foxes—although the EFRA Committee, which I chair, is starting a report on the reintroduction of species, and we may touch on those species. It is important that we have effective predator control, not only for agriculture but for wildlife.

This is not just about game shooting and the interests of gamekeepers. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, sheep farmers often have problems with foxes as lambs are born; while the ewe is having her second lamb, the fox can come and take the first lamb before it has had a chance to get to its feet. We have more and more outdoor pigs, and we should be encouraging that more environmentally friendly and humane method of rearing pigs, but, sadly, those piglets are subject to predation. With poultry, although most farmers manage to shut their hens up at night, which is when foxes generally operate, we have seen situations where foxes that have been trapped in urban areas are released into the countryside. Sadly, those urban foxes do not understand that they are nocturnal, and they have no fear of humans. We have often had problems in rural areas where urban foxes have been hunting in the daylight; that has been an additional problem for poultry keepers.

It is important that we can protect game; the game industry is very important for rural communities and the rural economy. In a way, we are in a win-win situation. On the moorland in my constituency where grouse shooting is prevalent, the management practices—heather management and predator control—benefit not only the grouse, which cannot be bred artificially, but ground-nesting birds such as curlew, golden plover and lapwing.

Indeed, an interesting situation is developing in my constituency, where one of the estates is seeking to plant quite large areas of woodland. Those plans are being opposed, or certainly not being smiled upon, by Natural England, which is worried that those woodland areas will become a harbour for predators, which will go on to the neighbouring moorland, where there is not a grouse shoot and so no gamekeepers are operational, and wipe out large numbers of the ground-nesting birds that Natural England seeks to protect. Those ground-nesting birds, particularly the curlew, are very important.

Of course, it is also important for scientific research that there is a humane method of capturing foxes and, for example, tagging them to allow them to be tracked. I have seen video of a fox that was caught in one of the new types of cable restraint—in fact, foxes are sometimes caught on a number of occasions—and released unharmed.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) about how the new type of humane cable restraints is very different from the old self-locking snares that were made illegal in 1981—and quite right, too. As we have heard, such restraints have a number of features, including a stop that means that they will not strangle a fox, and smaller species that go into a snare will escape unharmed. They have a breakaway, meaning that if a large animal such as a deer gets into a snare, it will be able to escape by breaking the breakaway —of course, if the gamekeeper knows his job, he will not put a snare in a place where those species could be present. Finally, there is a swivel, which means that if the animal twists and turns a little when it is first caught, it will not strangle itself in the process.

It is important that cable restraints are not set near fences, for example, and that they are well anchored so that if an animal is restrained, it remains there. When the gamekeeper visits the snare, he can humanely dispatch the fox. We can have a debate about whether foxes should be a protected species, but if we need to control foxes we need to do it in the most humane way.

What are the alternatives? Shooting is the most obvious, but shooting can be very difficult near settlements and in dense vegetation. The most important argument against shooting is that if a fox is wounded—often the shots are taken from quite a distance, given the cautious nature of foxes—it can go off and die in agony of gangrene or its wound. At least with cable restraints we do not have a situation where an animal is wounded and goes off to die. There are other alternatives such as gassing and poisoning, but, again, those could mean that non-target species are affected and cannot be released unharmed.

I believe that the continued professional use by trained personnel of cable restraints is important to our management of the countryside and our wildlife. The alternatives do not bear much scrutiny in terms of their relative humaneness. Set correctly and checked every 24 hours—indeed, checked before 9 o’clock in the morning, because most foxes are nocturnal—cable restraints are an important tool in our wildlife management. I hope we will continue to responsibly use cable restraints as a way of managing our countryside and ensuring that our wildlife and our economic interests in terms of game and agriculture are protected.

18:31

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to be able to speak in today’s debate, not least because the petition is signed by 102,616 people, including 216 from my constituency and 418 from York.

Some of the arguments that have been put forward are completely indefensible, and I hope to deconstruct them. Snares are cruel—no ifs, no buts. They cause suffering and must be banned. In July 2016, I announced that Labour would introduce a ban, and here we are, years later, no further forward. We were promised a consultation by the Government in 2021. We are now entering 2023. The delays are just not acceptable. Wales is getting on with the job and legislating. Scotland was consulting and just before Christmas announced that it will proceed with a ban. That is the direction we must follow. Across the EU, there are only four countries left without a ban on snares. We must not be left behind in an archaic age where man thinks he has a right to go and hunt and enjoy the game and sport. Animals should never be our sport. They are precious parts of creation, which we must nurture and care for.

I want to deconstruct some of the arguments made this afternoon. We have 188,000 snares in operation at any one time, with 1.7 million animals killed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about foxes, but we must remember that 75% of the animals snared are not foxes. I will come on to foxes in a moment, but that just goes to show that the arguments do not hold up. We know that 33% of the animals snared are hares, which are not predatory animals; 26% are badgers; and 14% are other species. Otters, deer and even horses get caught in snares. Although they have breaks in them, not every animal breaks free. As a result, much suffering is caused. We have heard about the suffering: asphyxiation, laceration, dislocation, amputation, starvation, dehydration and predation.

Much of the debate in this House over the last five or six years has been about animals as sentient beings. They know what is happening to them and suffer mental distress. As a result, we must introduce legislation to catch up with what Labour is doing in Wales and what we are seeing in Scotland.

In nature there is a balance. That balance does not give us the right to exploit wildlife for our own personal gain, which is what is happening. The shooting lobby might be having its say in this debate, but we cannot continue to believe that we have a right and a power over nature. Nature will find its balance, and it is important that we nurture and enable that balance.

I agree that things were worse when there were self-locking snares, but they were abolished in 1981. Four decades later, we have a responsibility to look again.

[Jim Shannon]

I respect the hon. Lady and, although we probably have very different points of view, we agree that the old snares were not acceptable. Humane restraints are the alternative way forward to achieve the balance to which she refers. We will not have any lapwing, plover and curlew if we continue to ignore the predation of foxes and other mammals. How would the hon. Lady set about ensuring that curlew, lapwing and plover are still here for my children and grandchildren?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. My friend from North Yorkshire, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), made the case in talking about Natural England’s view that, by building woodland, we will encourage predatory animals to come to an area where these animals already breed and have their freedom. That goes to show that there are other measures that can be taken to ensure that we have strong biodiversity across our country and that we move forward.

We have heard about the opportunity for consultation, which is absolutely necessary, but how is technology being deployed—we see it deployed in all other areas of life—to track where these animals are? How can we track the risks and opportunities in introducing controls, as opposed to having a random process in which 75% of animals captured are not of the intended species, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned? Are there other things, such as farming techniques, that can take forward the technology? Again, because of the dependence on snares, that is very little discussed. That is why we must move forward in that area, so that lambs are protected in the lambing season and that further measures are taken. In other countries, the intensity of shepherds around new-born lambs is a way of protecting that population. We should also look at the opportunities for further biosecurity measures. These areas need further exploration.

The poor fox is so vilified, yet it is the most magnificent of creatures. Every time I see a fox, I stop and see how magnificent, intelligent and beautiful it is. It is part of our biodiversity, which we are so blessed to be among. We should end the vilification of foxes. This is a difficult period for foxes, given the hunting that still continues. The Government must get on top of trail hunts and ban them, and ensure that all our biodiversity and nature is maintained and restored.

18:38

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Given my long-standing interest in improving animal welfare standards in this country, it will be no surprise to Members that I rise today in support of the petition. I implore the Government to follow most European countries, which have banned snares altogether, and to work with the devolved Administrations. Wales is banning the use of snares, and Scotland conducted a statutory review of the practice. In December, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recommended a ban—our Scottish colleagues will be closer to the process—and I hope that the Scottish Government will agree with that recommendation. However, if they do, England will be left behind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) spoke of the cruel nature of snares and how they are indiscriminate in catching and harming wildlife, whether that be foxes, badgers, hedgehogs or, in some cases, domestic pets. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who spoke brilliantly, highlighted the statistics, so I will not repeat them, but it is my very strong view that there is no need for snares at all. There is no justification for them. They are old-school methods of pest control that have no place in a modern society, especially if it is to be one that respects its natural environment and those who live in it.

I want to focus my preliminary comments on the Government’s response so far on both the issue of snares and the other progressive animal welfare improvements promised since the 2019 election. In responding to the petition exactly a year ago, the Department stated:

“The Government recognises that some people consider snares to be an inhumane and unnecessary means of trapping wild animals and will launch a call for evidence on the use of snares.”

I take issue with the Department’s use of the word “some”, and I hope that the Minister will provide reassurance that the Government understand the scale of public opinion on this issue.

Research by Survation, commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports, found that almost three in four members of the public support a ban on snares. Meanwhile, a 2021 YouGov poll found that 69% of people support a ban on the use of snares, while only 14% oppose such a ban. Therefore, I would argue that it is correct to say that “some” people support the use of snares, while most of the British public wish to see their use come to an end.

Secondly, in their January 2022 response to the petition, the Government further committed to assessing the improper use of snares and whether further legislation is needed to protect non-target wildlife. Yet a year has passed, and we are no closer to seeing a call for evidence. The consultation was first promised in the “Action Plan for Animal Welfare” in 2021, and I and many other colleagues spoke about the action plan in more detail in a Westminster Hall debate before Christmas.

I and the countless animal welfare organisations that have long championed issues such as ending the use of snares welcomed the action plan as a statement of intent from the Government, recognising that they were serious about their pledges to

“maintain the highest animal welfare standards in the world”.

Therefore, the lack of action, with a few exceptions, has been incredibly disappointing.

Proponents of snares point to the voluntary code of best practice, which provides for principles for their legal and humane use. Yet the ambiguity of the law is evident even within the text of the code, which is endorsed by the major hunting organisations. The code states:

“If you follow the advice…you should be operating within the law regarding animal welfare and avoiding non-target species.”

I am concerned that the code of practice, endorsed by the sector, masks from the Government and the relevant agencies the failure to properly scrutinise those who administer snares and to ensure that they adhere to the rules set out in the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

In fact, research carried out by DEFRA between 2008 and 2010 on the humaneness of snares in England and Wales found low levels of awareness and compliance, especially among farmers, regarding the code of best practice for snares. I am therefore very interested to know whether the Department plans to revisit such a study and in how it measures the legality of snares in England. The code is not, as far as I can tell, a statutory code. Therefore, given that the law says that snares should be checked once a day while the code says twice a day, it is highly likely that the least time-consuming requirement is the one that will be followed—if it is followed at all, as enforcement is highly unlikely.

Free-running snares have been championed in agriculture and game shooting circles as a humane way of catching foxes and other target animals. The more modern device is meant to tighten around an animal and hold it quietly until a gamekeeper from the shoot comes to kill it. Unfortunately, this is all too often not the case. The suggestion that a wild animal will calmly wait while it is trapped by its neck is clearly absurd. It is not surprising that in their desperate struggle to escape, animals can strangle themselves or suffer excruciating injuries while waiting hours or, sadly, even longer before they are shot. A Government who claim to hold the highest standards of animal welfare in the world would not allow for wild animals, many of which are indigenous to this country, to die slow and extremely painful deaths through the use of man-made metal loops.

Contrary to the views of some colleagues, there is, as far as I am concerned, no humane way to snare a wild animal. If we are serious about our ambition to have the highest standards, the first step should be to deliver on the action plan for animal welfare and the promised Government Bills, including by carrying out the promised consultation on the use of snares. I hope that this debate and the pressure from within and outside the House show that there is a real appetite to ensure the Government deliver on the promises made to the British people and strengthen our animal welfare standards outside the constraints of the EU. Minister, please can we just get on with it?

18:45

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate, and the more than 102,000 members of the public who signed the e-petition, including constituents of Rutherglen and Hamilton West. I also thank Animal Aid and the League Against Cruel Sports for their excellent briefings ahead of today’s debate.

The United Kingdom is blessed with beautiful countryside, greenery and, of course, wildlife. The public feel very strongly about protecting that wildlife, as we can see through the sheer number of signatures added to this petition and others, and through opinion polls. According to OneKind, 76% of the Scottish public support a ban on the use of snares. We have some good animal welfare legislation, and the Government’s action plan for animal welfare sets out a positive agenda. I recognise that this policy area is in large part devolved, and I will touch on the position in Scotland slightly later.

To state the obvious, I agree with the many voices calling for a ban on snares on the basis that they are cruel and indiscriminate—they often capture non-target species. Our registration and regulation models are ineffective in tackling the issues presented by the use of snares. Self-locking snares are rightly illegal, so we are discussing free-running snares today. In England, their design and use are guided by a voluntary code of practice, but DEFRA research found that there are low levels of compliance, or even awareness of it.

It is really important to recognise that, when not properly maintained, free-running snares begin to degrade and can act similarly to illegal self-locking snares, which continue to tighten. A huge number of snares are set every year—running into the hundreds of thousands—so although owners are responsible for checking them every 24 hours and ensuring their upkeep, that is not realistically achievable.

Because the code of practice is industry-owned and non-statutory in England, and because snares are predominantly used on private land, it is nearly impossible to monitor compliance. In Scotland, the use of free-running snares is more regulated. Training, registration and record keeping are mandatory in law, and there are five-yearly reviews of the effectiveness of the legislation. The latest review, published in February 2022, included an acknowledgment that a further and wider review of snare use would be necessary, given the continuing concerns regarding the welfare of animals caught in snares. I hope the Minister can provide some detail on what work she and her colleagues are undertaking to engage with the devolved Administrations on a ban to ensure animals are protected fully and equally across the four nations.

Even when used in compliance with the guidance or registered, snares pose an unacceptable risk to animals. I mentioned that they are often not checked every 24 hours, as the code sets out, and there are many reasons for that, but think about what that means for an animal trapped within one for hours, days or weeks on end. In a panic, they may aggressively struggle and die of asphyxiation. They may, like a human, freeze in fear —also known as tonic immobility. If snared by non-intended parts of the body, such as the leg, shoulder or abdomen, animals can suffer horrific injuries and be left suffering needlessly until someone comes to release them. Some gnaw at the wire, biting at their own flesh to try to get out. They may be preyed on by another animal, or die of hypothermia, dehydration or starvation. It is horrific and cruel.

DEFRA research also found that up to 68% of the animals caught in snares were non-target animals. That presents a whole raft of other problems; for example, the stop on a snare set for a fox will already be much too tight for animals such as badgers—which, by the way, are legally protected.

I want to illustrate why the Scottish Government are conducting a wider review, and why the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recommended a complete ban on snare use in December last year. Last week, a news article highlighted a horrible incident of a young badger cub caught in a snare in Skyeburn, leaving it hanging from a gate while it struggled. A passer-by spotted the cub in distress, and when animal welfare charity worker Alexis Fleming arrived on scene she found over 20 strands of wire had wrapped around the cub’s neck and body as it frantically tried to free itself.

The cub was taken to the charity’s premises where they were able to remove the wire and treat the wounds caused. It was thought that the cub had been trapped for at least a few days. He was trapped by an illegal snare, and would have asphyxiated if not for stones under the gate he used to support himself. Bits of sharp metal in the wire, described as similar to barbed wire, were caught in the cub’s neck, leaving him suffering tissue damage and necrosis. When we say that snares are indiscriminate, that is what we mean.

It is not just non-target wild animals; pets, such as cats and dogs, have been caught in them too. It is quite normal for pet cats to roam unattended before returning home—they are free spirits. Imagine if someone’s cat did not come home one day. Because they are so independent, that person does not worry about it immediately—maybe they do not worry about it for a few days—and all the while the cat is caught in a snare, in pain and scared.

I mentioned that snares are often used on private land and estates; that is mostly to prevent animals preying on birds bred for shooting estates. That is a whole other issue in itself. Their use should not be seen as necessary—they absolutely are not necessary. Organisations with huge amounts of land to maintain, such as the Woodland Trust, the Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, do not use them.

In their response to the petition, and as part of the animal welfare action plan, the Government committed to publishing a call for evidence on the issue. That has not yet come to fruition. Many animal welfare organisations have been vocal about their opposition to snare use, including the British Veterinary Association, which stated in May that it was calling for,

“The UK Governments to introduce an outright ban on the use and sale of snares to both the general public and trained operators.”

The BVA is ready for that call for evidence when it is finally published. It is concerning that is has not been published already. Following its publication, how long will it take to see any changes enacted? I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on that and provide some much-needed reassurance that this is a matter the Government recognise as needing swift intervention. In 2023, there is no excuse to allow animals to continue to suffer such awful injury and death.

18:53

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate in a measured way. Some 267 of my constituents signed the petition, which shows the huge love of nature and animals there is in my constituency.

Snares are indiscriminate, yet universally cruel. What is clear is that the non-statutory code is simply not enough to protect animals from painful injuries, suffering and death. As we have heard, that includes protected animals, such as badgers, and even cats and dogs. DEFRA’s own research shows that 68% of animals caught are not the intended target species. Under the code, snares should be checked twice, but the law only requires them to be checked once every 24 hours. It is hard to comprehend the volume of snares, given that 1.7 million are set every year. We have heard from other Members about the huge and lasting impact that snares can have on the wellbeing on animals, such as capture myopathy, panic immobility, thirst, starvation, dehydration and many more.

We know that snare users have admitted that non-target species have been caught in their snares. For example, DEFRA research from 2008 to 2010 showed that 60% of people using fox snares admitted that they had captured non-target species in them. Landowners who do not use snares do not want to go back to their use. There are many landowners, of many hundreds of thousands of hectares up and down the country, who no longer use snares, and will not use snares, because they view them as incredibly cruel.

We know that cats and dogs organisations are unified in their opposition to the use of snares because, within three years, 97 cats and 31 dogs were caught in snares. I am a dog owner—I have a dog necklace on today—and I would be horrified if, out in the countryside, my dog was unfortunate enough to step in a snare and be injured. I do not think that anyone should have to go through that.

Break-away snares, as we have heard in the debate, have been seen as almost an answer to this situation. However, 69% of badgers do not escape from those snares, so they are not a solution; they are not even 50% good at what they are saying they are good at. The National Anti Snaring Campaign commissioned TTI Testing to do tests on those snares; it found that a force of over 70 kg of weight would be needed on a 2 mm wide area of the snare to cause a break. That is a huge amount of force that would need to be exerted on a snare. If you have ever seen an animal in a bad situation, Mr Vickers, you will know that they are not directionally pulling; the forces are very dynamic when they are struggling and they will not be able to get out of those snares. That is why 69% of badgers were unable to escape from them.

We have also heard a lot about the different impacts of predators, but we have had a 64% decline in rabbits and a 44% decline in foxes. Declines in nature species are incredibly complicated. We cannot just say, “This is down to predators.” We have seen paper after paper looking at habitat loss, agricultural practices and their impacts on insects and other things that bird species might eat, and the lack of different crops and changes in sowing, and the impact on nesting spaces within that. The impacts of all of those different elements cannot just be laid at the feet of foxes or rabbits. It is absolutely a falsehood. It is a false flag.

Predation, yes, is an issue, but there absolutely are alternatives to snaring to help protect species from predation, whether through trap and release, electric fencing, wire netting, motion sprinklers, ultrasonic devices or the use of radios and reflective surfaces. There are many different ways of putting predators off, and ensuring that we have a habitat and landscape available to lapwings and curlews is the most important thing in their protection.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Does the hon. Lady genuinely think that those deterrence methods would be suitable, and work, on the vast thousands of acres on the North Yorkshire Moors, where lapwings and curlews need to be protected?

[Olivia Blake]

We know the nesting areas of certain birds, and we already put signs up to say, “Keep your dogs on a lead” or “Do not go in this area,” and I think that, actually, yes, where snares are no longer used—on many hundreds of thousands of hectares—those alternatives have been used well. We are not seeing any of the organisations that have moved away from snares saying, “Actually, it hasn’t worked; we want to go back to using snares,” because those alternatives have proved effective. I think that that needs to be on the record in this debate. It is just a false flag to say that predation is the problem here. Loss of habitat, and the impacts that we have had on our environment, cannot be understated in this, as I have said.

I just think that we need to ban snares because they are cruel and indiscriminate, as I have said, and there is nothing about them that we could not think outside the box and find an alternative for. I think we all have enough ingenuity that cruelty does not have to be the first and only option in the way that we manage our landscape and protect the species that are special to us.

18:59

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am pleased to participate in this e-petition debate requesting that the UK Government prohibit the sale, use and manufacture of free-running snares under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, putting them in the same category as self-locking snares, which are already illegal. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for his excellent opening speech on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I applaud the League Against Cruel Sports, Animal Aid and Cats Protection for all the work they do to promote the welfare of animals. They provided such excellent briefings for this debate, as did the House of Commons Library. As we have heard, the matters raised are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I understand the concerns and the depth of feeling. As we saw in the previous debate on cats, animal welfare is very close to the hearts of all our constituents across the UK. Again, it is no surprise that such a petition attracted over 102,000 signatures.

Snares are used to catch foxes or rabbits. However, as we have heard, they cannot distinguish between different species of animals, so the consequences of their use are indiscriminate. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has reported that almost 30% of rabbit snare operators have caught a cat, causing horrible injuries. Cats often die long and painful deaths if they are not rescued or able to escape.

We have heard much about so-called humane snares today, but they still cause terrible problems, injuries and suffering for animals that become trapped or entangled. They make frantic attempts to escape, which is the natural reaction of any living creature. Of course it is going to make frantic attempts to escape when it feels trapped, and it suffers real mental and behavioural stress. The trapped creature fears predation and capture due to its restraint, and it ends up suffering from thirst, hunger, exposure and even infections arising from painful injuries caused by this so-called humane snare—something that I do not think many of us will put much weight on.

In rural settings, sadly, sometimes it is considered necessary to enable land managers to control certain species to protect livestock, crops and wild birds. However, it is also true that the lawful use of traps can sometimes result in unintended harm to wildlife, and there are undoubtedly occasions when traps are not deployed or used in a way that complies with current regulations. That was made clear in the independent grouse moor management group report, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government and published towards the end of 2019.

Following the SnareWatch annual report in 2021, the Scottish Government commissioned an additional review that will look beyond the terms of the Wildlife and the Countryside Act 1981 to consider a potential ban on snaring. Both land management and animal welfare aspects will be under consideration because that is important, as the hon. Member for Don Valley outlined. Many people have been calling for that position for some time. In the meantime, Scotland has the most robust laws on snaring in the UK, including requirements for registration and training. However, there is no denying that creatures continue to suffer terribly and unnecessarily, despite any well-intended measures to mitigate this cruel and barbaric practice.

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, as well as recommending a ban on the sale and use of glue traps, concluded that any traps that do not “instantly kill” or render a creature “irreversibly unconscious” are likely to inflict unnecessary suffering. Therefore, the use of snares must give cause for significant concerns for animal welfare. That is why the Scottish Government are reviewing snare laws: the inflicting of unnecessary suffering on any creature is simply unacceptable. I believe it is possible to ban snaring while working constructively with land managers, which is what we all want to see.

In testimony to the Scottish Parliament, Ranald Munro, professor of forensic veterinary pathology, said that

“snares are primitive indiscriminate traps that are recognised as causing widespread suffering to a range of animals…being caught in a snare is extremely distressing for any creature and vigorous attempts to escape are natural.”

That should not surprise anybody. He went on to detail the horrific injuries that a snare can cause, which I will not detail because they are truly harrowing, but suffice to say his conclusion was that:

“These unfortunate animals suffer immensely.”

We heard further examples of that from the hon. Member for Don Valley, who opened the debate. We cannot allow this to continue.

It is my hope that both the Scottish and UK Governments will reflect on and consider the evidence and testimony. I have every faith in the Scottish Government’s robust and compassionate approach to animal welfare to date, and I am sure they will ban these appalling snares once and for all. In the meantime they have imposed more regulation around their use and operation, but nothing can truly mitigate the suffering and cruelty caused.

We need to move away from the use of snares completely, as Ireland and many of our European neighbours have already. Where there is a need to control foxes, rabbits and so forth, there are alternative, more humane ways to do so. We have heard about some of them today, including electric fencing, wire-netting fences, motion sprinklers, ultrasonic devices, tree guards, and the use of radios or reflective discs. A whole range of genuinely humane alternatives is available, which is why so many countries have already banned snares completely. Should we not be looking at that and learning from them?

I heard the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) talk about how we can deal with vast areas—for example, I think he mentioned the Yorkshire moors. I do not pretend to have an answer to that particular problem, but we must learn from our European partners, who will have grappled with the same kinds of issues. There is much to learn, and there are alternatives to be had. We cannot continue on the “there is no alternative” route when so much suffering is taking place, because that is what makes the barbaric use of snares all the more horrific. The fact is that we already have at our disposal, if we choose to use them, so many alternatives available. If so many other countries can use more humane and effective alternatives, why would we not consider using them in the UK?

I hope and believe that the Scottish Government will move to a position of banning snares, and I know that the Welsh Government intend to do so. In that spirit, I urge the UK Government to do the same for England as well. It makes eminent sense for policy on this issue to be co-ordinated across the UK, so that all creatures in the UK, wherever they happen to be, have the same protection from this cruel and, importantly, unnecessary practice.

19:07

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. On this first day of term, I extend good wishes for the new year to all colleagues gathered here today. I hope that one and all, and particularly the staff of this House and those in the offices of parliamentarians, had a happy and enjoyable Christmas with their families and friends, and very happy Hanukkah to our Jewish friends and colleagues.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for introducing the debate in such a measured way. It was very helpful to have the balances that he gave.

We are gathered here once again to discuss animal welfare, and I thank the more than 102,000 people in constituencies across our country who signed the petition. I note that every single one of the top 10 constituencies for signatories is represented by a Tory MP, including some Ministers, and I hope the debate will gently guide the Minister to provide real answers. If we cannot get them here, I would be happy for her to write to me.

It was only a few weeks ago that we were here in this place discussing animal welfare and the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, or rather the need for Ministers to bring it back to the House. Indeed, anyone who waited and watched out for the Environment Act 2021, all those months ago, may remember my renaming it the “Missing in Action” Bill, but I think we can now describe the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill as the “Missing in Action” Bill mark 2. I say that more in sorrow than anything, because the Labour party believes in honouring our animal welfare promises, and we will always push for the strongest possible animal welfare policies. That is why this debate on snares is so important.

Colleagues of all parties will know that the United Kingdom is one of a small handful of countries in our part of the world that does not prohibit the use of snares in our green open spaces and on our farms. I am sure that many Members present have seen the horrific film footage—for example, of badgers becoming entrapped —and that is not to mention the frequent reports, which have already been mentioned, of domestic pets being caught in, injured by, or sometimes killed by snares. While we have left the European Union, it is clear that this Government need to wake up and join most countries in Europe in banning the use of snares.

I make no apologies for my constant references to Wales and the important work being done by the Welsh Labour Government. As the Member of Parliament for Newport West, I can testify to their commitment and hard work. That is why I welcome the fact that, in their programme for government to the Senedd after last year’s election, the Welsh Government committed to ban the use of snares in Wales. Of course, while Cardiff Bay is in the process of delivering, it is a very different picture here in Westminster. His Majesty’s Government have made it clear that they have no current plans to ban snares in England—I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Minister if that is not the case.

Why is this important? As we all know, numerous animal welfare issues arise from free-running snares—I thank Animal Aid for the briefing it sent through ahead of this debate. I want to remind colleagues of the impact of snares, although many colleagues have already explained that impact far more eloquently than I can. We know that the old-fashioned snares may become frayed and rusty, leading to them behaving more like self-locking snares. In their state of panic, animals may not stop pulling when caught, and can die of asphyxiation. Animals can be snared by other parts of their body, including abdomen, leg and shoulder, causing horrific injuries and a slow death.

Non-target animals, such as legally protected badgers as well as cats and dogs, may be caught in snares. In the case of badgers and some dogs, the stop that has been mentioned may have been set for foxes, and is set far too tight for an already panicking animal. Similarly, if the animal is caught by an area that is bigger than the neck, the stop is ineffective and the snare can, and does, cut into the animal, causing injury, pain, distress and even death. Lactating animals may be trapped by a snare, leaving offspring to die of starvation, and ensnared animals may be attacked while still alive by other animals and killed. Additionally, as we have heard, animals might die of hypothermia, dehydration or starvation. The impact of snares is clear, and that list just touches on the examples we could point to.

The current legislation provides insufficient protection for threatened species and the welfare of trapped animals. The Tory Ministers in DEFRA appear to believe that the onus is on trap operators to work within the law to avoid harming protected species or causing unnecessary suffering, but we know that is not working, so we need the Government to step up and take firm action now. At present, as we have heard, the Scottish Government are consulting on potential measures to address snare use, with a ban expected to be among the options they consider. I urge Ministers in Holyrood to be bold and ambitious, and to give their colleagues in Cardiff a call if necessary.

We on the Labour Benches believe that the UK Government should follow the example of the Welsh Labour Government in bringing forward legislation to ban the use of snares. If they do so, they will have our support; if they will not, they should get out of the way, and we will add it to our to-do list when Labour forms the next Government. Our support for action on snares is not new: we moved new clause 16 to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill before Ministers were forced to carry it over, then leave it on the shelf. My colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) made it clear that we want to see change and action—that was some time ago now. Even before then, in 2016, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) committed that Labour would ban snares.

Back in May 2021, the Department published its action plan for animal welfare, in which it pledged to launch a call for evidence on snaring. The then Minister for Nature Recovery and the Domestic Environment, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), acknowledged that

“snares can cause immense suffering to both target and non-target animals including pet cats and dogs”.

She was correct, but as ever—and as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), has said—nothing has changed.

A ban on snares has strong backing from the public and the non-governmental organisations alike. I pay tribute to all the animal welfare charities and organisations—Humane Society International, Animal Aid and the RSPCA, to name just a few—that are working to deliver the change that all of us, certainly on the Labour Benches, want to see. It is important to note that a ban on snares was included in the sector’s 2021 “Act Now for Animals” green paper, signed by more than 50 animal welfare charities, and that polling conducted by Survation in 2020 showed that 73% of UK adults support a ban.

I thank all the stakeholders, campaigners and organisations that work day in, day out to fight for the welfare of our natural wildlife, our animals, our pets and this country, to show real and meaningful leadership. We get the importance of action. We care about ensuring that our country leads by example. When we win the next election, we will do what Ministers are not doing: we will deliver.

I have three specific questions for the Minister. When does she expect a ban to be brought to the House? What specific discussions has she had with colleagues in the Welsh and Scottish Governments about their work to impose a ban? Finally, will Ministers work with all of us who want to ensure that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill comes back, and would they support an amendment to that Bill that bans the use of snares in England? I am happy to be written to with answers, but I would like a response, please.

As has been mentioned, in response to the latest question on snares in May 2022, the Secretary of State stated that the call for evidence on the use of snares would be published “in due course”. We are now eight months on from that and at least two and a half years from the original question. Will the Minister tell us when the Government will finally put out that call? I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley for introducing the debate.

19:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers—for the first time, I believe. This is a very important debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing it and the Members who are here listening to it. The petition secured more than 102,000 signatures. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for requesting that this be a civil, polite and respectful debate in which we listen to the various views.

It is of particular relevance that we have heard from two farmers with first-hand lived experience. I, too, have always lived in the countryside. As a farmer’s granddaughter I am aware of the devastation that can be caused by foxes in particular and the need for the control of predatory species. It is not just predation that is the cause of nature’s decline, as I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will agree. There are many aspects. That is why at the end of this month we will bring forward our environmental improvement plan, which will fully explain DEFRA’s plans, along with those of many other organisations. It is a priority for the whole of society to ensure that nature recovers, and having a plan for predators is certainly part of that.

The petition triggered today’s debate and has raised many concerns that free-running snares—the type that relax when the animal stops pulling—are indiscriminate, cannot ensure animal welfare, cause unnecessary suffering to mammals and should be banned. I want to set out what the current law on the use of snares is. Snares that have been set in position and that are of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause injury to any wild animal must be inspected at least once a day. In all the accounts I have heard today, I am pretty sure that the snares were not inspected, thereby breaking the law.

It is illegal to use a self-locking snare. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 prohibits causing unnecessary suffering to an animal under the control of man—“man or woman” would be the inclusive term, I am sure. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states that it is illegal to set in position any trap or snare calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal included in schedule 6, such as badgers, otters, red squirrels and hedgehogs. The Deer Act 1991 makes it an offence to set in position any trap or snare calculated to cause bodily injury to any deer coming into contact with it, or to use any trap or snare for the purpose of killing or taking any deer. It is also illegal to set in position any trap or snare calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal included in schedule 6 to the 1981 Act, or to use a snare for the purpose of killing, taking or restraining such an animal. So a number of laws are already in place that try to protect wildlife.

It has been clear from today’s debate that although the laws are there, snares are used indiscriminately and are not checked, and that the code of practice that should be followed is clearly not being followed. In preparation for this debate, I looked into this issue to see the guidelines on our DEFRA website for the appropriate use of snares. I will be the first to admit that the information is not clear and must be improved. That will be done in very short order.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister talked about how the law, as it currently stands, would prevent the kind of suffering we have heard about today. Clearly, the law is not being observed. In her preparation for the debate was she able to find out any information about any prosecutions that have been brought as a result of the kind of suffering we have been hearing about?

[Trudy Harrison]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. As I am sure she can imagine, I tried to find out that very information, but because wildlife crime is not a notifiable crime, it is nigh on impossible to find it out. Instead, I contacted the RSPCA today to request an urgent meeting, because I know that members of the public who find animals in distress often turn first to the RSPCA for assistance. That is why I will have that meeting.

I hope that both the hon. Member and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), will be pleased to hear that I am reaching out to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales to see what lessons have been learned from the measures that are already in place in Scotland and to understand the rationale for the proposals in Wales. I am keen to understand how my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are protecting wildlife.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister set a timeframe for when she will bring her piece of work to a conclusion and therefore move forward with legislation, hopefully to bring in a ban, which is what Labour Members at least want to see?

[Trudy Harrison]

There have been multiple calls for me to give further confirmation on the call for evidence that was identified in the animal welfare action plan. Although I am not able to provide any further information on that in this debate, what I can say is that the environmental improvement plan is being worked on pretty much night and day—I was certainly working on it over the Christmas period. I have every confidence that that plan will be published on time at the end of January. On the progress that has already been made on the animal welfare action plan, I would be happy to write to the hon. Member with a detailed explanation. I have one in front of me, but as it is 15 pages long I do not have time to go through it in detail now.

[Ruth Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Trudy Harrison]

One final time.

[Ruth Jones]

I will be very quick. The Minister just said that she would issue the call for evidence by the end of this month. I am just checking for correctness—is that correct?

[Trudy Harrison]

That is not correct, no. I was referring to the environmental improvement plan. It was a condition of the Environment Act 2021 to provide such a document by the end of January, and I am confident that that will be the case and am very much looking forward to that plan.

[Tracey Crouch]

Will the Minister give way?

[Trudy Harrison]

No, I am afraid I will not give way any further.

There is no question but that if snares are used incorrectly they can cause significant injuries and suffering to the animals for which they were set and, through accidental capture, to non-target species for which snaring is entirely inappropriate.

As I have said, in 2021 the Government published the Action Plan for Animal Welfare, with the commendable aim of ensuring high animal welfare standards. The programme of work has already delivered some outstanding outcomes, such as banning the use of glue traps and the introduction of legislation to crack down on the abhorrent practice of illegal hare coursing. Additionally, current legislation already provides strong protection for the welfare of trapped animals. Anyone using snares must act within the law to ensure that their activities do not harm protected species. As I have already set out, penalties include an unlimited fine or a custodial sentence. We urge those with concerns relating to the misuse of snares to pass them to the police for investigation, as we have to prioritise Government time.

It has been many years since this issue was debated so thoroughly, so I thank my hon. Friends again for discussing it in so much detail. I am aware that Wales has recently taken the decision to prohibit the use of snares and note that Scotland is reviewing its approach. I reiterate that I will work with the devolved Administrations to understand the implications, but I am also aware that we must protect lapwings, curlew and other ground-nesting birds, so we will take a balanced approach. We will observe how friends in the devolved Administrations implement their proposed changes to snaring. I hope we can learn from the different approaches. I will certainly keep an open mind about whether any new rules and regulations are required in England in the future.

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for your excellent chairmanship of this debate. I leave the last word to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, who has done a sterling job in bringing forward this debate.

19:26

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank all Members who spoke in this important debate. I thank the petitioners and the members of the public who have joined us today, and the Petitions Committee team, which works ever so hard throughout the year to bring debates to us in this Chamber.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that 75% of the animals that snares catch are not the target animal. She spoke of technology; perhaps we can do some work with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said that we require action now; we just need to get on with it. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) spoke of the recent decision of the BVA, which called for an outright ban. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) said that the break-away device does not operate as it should with smaller animals that are not the target animal.

In respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we need to listen to the voice of experience. The Minister also comes from a farming background. We need to listen to what they say, because it is extremely important. The ratio of Members present who want to ban snares to those who do not is 3:1, which is similar to the ratio for the wider population, but how many of those who want to ban them have had a life dealing with foxes and the implications of this type of injury to curlew, lapwings, chickens and other things?

We have had a civil debate today and it has been fantastic. We should have further debates, and I am glad that the Government are working on this issue. It is important that we take a balanced view. I will finish with what the hon. Member for Strangford said: this should be proportionate and justified.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 600593, relating to the use of snares.

19:29

Sitting adjourned.