Open Season for Woodcock

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 619615, relating to the open season for woodcock.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. Mark Avery, Chris Packham and Ruth Tingay from Wild Justice want the opening of the woodcock shooting season to be formally pushed back to 1 December each year. The current season is 1 October to 31 January, and the season in Scotland starts on 1 September. Wild Justice wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland authorities in March but is yet to receive a substantive response. The petition has received 107,916 signatures, including 76 from the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, which demonstrates its considerable support across our United Kingdom.

There is no doubt that the resident British woodcock population is not doing well. The Staffordshire Wildlife Trust does great work in my constituency and is dedicated to protecting some of our most beautiful natural wildlife. Woodcock is the only species of wading bird in Britain and Ireland that is adapted to breed in woodland areas. The British Trust for Ornithology, or BTO, describes it as a “superbly camouflaged” bird with a habit of remaining motionless unless approached at very close quarters. There are two distinct populations of woodcocks in the United Kingdom: a smaller breeding population that is resident all year round and a much large overwintering population that arrives in the UK from November onwards.

I have held meetings with those on both sides of this debate to ensure that I make balanced and considered points on the matter. I was glad to meet with Mark, Chris and Ruth from Wild Justice, who started the petition. In addition, I spoke with Jeff Knott from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Both organisations support the measure that the petitioners want the Government to introduce.

I also spoke with Andrew Hoodless and Roger Draycott from the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, or GWCT, who argue that the ban is arbitrary and that the decline in the woodcock population is a result of bad habitats for woodcock and the deer population. Those views are shared by Jak Abrahams from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and by Tim Bonner from the Countryside Alliance. They believe that parliamentary time would be better spent on debating and scrutinising the Government’s approach to resident deer population management or the proper management of the countryside, so that we can best protect British and Irish woodcocks.

In 2015, the native woodcock was put on the Great Britain red list, highlighting its decline. Wild Justice is determined for the Secretary of State to introduce statutory measures to reduce the shooting season specifically for woodcocks. The woodcock is a magnificent species and a true symbol of the Great British countryside. As the Member in charge of the debate, I look forward to setting out the complex and nuanced arguments surrounding the length of the season and how best to protect the woodcock. Let me be clear: there is no doubt that the native British and Irish woodcock is in decline. The first breeding woodcock survey was undertaken in 2003 and estimated a breeding population of 78,000 pairs in Britain. A survey conducted a decade later, in 2013, found that there were only 55,000 pairs in the UK—a significant decline of 29%.

I will press on and highlight the arguments for and against the motion. I will start by setting out the arguments made by Wild Justice and the RSPB. Wild Justice states that it uses the legal system to get a better deal for UK wildlife, challenge Government decisions in the courts, and campaign for better and stronger laws and policies. With the native woodcock breeding population in sharp decline, Wild Justice suggests that the shooting season should be reduced by pushing the start date back. That would not end the shooting season but simply change when it starts. It is vital to stress that Wild Justice is not looking for an outright ban on shooting woodcocks, but is focused on shortening the shooting season to better protect the native woodcock population.

Despite figures that suggest that the native population has declined drastically, the pro-shooting Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust estimates that 160,000 woodcocks are shot in the United Kingdom each year. At present, the shooting season commences on 1 October in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 1 September in Scotland, carrying on until 31 January. Wild Justice’s suggestion to push the start date back to 1 December would reduce the number of native woodcocks being shot and therefore help to reverse the tragic decline in one of Britain’s most recognisable birds. Wild Justice argues that the current shooting season dates compromise the native British and Irish population of woodcocks, because until December there is little to no migration of winter visitors from continental Europe and Asia. There is no difference in appearance between a woodcock from a forest in Britain and a woodcock from a forest in Siberia. As a result, the proportion of British and Irish woodcocks being shot is far more significant until the winter migration takes place later in the season.

Therefore, the petition put forward to us today seeks to get the Secretary of State to exercise their power to vary the close season for the woodcock. Wild Justice and the 107,000 signatories to the petition argue that that would drastically help our native birds. Importantly, it would not require primary legislation. In Great Britain, the Secretary of State has the power to vary the close season for woodcock. Similarly, in Northern Ireland the Minister has the same power to vary the close season for woodcocks there.

While conducting research for this important debate, I met Jeff from the RSPB, as I said. He argued that the concept of voluntary restraint, which the shooting lobby uses as an ostensible rationale for protection of the current season, is highly ineffective. Voluntary restraint is used by some shooting organisations to protect this majestic bird. Rather than requiring statutory measures to protect woodcocks, organisations regulate themselves and either completely prohibit shooting woodcocks or follow the guidance laid out by Wild Justice. Jeff discussed a joint statement from February 2020 in which nine shooting organisations called for a voluntary phase-out of the use of lead in ammunition within five years. Despite there being ostensible support for the statement, the SHOT-SWITCH research project showed that by 2022, 99.5% of pheasants for human consumption that were bought from retailers across the UK and from which shotgun pellets could be recovered had been killed using lead ammunition.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is doing a very good job of being fair and putting the argument across. The first thing to say is that the plural of woodcock is woodcock; there is no s. I am sorry to be pedantic, but I just thought it might be helpful. Secondly, the voluntary ban on using lead shot has not been completed yet, so it is inevitable that some lead will still be used.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting my spelling, punctuation and grammar—it is always good, as a teacher, to be clued up on these things, and I have shown that I need to go back to school quite urgently.

I also want to put across the point made to me: actually, we would have expected a much sharper decline in the use of lead shot. Although the RSPB will accept that, to a certain extent, because of covid and lockdown there will obviously be lead shot that still needs to be got rid of—that process will have slowed down—the reality is that it would still have expected a much more drastic reduction than the 0.5% that we have seen. It would argue that the point proves that voluntary restraint is not actually being taken very seriously by those participating. That is why the concern for the woodcock is shared by Wild Justice, which would argue that despite the informal agreement, it has not been carried forward. In fact, in the Shooting Times there has been open bragging about the shooting of woodcock outside of the agreed season, which would lean into this idea that there is currently mistrust in the system, sadly.

The RSPB argues that the lead ammunition survey makes it clear that voluntary restraint is ineffective on this issue and therefore statutory measures must be enforced to protect the woodcock. In addition to the lead ammunition survey, another indicator of the shooting communities’ reluctance to co-operate in voluntary restraint is the article in the Shooting Times, dated 25 January 2023. It clearly celebrates hunters celebrating the woodcock that they have shot in mid-November. Woodcock shooting days are even now advertised online for dates before December. That suggests that there is compelling evidence that woodcock shooting is not voluntarily withheld until December. For the RSPB, it shows that there is a partial or incomplete understanding of when the appropriate time to shoot is.

This is an important point of discussion, as we have already seen. One of the key arguments against a ban, made by those who support shooting, is that the principle of voluntary restraint means that any statutory ban is unnecessary. However, as the lead ammunition survey shows, there is little evidence to suggest that shooting organisations keep to their promises and restrain themselves from shooting woodcock.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that there is an all-party parliamentary group on lead ammunition, which I co-chair; he would be very welcome to join that group to pursue that angle.

On whether a voluntary approach is good enough, if the shooting organisations accept that there should not be shooting out of season, surely the underlying principle that shooting woodcock before 1 December is wrong has been established, so I do not understand what their objection would be if it were outlawed. I have not expressed that very coherently, but if they have accepted that it is wrong, I do not understand why they feel that it should be allowed to go ahead if people feel like it.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her fine work in the APPG on lead ammunition. She hits the nail on the head when it comes to Mark, Chris and Ruth’s viewpoint: ultimately, there is already an voluntary agreement in place, which is agreed by all parties, so why would there be any objection to statutory enforcement of the shooting season?

Ultimately, everyone agrees that the woodcock needs to be removed from the red list and that we need to see population growth come back, especially as we are working towards rewilding, improving our nature and landscape, and making sure that we look after British species and see them repopulate. Ultimately, there is a win for everyone in this regard, and I completely concur with the hon. Lady. To me, her argument seems reasonable. As someone who is not a shooter, who represents an urban constituency and who did not know about woodcock until I volunteered to take on this debate, it seems like plain common sense. That is my personal opinion, but I want to make sure that I outline the opposition to the petition, because I am grateful to those who were willing to give their time to argue against it, but who obviously do not have the privilege of standing here today.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the GWCT and the Countryside Alliance argue that climate change, natural habitats and deer population are the main reasons for the decline in woodcock. The British Trust for Ornithology largely agrees with that interpretation, saying that

“reasons for the decline are unclear but may include recreational disturbance, drying out of woodlands, increased browsing by deer, declining woodland management, and maturing of new plantations.”

To the shooting organisations, this means that it is highly unlikely that a statutory change will make any real difference.

The BASC argues that there is no evidence that shooting is responsible for either breeding range or population declines, and it refutes Wild Justice’s notion that shooting is the primary factor in the woodcock population’s struggle. The BASC argues that Wild Justice is wrong to claim that around 160,000 woodcock are shot each year. It says that that figure is based on the Value of Shooting survey from 2014, reflecting a bag estimate from 2012, and that, rather than focusing on Wild Justice’s figure, we should look to the 2022 Value of Shooting survey, due to be published later this year. All indicators point to a significantly lower figure almost a decade on, and all the evidence suggests that the vast majority of these birds come from the over-wintering migrant population, which is healthy and not threatened.

Of course, we must also consider voluntary restraint from the perspective of those who endorse it. Most shooters already act responsibly and do not start shooting woodcock until later in the season, when more birds have migrated from the continent, which helps to protect the vulnerable UK population. Additionally, many shoots explicitly forbid the shooting of woodcock, as they are aware of the vulnerability of the UK breeding population. Although there are examples of voluntary restraint not being followed, pro-shooting organisations argue that there is a minuscule number of breaches of the rules, which we must weigh up when coming to conclusions on this issue.

It is important to stress that shooters argue robustly that they have deep respect for the magnificent species that we are discussing today, and shooters provide invaluable conservation work in the form of research and improvements to the habitat for both migratory and resident woodcock all over the UK. I represent 676 members of the BASC, and I have no doubt that they are dedicated to preserving this bird. Their argument is simple: to best protect woodcock, it is more beneficial to address environmental problems. Furthermore, the GWCT points out that a statutory change to the woodcock shooting season fails to consider geographical nuances—for example, there are no native woodcock in the south-west and Wales. Therefore, should a woodcock be shot in one of those areas in mid-November, it would almost certainly be a foreign bird, especially given that native woodcock typically stay within a 30-mile radius throughout the year.

I have held discussions with Andrew Hoodless from the GWCT, who believes that Wild Justice’s focus on shooting risks taking the focus away from the real issues facing our native breeding woodcock and could disincentivise the active management of woodlands, which is what woodcock actually need. The GWCT argues strongly that Wild Justice has failed to consider some of the nuances involved in the debate on this subject; it believes that it would be more appropriate to consider a change to the shooting season when the results of the national breeding woodcock survey—to be repeated in 2023, 10 years after the last survey—are known.

The GWCT argues that to address breeding woodcock decline, a change to the shooting season should be considered as part of a package of measures, including targeted woodland management incentives, which would also benefit certain other declining woodland birds and butterflies. The argument is that Wild Justice is missing the point through its failure to properly acknowledge the significant impact of the change in habitat and that it is using shooting to score political points. Wild Justice has stated that it would like to see an outright ban on woodcock shooting, and pro-shooting organisations have argued that it is using the current proposed change to the start of the season as a test of the Government’s commitment to wildlife conservation.

The Countryside Alliance argues that the primary reasons for the decline in woodcock include the maturing of conifer plantations and changes to management practices, such as coppicing, which means there is a reduced, less diverse shrub layer and a loss of open space for woodcock to breed in. One of the Countryside Alliance’s main arguments centres on the need to dedicate focus on local deer populations. It points to a study that vividly illustrates the demonstrable impact that browsing by deer can have in the habitat that woodcock live in. The Countryside Alliance feels that parliamentary time would be best suited to debating sustainable deer management or the impact that habitat degradation has on the native woodcock population and wider biodiversity.

Lastly, I will outline the importance that shooting has to the economy of our United Kingdom. Research from shooting organisations suggests that shooting contributes £2.4 billion to the UK economy. Crucially, people who shoot contribute around 3.9 million working days on conservation every year. It is game shoots on farms and estates that create the revenue and the reason to invest in creating and caring for the biodiverse habitats that benefit woodcock and many other species. That would not be the case if the land was used for commercial farming. The combination of managed woodland, predator control and biodiverse habitats is the secret to a healthy woodcock population, not the changing of the shooting season.

It has been immensely interesting to hear other points of view, and it will be fantastic to see colleagues in the Chamber representing different perspectives. I appreciate Members’ willingness to contribute to this timely debate. Before I conclude, I will quickly offer my own view on the matter. Given that there is already pre-agreement between those who shoot and those, such as Wild Justice, who want to see conservation work, I do not see why we cannot come to a statutory agreement that the shooting season should take place from 1 December. When a bird is placed on the red list and is in decline, it is the responsibility of UK law makers to ensure we protect and preserve those animals, allowing them to repopulate as quickly as possible. Then, when the bird is moved off the red list, we can have an open conversation about whether to change the shooting season back to the current informal agreement.

The preservation of our wildlife is really important to my constituents. Although my constituency is in a city, it is one of the greenest cities in the United Kingdom, and I am proud to represent it. I hope that I have done justice to the petitioners in putting their views across, as well as being fair and balanced to the other side. I look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

This has been a good debate—one that perhaps does not get televised enough for people to see the quality of debate, discussions, stats and facts. I thank all Members for contributing their different ideas. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) mentioned her 370 constituents who signed the petition. She also talked about tree nurseries, which were brought up by Wild Justice. About 13% of our land is forestry land whereas France has over 30%. Such land is part of a wider strategy that we need to tackle not only to create the breeding ground for woodcock but to improve our native wildlife as well.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) made a fair point about the red list and how the woodcock internationally is not at risk, but, as Wild Justice would point out, we are talking specifically about the native woodcock and its decline, which is why the date of 1 December is wanted. However, I understand that this is not an issue outside the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about planting 3,500 trees on his farmland. He is a doughty champion for Strangford; it could not find a better representative. I am mindful of the time because at half past six he has some very big decisions to make about an issue that is important to him, his constituency and the people of Northern Ireland that he serves. I want to make sure that he and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party have the space and time that the Prime Minister has offered to discuss the Northern Ireland protocol negotiations that have come forward today. The hon. Member’s explanations of the conservation that he and his community undertake in the woodland and farmland that they look after were fair and balanced. Shooters are conservationists, and they do care. Yes, they have their sport, but at the same time they want to see their area protected.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his balanced views. I always fear following him in a debate, so I was glad to be in front of him on this occasion. His arguments were fair. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) has far more years’ experience on this topic than I have. He outlined a fair challenge for the Department: if change is to come and we introduce a statutory instrument to enforce the date of 1 December, there has to be a wider strategy, particularly for deer as well. That would bring about a fair balance for both sides. Clearly, climate change is having an impact on our natural habitat; it would be blind to try to pretend otherwise.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for his contribution. The overwhelming majority of shooters are responsible folk and take shooting seriously, but, sadly, there is always a minority that takes advantage and sometimes goes further than it should. That is why we have to sometimes legislate to make sure there are boundaries. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) is a doughty champion who raises tens of thousands of pounds for local charities. He is always passionate about his constituency, as am I about Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. He has done fantastic work. The fact that he has listened to his 600-plus constituents who signed the petition and has turned up here today is positive.

I have outlined my position. There is fairness in expecting, in the short term, a statutory instrument to be implemented by the Secretary of State. However, a wider strategy is needed. That cannot simply be put on the shooters’ doorstep. We need to look at forestry, the deer population and habitat as well. The Minister outlined the new scheme that is coming into play and has been received positively by one of my local farmers, Councillor Janine Bridges, who represents Great Chell and Packmoor. It is exactly what responsible farmers and landowners are doing. I thank Members for being here. I am grateful for the time and space to talk about this important topic.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 619615, relating to the open season for woodcock.

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak today and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on bringing forward this piece of legislation. He is a Member of this House who has long been a passionate advocate for his love of animals—as well as, I like to think, spotting Conservative talent, because when he saw me before I was elected to this place he thought I had a chance of winning. He may regret that now, having seen what I am like in the Chamber, but I appreciate his kind words. I also appreciate what he is doing for animals across the United Kingdom.

I did not have a Spike or a Buster before I got elected; I now have a Bella and a Bailey. I like the idea of Union flag waistcoats, and I will try to replicate those as I go around Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke at the next general election. Perhaps I will get a few nice tweets rather than the ones I have been receiving recently for being overly zealous in the Chamber in my support of the Prime Minister.

Coming back to the Bill, this is exactly the type of legislation that organisations such as Greyhound Gap, which works in the Kidsgrove area, or Baddeley Green Hedgehog Rescue, which also does fantastic work in the constituency, want to see: showing respect for our beloved animals and ensuring that those who seek to persecute, take advantage of or simply be cruel to an animal are held to account. There is no excuse, as a human, to ever be cruel to an animal. Those people who think that that is right or is something they can do should absolutely feel the full force of the law.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who said, accurately, that by introducing fixed penalty notices we will free up court time, speeding up the process of punishing those who have clearly and evidently broken the law and ensuring that they feel the wrath financially—which is often where animals are mostly taken advantage of. I am proud to support this fantastic piece of legislation.

We should not forget that this affects not just our pets, but our zoo animals and livestock. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) will talk passionately, as he has in the past, about those farmers who do a lot of really good work and look after their animals appropriately, and the tiny minority who sometimes bring a slur on the wider profession. It is important that we remember that many of our farmers do the right thing, but those who do not should be held to account, because they are ultimately profiteering from the animals they keep.

The fact that the fixed penalty notice

“may not exceed whichever is the lesser of—

(a) £5,000, and

(b) the maximum fine for which a person convicted of the offence is liable on summary conviction”,

is fantastic. I like to see big, hefty fines for such people. I have introduced my own private Member’s Bill, relating to rogue landowners who destroy history and heritage, and I want to see that fine go from a £1,000 cap to being unlimited, to allow a judge to use their discretion and expertise to determine the seriousness of the damage done. This case is similar, and that hefty fine will be a deterrent to those who seek to break the law.

I am also delighted to see the partisan—[Interruption.] Apologies, I am used to being partisan—the bipartisan way the House is approaching this issue, as has been the case with many animal welfare and animal rights issues, as well as the issue of waste. I note the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), the shadow Minister, has talked passionately about north Staffordshire and Walleys Quarry and many other issues. I know she is backing the “Stop the Stink” campaign and I am grateful for her support, as the issue also affects my constituents. It is good to see that we are all working together.

It is a shame that what my hon. Friend the Member for Romford has done over his career has never been rewarded with a ministerial post. Perhaps the rumoured great reset will finally put him on the Treasury Bench, where he belongs. He is a fantastic advocate for animals and for our United Kingdom, and I am proud to support his Bill today. I look forward to hearing the following contributions.

Waste Industry: Criminality and Regulation

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I commend my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) for securing this important debate and for his continued work standing up not just for the people of Silverdale but for those in wider north Staffordshire who are affected by Walleys Quarry. I want to highlight the great work of another neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) in starting to clear the Twyford House site in Etruria of 30,000 tonnes of commercial and illegal waste.

This is a serious issue. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) when he talks about fly-tipping. It is blighting Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, whether that be in Goldenhill and Sandyford, Burslem Park estate or the alleyways of Tunstall. The scumbags who continue to litter in our local area need to be brought to heel. We need to make sure that they are sent out in high-vis chain gangs, litter picking and cleaning up their community. It is simply unacceptable that those people who obey the law, do the right thing and love the local area that they live in should have to suffer because of a mindless minority of morons.

Sadly, the blight of the waste industry is continuing to spread. The latest case in north Staffordshire involves the landfill on Porthill Road in Longport. It is affecting the constituents of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke in particular, and locals are already having to deal with the disgraceful way in which Price and Kensington Teapot Works has been allowed to rot by its rogue landlord. In nearby Burslem, people recently saw a key part of mother town heritage, the Leopard pub, go up in flames, and now residents are having to live with the disgusting smells coming from the landfill on Porthill Road in Longport.

Staffordshire Waste Recycling Centre Ltd is digging up Stoke-on-Trent’s past at the landfill, seemingly digging for materials. It has never had permission to do that, yet the company has now applied for retrospective planning permission to work on the landfill—something that I and the residents of Longport, Middleport, Dale Hall, Burslem and the surrounding area are absolutely opposed to. I will shortly be making clear my objection to that application in a letter to Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

[Aaron Bell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) for their support on Walleys Quarry. I have received complaints about this landfill from my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) said in the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) last week, and I want him and his constituents to know that I stand with them.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I could not be more grateful to my hon. Friend. This is why we are a tour de force in north Staffordshire, walking around at every opportunity like some sort of north Staffordshire mafia, which I am proud to be a part of.

The company has also repeatedly breached its permit at the neighbouring site, where it does have permission to operate. Many incidents were reported at the site in 2021, including four in the run-up to Christmas. A site visit by the Environment Agency on 21 January 2022 found multiple breaches of permits, including the storage of too much hazardous waste on the site, as well as the storage of scrap metal, which the permit does not allow.

I am encouraged to have learned from the Environment Agency that it will carry out further inspections this week and has engaged with the company to get it to sort out its operation. The Environment Agency and Stoke-on-Trent City Council will also have a joint meeting on Thursday to discuss the problems at the site. I look forward to receiving an update early next week on the outcome of those investigations and the meeting.

When the people who run waste sites fail to keep them safe and manage them in a way that is inconsiderate to their neighbours, it has a huge impact on people’s physical and mental wellbeing, as well as the feel-good factor of a place that we proudly call home. We need to make sure that these companies can be properly controlled and brought to heel when they do wrong.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I thank colleagues for their co-operation in keeping to time. We turn to speeches from the Front-Benchers; the first two have five minutes each.

Microchipping of Pets

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 300010 and 300025, relating to microchipping of pets.

The laws called for in the petitions are known as Fern’s law and Tuk’s law. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Today we debate an issue that is close to the hearts of many hon. Members and their families, as well as the millions of pet owners around the country. As the proud father to Bella, my cavachon, and Bailey, my cavapoochon, I am horrified by the thought of ever losing them. I did have a scare recently when I was walking Bella in Bathpool park in Kidsgrove for her first birthday. Something spooked her and she ran off, leaving my partner and me frantic as we searched for her. Three and a half hours later, and with the support of the incredible Greyhound Gap team, led by the tenacious Lisa Cartwright, she was found—shaken but well. Pets are more than just animals; they really are members of the family, and when they go missing, the other family members are left devastated.

Before I start, I want to thank all those who have given up their time to help me to prepare for today. I thank the Fern’s Law team, who comprise Debbie Matthews of Vets Get Scanning and the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance; Dr Daniel Allen of Keele University and Pet Theft Reform; Marc Abraham OBE of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group and Lucy’s law; Sarah Dixon of Focus On Animal Law and Flop Not Crop; and Freya Woodhall, founder of Let’s Get Willow Home. I also thank Dawn Ashley, Sue Williams and Dominic Dyer, animal welfare campaigners and members of the Tuk’s Law campaign. In addition, I thank all those campaigners who have been working tirelessly to support bereaved pet owners and to bring microchipping to the attention of this place.

I will take the two petitions in turn and try to keep the two clearly separate, as they are on distinct issues, albeit that both relate to microchipping. I will start with Fern’s law. That campaign is calling for it to be made compulsory for veterinary practices to scan a pet when it is presented for the first consultation, or at its yearly check-up. The campaign, known as Vets Get Scanning, was started by Debbie Matthews after her two Yorkshire terriers, Gizmo and Widget, were stolen from her car in 2006. Within the first 24 hours, Debbie found out that the police regarded the theft of her dogs as not important enough to attend the scene, saying, “As it’s only dogs, we won’t come out.” Thankfully, with the help of her father, Sir Bruce Forsyth, Debbie was in a position to launch a major campaign to get her dogs back, and the people who had bought Gizmo and Widget came forward after just one week.

However, for many owners, there is not a happy ending; and sadly, because pet theft is a low-risk, high-reward crime, it is on the rise. The scale of the problem is clear. Roughly 20,000 dogs and cats are listed on DogLost as missing. Debbie named her campaign Fern’s law after a stray cocker-springer spaniel cross who was stolen from her home in Malden, Surrey in April 2013. Fern was reunited with her owners only in 2019. Fern was in a pretty sorry state, having been used for breeding during those six years. After a veterinary check-up, there was evidence that Fern had been taken to a vet for a medical procedure during that time, but because it is not compulsory for vets to scan dogs for microchips when they are first presented, Fern was not reunited with her family for years. That was a missed opportunity. How many other dogs and cats have been lost this way?

It was only when Fern was abandoned and a kind soul brought her to another vet as a stray that she was reunited with her owners. This is one of the contradictions of the issue. It seems that vets are happy to scan dogs brought in as strays, but sold-on and kept-by-finding missing dogs and cats that have a new keeper are not always scanned. It takes the same amount of time to scan a dog brought in as a stray as it does to scan one brought in by an owner, so why cannot vets scan dogs by default?

The other contradiction is that since 2016 it has been compulsory to have a dog microchipped. Microchips are sold to owners as a permanent marker with traceability, as a way to discourage pet theft, and as the best way to be reunited with their pets if they are stolen. But if microchipping is designed to reunite missing pets with their owners, what is the point of having it when it is not compulsory for vets to scan the microchip at a pet’s first veterinary treatment?

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs held a consultation on making cat microchipping compulsory. Once again, however, what is the point if vets and others do not have to scan them? Many missing pets are never reunited with their owners, because it is optional for vets to scan and check microchip registration on the original database to ensure that pets and their owners match. If just one organisation is not committed to scan and check microchip registration, the whole system fails and is not fit for purpose.

The Fern’s law campaigners want legislation to replace the current best practice recommendations from the British Veterinary Association, which, although they have been strengthened, are only optional guidelines. As Marc Abraham OBE said to me:

“Vets are missing a trick by not scanning dogs as standard. It is not a complicated procedure to scan a dog. It does not need to be done by a vet. The receptionist could do it while the owner is waiting in reception.”

It seems like a no-brainer to me and I very much hope that, following its consultation, DEFRA will make it compulsory for veterinarians to check microchips.

I will move on to the next petition, which is about Tuk’s law. It has been started to make it a legal requirement that no healthy animal can be destroyed by a vet without the vet first scanning the animal’s microchip, to confirm that the person requesting euthanasia has the authority to do so and that the dual registration contact detail—that is, an animal rescue and owner—on the microchip is assessed and honoured.

The campaign is named after Tuk, a 16-month-old rescue animal that was euthanised in December 2017. He was not scanned prior to euthanasia and his rescue back-ups were not contacted or notified of his death. This is an important point. Typically, animal rescue organisations microchip pets in their care at the time of carrying out essential healthcare treatments, such as vaccinating, spaying or neutering. This usually occurs when new owners have been found for the pet, so the details registered for the microchips belong to the rescue. Once animals are rehomed, rescues remain a presence in their life, offering rescue back-up to new owners for the duration of the pet’s life. They remain on hand for advice and if owners are no longer able to cope with or care for the pet, the rescue organisation’s contract typically stipulates that the pet returns to its care, and it will then try to find alternative care. Tuk had full rescue back-up details on his microchip, but despite that and despite the fact that he was presented for euthanasia by an individual who was not his registered keeper, he was euthanised.

As I have said, our pets become family members and the thought of what happened to Tuk happening to one of my dogs is truly horrific. The Tuk’s law petitioners shared details with my team of some tragic cases where pets were taken in by neighbours who had them euthanised, simply because they did not like them or the way they behaved. The youngest dog that was mentioned was only six months old.

I am told that 98% of vets have been presented with a healthy pet to be euthanised simply because of their behaviour. Tuk’s law asks for vets to be compelled to scan microchips and contact the registered keeper and rescue back-up when a healthy and treatable animal is presented to them for euthanasia, in order to prevent harrowing cases such as that of Tuk from ever happening again.

I was pleased to hear that progress on this campaign has been made, and the BVA has worked with the campaign and Government to strengthen its guidance to vets. The new guidance, which underpins the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ code of professional conduct, advises that veterinary surgeons should scan for a microchip in dogs prior to euthanasia, where, in their professional judgment, destruction of the dog is not necessary on animal health or welfare grounds.

That is a welcome change, but the Tuk’s law campaigners argue that it does not go far enough. They argue that the new code needs to be publicised and enforced to save the lives of many dogs. The petitioners make it clear that action is needed quickly because there is a ticking time bomb coming down the road.

During the pandemic, we were all required to stay home and—quite reasonably—many people got a pet to help them to cope with the sudden dislocation from their normal lives; I did so myself. However, having a dog that needs walking every day is easy enough when the Government are telling people to stay at home; it is less easy when people need to be in the office again from nine-to-five. It is estimated that close to 1.5 million dogs were adopted or bought during the pandemic. As life returns to normal, many owners will realise that they cannot care for their dogs properly any more. Campaigners are seriously worried that, as a result, many healthy dogs will be brought in for euthanasia.

Dominic Dyer from the Tuk’s law campaign says that the situation is expected to be even worse than the 2008 financial crash, when many families realised they could no longer care for their dog. I recognise that the BVA has concerns about making Tuk’s law a legal requirement; it argues that it could inadvertently create problems not only for the veterinary profession but for the pets and owners that it seeks to protect. However, as Dominic made clear, we are on the cusp of potentially many thousands of dogs being given up by their owners. I am concerned that the current guidelines may not be strong enough.

An issue identified by both sets of petitioners is the need for a centralised database of microchipped pets. Currently, there is a complicated situation of 16 different national pet microchip databases recognised by DEFRA. Most databases offer the availability of a quick microchip database search. The technology already exists to create a centralised database—one only has to consider the centralised database of motor insurance. Dr Sharon Alston was kind enough to share her experience of working on such a system for microchipped animals in Ireland in the build-up to today’s debate. A centralised database would be available to the police, vets, authorities and rescues, for easy access to microchip registration and quick reunifications.

The current system makes it much harder for owners to be reunited with their pets, even in cases where vets scan, but it does work. The BVA also recognises the lack of a centralised database as a key stumbling block for vets trying to reunite lost or stolen dogs, but when Debbie asked the association if a centralised database would be the key to compulsory microchip checks, the answer was no.

On GDPR and reporting scanned missing pets, there would not be a breach for RCVS and BVA if the details are requested by the police as part of an investigation triggered by reports in the microchip database by the veterinary clinic. There seems to be a misconception that the obligation to report to the police falls on vets—it does not. The obligation to report rests on the chipping companies, which will contact the registered keeper.

I have probably gone on for long enough, and I am eager to hear what other Members have to say about the two petitions. All I will add is that Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Kennel Club have given their support to both petitions. I am a supporter of Fern’s law, as someone who firmly believed that every time I took my dogs to the vets they were being scanned and checked. The fact that that is not happening gravely concerns me. My veterinary practice is delighted that I have become educated on that, following the emails I sent to make sure it never happens again.

I would like to believe that vets in any circumstances would already check microchips before euthanising a dog. I believe the vast majority of veterinarians would do such a thing—there is not a mass number of people disobeying the rules and guidance sent to them. Although Tuk’s law should be taken into consideration, I like to believe in the goodness of the human spirit, and that vets are doing the correct and appropriate thing before ever having to do something as hard as putting down an animal, be it one that is sick or one that is well.

I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister here today, and I look forward to hearing their responses and the outcome of the consultation, hopefully in the very near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

Once again, it is a pleasure to participate in a Petitions Committee debate. There is certainly unity among all Members here, and I thank them all for their fantastic contributions. We are proud of our dogs, and we have Westminster dog of the year for those of us who are pet owners. I look forward to knocking the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) off first place with Bella and Bailey. I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), while shamelessly smouldering in his Instagram pose, does actually have a fan. [Laughter.] However, hearing from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that my hon. Friend has a fan means that I have just unfollowed him, because I do not want to be associated with someone whose smouldering look I cannot match and who shamelessly uses pets to get likes on Instagram, which is obviously a trick I need to learn.

Everything—the whole plethora—was really well summed up in this debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who made the point that animals are not just property. They are far more than that. We have all talked about our own experiences and I certainly know Bella and Bailey mean far more to me.

My constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to see their area made safer, because sadly a scumbag called Malachy Doherty stole two dogs outside Marks & Spencer and was sentenced to 27 weeks in prison for stealing. I think 27 weeks in prison does not send a strong enough message. His 14-year-old accomplice is sadly still on the run, but hopefully he will be brought before a court soon. I do not want Malachy back in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, quite frankly. I hope he finds a new home, in a tent in a field, maybe, so that he can be surrounded by his animals and maybe they will trample over that tent to remind him of what animals are like. Ultimately, this is the problem we face.

We have a pet theft taskforce, from which we are all waiting to see the results. We have to ensure that there are stricter laws in place and proper consequences for those who do harm to lives. It is now over two years since Freya Woodhall, one of the people from Fern’s law, lost her beloved dog. She told me that her children have sadly had to seek mental health support because of the long-term impact that losing that family member has had on them, which shows that more needs to be done.

I thank the Minister for her contribution. There is an awful lot going through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the moment and I am sure it has been a hectic time, on top of everything that has been going on with the global pandemic, but the sooner we act and the quicker we get these things done, the quicker that maintains public confidence in the Government, in which I have full confidence. It shows that we are listening to our constituents. Dealing with pet theft, microchipping and scanning of animals may seem small to some Members of Parliament, but it goes a massively long way to improving lives and outcomes. As Members of Parliament, this work is far more important in helping our constituents from day to day than other things that we might think are much grander when we are in the Chamber talking about convoluted issues. This is the bread-and-butter stuff that I was elected by the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke to change and deliver on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) talked about Shadow and Suzie, which touched us all. My thoughts are with her. The fact that it was so long ago, yet has stayed with her, shows how important that is. The Government have introduced a Bill on animal sentience, and that plays into what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said about animals being more than just pets. We have to take into account the distress that is caused to these animals when they are taken.

Sadly, some animals are so distressed that they end up having health ailments or are so scared that they quake when walking along. I was told by Dr Daniel Allen that when people are reunited with pets, the pet is never the same. In fact, they can end up dying from heart strain due to the disgusting attempts to breed them day in, day out, as well as suffering from the abuse of living in those terrible conditions.

We love our pets and our animals. We always want to do much more. I have no doubt this is an easy win for the Government. We are united across the House. All we are waiting for is the ability to walk through the Division Lobby or to give regulations a nod through a statutory instrument. Whatever is needed, let us get this thing done quickly and give confidence to pet owners across the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing the Minister bring those recommendations forward in the autumn.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 300010 and 300025, relating to microchipping of pets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help protect communities against flooding.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help protect communities against flooding.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help protect communities against flooding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

As my hon. Friend will know, national planning policy provides clear safeguards for protecting people and property from flooding, and the national planning policy framework is very clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at the highest risk. Where development is necessary in such areas, that development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and should be appropriately flood-resilient.

[Jonathan Gullis [V]]

Residents of Norton Green and their local ward councillors, Dave Evans, James Smith and Carl Edwards, have regularly raised the issue of flooding. The River Trent and the canal feeder to the Caldon canal both run through Norton Green, yet the river is hardly ever dredged. The river is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, and the canal feeder is the responsibility of Severn Trent Water. If those two agencies co-ordinated their work, they could help to alleviate the problem, so will my hon. Friend work with me to ensure that the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water undertake regular dredging to help to improve the lives of Norton Green residents?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is a doughty spokesman for his constituency, and rightly so. I encourage all relevant risk-management authorities to work together on watercourse maintenance, for the benefit of Norton Green’s residents in this case. Of course, responsibilities lie with a range of bodies, including the Environment Agency, which is responsible for the main rivers; lead local flood authorities or internal drainage boards, which are responsible for ordinary watercourses; and riparian landowners whose land adjoins a watercourse. My hon. Friend could usefully get all those heads together so that people can work constructively, as they are in many parts of the country, to deal with our flooding issues and keep our communities safe.

Local Clean Air Targets

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and an absolute pleasure to follow my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). A common theme we are starting to see when we stand next to each other to speak is that she is far more eloquent. She has made points that I probably cannot reiterate, but I will attempt to in my own style.

Clean air is indeed important. Since the passage of the Clean Air Act 1965, this country has made great progress in ensuring that our air is cleaner and safer to breathe. There has rightly been an increase in concern about the gas nitrogen oxide, most commonly produced by diesel vehicles on our roads. In response, the Government have set clean air targets for local authorities to comply with. However, the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

The implementation of the Government’s air quality targets by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs joint air quality unit is, in the experience of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, less a matter of co-operation than of Government diktat. The city council has looked at a range of measures to combat air quality issues in the three hotspots of Stoke-on-Trent, but JAQU discounted them early. The reason was that the time it would take to implement them would exceed Government expectations on compliance. So measures such as car scrappage schemes and the installation of more electric charging points have been cast aside in favour of closing two strategic roads in Stoke-on-Trent— Victoria Road and Etruria Road—at peak hours.

The Department for Transport has cast doubt on the closure of a lesser road to create a dedicated public transport highway as part of the city’s transforming cities fund application. The reason it has cast doubt on that plan from the city council and bus operators is that diverted traffic would put pressure on other sections of the network. Yet DEFRA is intent on closing two strategic roads, with no concerns about the implications for other parts of the local road network. The way to ensure that local clean air targets are met is to work with local leaders. The Government must listen to their concerns and let them have the time to implement sensible measures that will stand the test of time, rather than hastily implemented ones to meet an artificial deadline.

In fact, on the two strategic roads, Victoria Road and Etruria Road, natural compliance will be achieved by 2026 thanks to the natural uptake of more efficient vehicles. That means that the Government are intent on spending approximately £13 million of the public’s money to create measures that will be removed three years after their completion. That same money could be spent on local initiatives such as grants for upgrades to electric cars to help the car industry through the pandemic or on buying new, modern-day buses for the city. Those are measures that local leaders want and that they know will work.

Finally, I want to highlight the great flaw in the local clean air targets. The largest polluters on the network are not local authority roads but nationally strategic corridors. In Stoke-on-Trent those are the A50 and the A500. By every measure available, they pollute with more nitrogen oxide than any other road in the city. Yet because those roads are managed and owned by Highways England, they appear to be exempt from meeting any local clean air target. Instead of forcing local authorities to remove the grains of sand on their network, the Government must get Highways England to smash the rock on the strategic network. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) shares similar concerns, because of the impact on the town that neighbours us to the west.

It is vital that we finally see investment in our public transport network. That will come through the Stoke-to-Leek line, which will have a huge implication: finally, we will see not only the Beeching cuts reversed, but those further cuts to public transport in Stoke-on-Trent that came after Beeching and which blight the city. Having a bus network with bus routes that spread far and wide, connecting small villages in my constituency, such as Goldenhill or Baddeley Green, is a vital lifeline for local communities and the local high street.

Lastly, to reiterate, it is really important that the transforming cities fund—money that was promised to us in the last Budget—is delivered to Stoke-on-Trent, because that upgrade to Stoke-on-Trent station and the surrounding strategic roads will have a huge implication for the future of our city, and will ensure we leave behind a cleaner, healthier city once we sadly pass on into another world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Cleaner air for residents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke is a priority for me and my neighbouring colleagues. The air quality directive from my right hon. Friend’s Department to close key roads in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, however, is not the solution to the problem. We have recently seen a drop in the level of dangerous emissions at key locations, and we are no longer above the Government’s threshold, so will my right hon. Friend meet me urgently to discuss a review of this project and enable Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council to offer a range of alternative methods?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course I would be happy to meet him to discuss this matter. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), has already met him and others to discuss it, but we are of course happy to meet again.

Flooding: Staffordshire

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) for securing this important debate because my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, and Kidsgrove and Talke, is fortunate to be close to the sources of several rivers, brooks and streams. Although my constituency does not have mighty torrents running through it, it is by no means immune to flooding.

Through Norton Green runs the canal feeder to the Caldon canal and the River Trent. The river is hardly dredged. The canal feeder is man-made and beset with historical issues and when it rains, both flood: a double hit to the village of Norton Green. The river is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, and the canal feeder is the responsibility of Severn Trent Water: two agencies that, if they co-ordinated their work, could help alleviate the problem that my constituents face in Norton Green when it rains.

The houses in between the river and canal feeder are regularly cut off on an island of their very own when the Trent and the feeder flood the only roads to the village. I must give credit to the residents of Norton Green who pull together, and to the three local councillors, Dave Evans, James Smith and Carl Edwards, as they lend a hand to bail water out of the village.

Further downriver, properties and families who live on the strategic A53 Leek Road, which connects the major settlements of north Staffordshire, regularly face flooding. The road is not on a floodplain—it is relatively high up—but water drainage from the road runs into the River Trent; when the river levels increase, it backs up the drainage and floods the road, cutting the main arterial route connecting Newcastle, Stoke and Leek.

Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths), I highlight two examples of my constituents tackling flooding caused by poor drainage. First, Mr David Barber contacted my team pleading for something to be done about flooding on The Avenue in Kidsgrove, which runs down his neighbour’s property and obstructs pedestrians, including schoolchildren, with ankle-deep water. An investigative team from the council was sent out and discovered a severe blockage in the drains on both sides of the road. Repairs are finally being made, but the stress it caused residents is extremely unwelcome.

Similarly, Mr Amrik Rai has been battling poor drainage for the past 12 years, with his home being severely flooded twice over that period. The family is consumed by worry every time it starts to rain. Councillors in my patch have been fighting for Severn Trent Water to undertake work to link storm pipes, to prevent the overloading of single pipes during heavy rainfall years. Like Amrik, residents of Braithwell Drive have been fighting localised flooding due to poor drain management for more than a decade.

Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council continue to face funding pressures, meaning that routine maintenance of gullies and highway drainage is less regular than it used to be. Across Stoke-on-Trent, though, £4.2 million from various partners is being spent on flood alleviation schemes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) referred to, including on redirecting the River Trent downstream in the neighbouring constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, which will benefit floodplains upstream in my constituency.

Locally, we suffer from a Victorian drainage network, underfunded and over capacity. Clarity is needed as to which authority, agency or company is responsible for what drainage. Disputes between Severn Trent Water and local councils in Staffordshire over responsibility for drains and ditches take years to resolve, but the actual work needed to alleviate the flooding takes only days to carry out. There is something wrong when it takes longer to establish who is responsible for the works than the time it takes to carry out needed improvements. We need to adjust the priority given to everyday maintenance and drainage of rivers and amend the gap in everyday funding for such essential services.