Sale of Puppies and Kittens
Meg Munn Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing it and on his excellent speech, in which he covered many of the issues. Many of my constituents have urged me to support the debate and to take part in it.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us are here because of the weight of opinion that our constituents give to this matter, but does my hon. Friend agree that it feels as though we have been here before? I am thinking about the proposals for wild animals in circuses, on which action has still not been forthcoming, and about the badger cull, on which the will of the House has been clearly expressed. Will she urge the Government not only to listen to the debate but to take it seriously, to pay heed to the weight of opinion being expressed by our constituents and to follow this up with some action?
Meg Munn
My hon. Friend’s early intervention leads me to my next point.
Over the summer, we have rightly been concerned to hear about the terrible human tragedies that are taking place around the world—in the middle east, in Ukraine and in parts of Africa—and some people might ask why animal welfare should have such a high priority and be regarded as so important when so much else is going on in the world. My response is to remind them of William Wilberforce, one of the great humanitarians and a great MP. Coincidentally, I was born 200 years to the day after he was.
Meg Munn
I will finish my point.
William Wilberforce had his eyes fixed not only on ending slavery and the slave trade but on animal welfare. Along with a number of other people, including MPs, he was a founder of what was then the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It subsequently became the RSPCA, which has been such a force for good in animal welfare. We should never have to choose one or the other. A civilised society respects not only human welfare and rights but the rights of animals, and we should therefore support the motion today.
Meg Munn
I want to make some progress.
The issue that brings us here today is that of the profits and money involved in the sale of puppies and kittens. Many of us get our pets from animal welfare organisations or from family, friends or colleagues. That is certainly true of my family. Our current two cats, Polly and Lucy—who will no doubt be delighted to find themselves in Hansard—came from Cats Protection. We went through a fairly rigorous process to get them. We had a visit to our home, and we then had to follow the proper processes to ensure their subsequent welfare. That is normal procedure, but it is very different when people buy animals.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The hon. Lady has shown amazing ingenuity in bringing Iraq, Ukraine and the slave trade into a debate on puppy farming. I entirely support the thrust of her argument. Importantly, we have not yet mentioned rescue dogs and cats; the debate has been all about puppies. I was brought up in a household in which we almost always took on rescue dogs, and we need more people to look at that option rather than simply buying a nice fluffy puppy from a shop.
Meg Munn
The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard that point being raised by other hon. Members on both sides of the House, but they have indeed done so. Some of us have always been motivated to go to those organisations first. Indeed, those organisations also have puppies and kittens. I have visited the RSPCA centre in Sheffield, which is housed in a fabulous building and looks after its animals well. It also takes seriously its responsibility for proper aftercare by ensuring that people who take on animals as pets understand what is involved, and it is available to offer advice and support.
I entirely agree that that is a good way to find a pet, but of course not everyone goes down that route, so my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has been right to secure this debate so that we can discuss the options when money and profit enter the equation. We must always be conscious that, when the profit motive is present, there will be unscrupulous people who work in a different way. As the legislation changes and tries to keep up with the trade, those people will find ever more clever ways of getting round it in order to make a profit.
We need to do a number of things. Raising awareness is enormously important, and this debate will put this story into people’s minds. It will appear in newspapers and on the internet, and people will learn what they might unwittingly be involved in when they buy an animal from a pet shop or even from a dealer. They will then be empowered to understand the questions they should ask, and be clearer about what they need to know before they take on the important role of looking after a pet. The Government also need to work harder in this area; I agree with hon. Members who have said that they need to do more. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has set out how that can be done quickly, and I urge the Government to take this matter forward.
Badger Cull
Meg Munn Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated much of what I am going to say about the constructive way forward.
The first and most important point to make about the pilot culls relates to the meeting of the scientific experts convened by DEFRA in April 2011, which drew two key conclusions about the pilot culls. The first was that the culls needed to be
“conducted in a co-ordinated, sustained and simultaneous manner”
over a short time period in order to minimise potential impacts of perturbation. The second key point was that
“the more that a future culling policy deviates from the conditions of the RBCT…the more likely it is that the effects of that policy will differ”.
Those two important points are at the heart of today’s debate. They explain why a target was set of a 70% reduction in badger density in the cull areas in six weeks, but we find—this is not because of the independent expert panel report—that Natural England withdrew licences after 11 weeks of culling in both zones because it was evident that there was no hope of reaching the target number of badgers.
I wish briefly to address why the targets of 70% and six weeks were chosen. The six-week target was set by DEFRA in the context of the lessons learned by the RBCT, which found that the proactive culls that were completed across entire areas in eight to 11 nights had a much higher likelihood of delivering a positive impact than the prolonged culls—the reactive culls that took place—over more than 12 nights. The risk of the latter is that TB in badgers is further elevated and thus it is expected that any benefits in relation to reducing cattle TB are undermined.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
The number of badgers in the area was one of the issues raised in previous debates. Obviously, the 70% target is dependent on having a reasonable estimate of the number of badgers in a particular area, and I understood that not to be available.
Angela Smith
This is the “badgers moving the goalposts” argument, which repeatedly comes back to haunt this debate. The important thing is to have accurate numbers, not least because we do not want to break the Bern convention, and therefore the law, in terms of taking the risk of eradicating an entire species.
On four occasions, the RBCT conducted non-simultaneous culls—this comes back to the point about the short period of time, as they went on over a prolonged period. It was found—the evidence is there—that there was an increase in the proportion of badgers infected, over and above the background norm of the increase in numbers infected by the proactive culling.
In 2010, DEFRA’s science advisory council said:
“There is little useful data on the issue of what time period should be considered as ‘simultaneous’. The Group advised that if culling was carried out in a period of up to 6 weeks (although preferably less), that is likely to reduce the adverse effects of non-simultaneous culling; this advice is based on opinion and not on evidence. The longer the period that culling is carried out in, the less confident one can be that the deleterious effects seen with non-simultaneous culling as carried out in the RBCT will be minimized.”
That is from DEFRA’s own science advisory council. It is absolutely clear that the pilot culls took a fairly significant risk in planning to meet the six-week target. The fact that they failed comprehensively to meet that target supports the claim in the independent expert panel report that the pilot culls were ineffective; they took 63 and 77 nights respectively. Remember that the randomised badger culling trial found that to maximise impact, a cull should take place over eight to 11 nights.
Oral Answers to Questions
Meg Munn Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the effectiveness of its public awareness campaign for the police and crime commissioner elections.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission commissioned an independent research study to assess the effectiveness of its public awareness campaign. The results show a significant increase in awareness of the main elements of the campaign, including the date of the election and how to vote. The Electoral Commission will publish its statutory report later this month on the police and crime commissioner elections, which will identify what wider lessons need to be learned.
Meg Munn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. The Association of Electoral Administrators, in a highly critical report, has said:
“Voters were not at the heart of the process for the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections”.
It has recommended that the Government should improve public awareness and participation by providing for
“either a candidates’ mailing or the delivery of a booklet…about the…elections and about the candidates to all households.”
Is that an issue that has been considered by the Electoral Commission?
Mr Streeter
It most certainly is considered. I do not want to prejudge the report, which will be published later this month, but it is well known that the Electoral Commission advised the Government in advance of its concerns about the lack of information about candidates going to voters. I very much hope that before the next police and crime commissioner elections, which are due in 2016, significant lessons will have been learned.
Badger Cull
Meg Munn Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
There should be no doubt in the minds of Members on both sides of the House that bovine tuberculosis has serious economic and emotional implications for a number of farmers in the United Kingdom. We need to find a sustainable and human solution to this scourge.
According to the scientific evidence, to achieve a significant reduction in bovine TB, badger culling would need to be take place over a huge geographical area—as large as 500 sq km. It would also need to be very intensive, virtually wiping out the badger population in the area.
The Government must make clear what they intend to do following the initial trials. Will their policy be to allow culling over a much larger area, with much larger numbers of dead badgers? That could pose a risk to the badger population as a whole. As Members are well aware, the problem is that a cull of less than 70% means ineffective disease control, while a cull of more than 70% means a risk of eradication of the badger population across the country. The Government claim to have devised much more effective culling methods, but how can we know when those methods have not been tried yet? Given that shooting badgers has never been used in the UK before as a means of control, it must be doubtful whether it would lead to the same results in bovine TB eradication as the badger trials conducted by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
A follow-up report on the randomised badger culling trial, published in February 2010, warned of the need for any cull to be well planned and co-ordinated, and of the potential for small-scale or irregular culls to result in increases rather than decreases in bovine TB incidence. The Government have so far failed to co-ordinate the figures for the number of badgers in the cull areas for the purpose of meeting their 70% target. The latest survey data show the number of badgers in each cull area to be double the figure used by DEFRA to calculate the costs of the cull. DEFRA used a figure of 1,300 badgers in each 300 sq km cull area, but on 17 October it revealed in a written answer that the figures were actually 3,600 in west Gloucestershire and 4,300 in west Somerset. The Minister’s response to my question about the figures this week was also confused.
It is clearly difficult to monitor the badger population accurately. This week, Lord Krebs referred to a variation of between 1,000 and 5,000 in the space of just a few days. However, Natural England needs to know the actual number of badgers in each area in order to know how many must be killed. Without such accurate population data, it is hard to assess whether the 70% target can be met, or how the results of the trial can be compared with those of previous trials that were conducted on independent scientific basis.
Roger Williams
One of the problems with the Krebs trials was that they were interrupted by the foot and mouth outbreak. Instead of five annual culls in five years, there were four culls spread over a period of between five and six years.
Meg Munn
I am not sure exactly how that relates to what I have been saying, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
Protecting wildlife is something about which I feel strongly, and I know that many Members in all parts of the House feel the same. The Council of Europe’s convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats, also known as the Berne convention, is a legally binding convention that aims
“to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats”.
There are currently 50 signatories, including all the members of the European Union and the Union itself, as well as several other European and north African countries. The United Kingdom Government have been a signatory since the 1970s. Badgers are listed in appendix III of the convention, and contracting parties are committed to prohibiting
“the use of all indiscriminate means of capture and killing and the use of all means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations”.
Article 9 provides contracting parties with the conditions under which exceptions can be made to the rules protecting appendix III-listed species. They include the prevention of “serious damage” to livestock, but only in circumstances in which there is “no other satisfactory solution”, and only when the action taken
“will not be detrimental to the survival of the population concerned”.
Owing to the controversial nature of this badger cull, secrecy is required in its planning and start; but we know, farmers know, and the local populations know what is happening, and that must place a question mark over the effectiveness of the operation. The safety of the public in the two areas involved poses a potential problem. If the public are to be 100% safe, the boundaries will have to be revealed, but that would prevent the identity of participating farmers and landowners from remaining secret. Moreover, the taking of precautions to avoid any criminal activity by protesters—not only to avoid damage, but to ensure the effectiveness of the cull—would become harder to achieve. It should be borne in mind that, according to the 2011 consultation, more than 50% of public opinion is against the cull.
The Government’s impact assessment has already shown that the cull will cost farmers more than it saves them. In a follow-up to DEFRA’s document containing the estimated costs of various culling methods, a report on the randomised badger culling trial pointed out that those estimates did not include any capital cost to farmers or costs of training and co-ordinating efforts, and concluded that the costs of this culling method could exceed the long-term financial benefits. Following Natural England’s updated figures for the badger population, the National Farmers Union has admitted that the cost to farmers would be too high. If the ultimate objective is to prevent the slaughter of cattle and therefore a loss of farmers’ livelihoods, why do the Government believe that the appropriate solution is to put a greater financial strain on farmers and on the public purse?
The Government recognise that vaccination is the real strategy for the long term, but they are downplaying the current possibilities. As other Members have pointed out, although the oral badger vaccine would have greater potential for more widespread use, we must accept that its development is some years away. However, developing and using the injectable vaccine would be a step in the right direction.
In 2007, the previous Government decided not to license farmers to cull badgers, but to make vaccination a priority, and increased spending on vaccines. Over the last 10 years, DEFRA has spent more than £7 million on research into badger vaccines, and in March 2010 the first TB badger vaccine was authorised. The plan had been to deploy it in six areas in England, but that was reduced to one area in June 2010. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) has discussed the 2010 study, which showed that positive TB tests among badgers were reduced by almost 74%.
Vaccinating cattle to give the herd a level of combined immunity, which slows the spread of the disease until it reaches zero, should be developed. I will not discuss that point in detail as it has already been addressed. We know, however, that vaccinating cattle and having a DIVA test are the right things to do.
This debate is titled, “Badger Cull”, but it is not just about saving the lives of badgers; it is also about saving the lives of cattle. The key point is that we must do what is effective not only for the short term, but for the long term. I believe that the Government have got this seriously wrong. There is an alternative, and they should take it.
Bovine TB and Badger Control
Meg Munn Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them, as this is a hugely significant matter, but if I am to do so, economy from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike would greatly assist.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
In July 2011, Natural England estimated that there would be 3,300 badgers in each 350 sq km cull area, using data from the randomised badger cull trial, yet DEFRA used the figure of only 1,300 badgers for each 350 sq km area. Why did DEFRA get the figures so badly wrong?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. It will be helpful if I explain the chronology. In September this year Natural England first determined that there were deficiencies in the sett data. Shortly after I took up my post, it set about a detailed sett survey and came up with these very significantly large numbers. We have to respect the science. It is most important that everyone understands this. The simple facts are that with these increased numbers the NFU did not believe that in the later weeks of this year, as it gets more difficult to get out on the ground, it could deliver the 70% figure. The responsible thing to do is to postpone; the easy thing to do would have been to thunder on and not deliver. We have to respect the science; we are being very clear about that. Over the past few days we have discussed this in great depth with the NFU and it is quite clear that despite a big effort in recruiting and a big increase in resources it cannot deliver the 70% figure. It is therefore right not to go ahead for the time being, and we will go ahead next year.