Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about sub judice resolution. I am sure Members have relevant constituency cases that they might want to raise in the debate. I remind them that under the terms of the House’s sub judice resolution, Members should not refer to any cases where there are ongoing legal proceedings; they should also exercise caution if raising matters that are not the subject of active legal proceedings, but where discussion could prejudice ongoing police or other law enforcement investigations.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 624876 and 643611 relating to legislation in respect of dangerous dogs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.

Jack was 10. His mum, Emma, described him as “our perfect boy”. On 8 November 2021, Jack went to call on a friend. He was attacked and killed by an XL bully. Jack suffered fatal injuries. He was 10 years old, and his life was over—absolutely tragic. Jack’s mum, Emma, told me that their lives will never be the same again. The community came together and showed huge support for Emma and her family, but sadly Jack is gone forever. I have had to lead petition debates on many subjects, often in circumstances where a life has been lost, but I do not believe that I have ever had to speak when there has been a loss of life in such horrific circumstances.

We have two petitions before us for debate. The first calls for the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to be repealed; the second calls for the Act not to include the XL bully. Having heard Emma’s story and taken evidence before today, and having seen and heard of many of these attacks, I can understand why the Government have announced a ban, but before I move on to the arguments, I will make it clear that Emma never called for the ban, as she believed that it would never happen. Shockingly, since the announcement of the ban, Emma has received real abuse from people who disagree with it. Doing that to a grieving mother is abhorrent, and I hope that if those responsible are caught, they are dealt with severely. Emma has suffered enough. Her only goal is to ensure that no one else has to go through such an ordeal. My heart goes out to her.

I will turn to the position of the Government and the petitioners. Following a concerning rise in attacks and fatalities caused by XL bully dogs, the Government have added the breed to the list of dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. To help current owners adapt to the new laws, the changes will come into force in two stages. From 31 December 2023, it will be against the law to sell an XL bully dog, to abandon an XL bully dog or let it stray, to give away an XL bully dog, to breed from an XL bully dog and to have an XL bully in public without a lead and muzzle. From 1 February 2024, it will be a criminal offence to own an XL bully dog in England and Wales unless the dog has a certificate of exemption.

There is help with getting an exemption certificate on the Government website. If people want to keep their dog, it must be microchipped, kept on a lead and muzzled at all times when in public, kept in a secure place so that it cannot escape, and neutered. The owner must be over 16 years old, take out third-party public liability insurance against their dog injuring other people, and be able to show the certificate of exemption when asked by a police officer or council dog warden, either at the time or within five days.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about what the Government have laid out on their website. One of my concerns is about the ban coming in so quickly. Does he believe that the public have enough information, or know where to find the information, to enable conscientious owners who want to look after these dogs and protect them to make an informed decision? Is there enough time to ensure that the information about what is needed from responsible owners gets out?

[Nick Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is right is right to raise that point, which I will come to later in my speech.

I have discussed these petitions with many friends and colleagues. Like me, after hearing of such horrific attacks, they found it hard to believe the numbers that support repealing the ban. We have banned other dogs in the past, and these dogs are obviously dangerous, so who would not want to ban them? What is the reason? Let us explore further. During my research, I spoke to many professionals in this field; I attended six evidence sessions, and I attended the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in October.

What has been said by the petitioners? Anita Mehdi, the creator of the main petition, states that she believes that adding another breed to the Dangerous Dogs Act is not the right way forward. She also believes that the media is to blame for fearmongering, and there is no official data on dog breeds and dog attacks. Anita hopes for a platform where accurate data can be recorded. Anita also believes that it is dangerous to class a dog by its type, when it is irresponsible owners that need to be targeted. She believes that the Calgary model is a good example that the Government should take into consideration when looking into responsible ownership. When asked about muzzles, Anita explained that responsible owners will comply and use them, but there will be owners who will not, and they need to be tackled.

Glyn Saville, a petitioner against the XL bully ban, who is here today, says that the number of XL bullies is in excess of 90,000 and that implementing the ban will therefore be very difficult. He also says that these dogs are not bred to be aggressive to humans—although some people may disagree—and that if a ban is brought into effect, families living in social housing will be at real risk of losing their pets if they wish to stay there, as landlords can refuse exempted dogs. Another petitioner, who has called for muzzles not to be part of the ban, said that her dog can now not defend itself and that it has being attacked by other dogs, since having to wear a muzzle.

Even the professionals have concerns. The British Veterinary Association stated that banning one breed will not work. The BVA representative compared it to the banning of a single weapon and explained that it may work in the short term but that the ultimate goal is surrounded by so many complex social issues that it would be difficult for it to last in the long term.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Emma, whose son, Jack, was brutally killed by an XL bully dog two years ago, is my constituent. Emma is of the opinion that, whatever happens with regards to a ban on XL bullies—the hon. Member has touched upon the enormous difficulties and complications—it is vital that we place the emphasis on tackling the whole issue of dangerous dogs. A one-off action by the Government is not enough; it can never be enough. We need a thorough, wholesale examination of dog breeding and dog training practices, and we need to look at the specific question of responsible ownership. All of those issues have to be considered so that our society is truly safer.

[Nick Fletcher]

I will be coming to many of the points that the hon. Member raises. Hopefully, the Minister can shed some light on them, too.

Both the BVA, when I spoke to its representatives at the London Vet Show, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) raised the fact that most fatalities have occurred in people’s houses, rather than when a dog has been out. Obviously, in the house, dogs are not muzzled or on a short lead. They also asked that the Dangerous Dog Act be reviewed and highlighted that section 3 of the Act gives scope for something to be done about controlling dogs. I often say that it is not always new legislation but enforcement of existing legislation that is needed. That also needs to be looked at.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals explained that it wants the Government to slow down the pace of the ban coming into force, mainly because of its implications and consequences. It also raised the fact that it is becoming incredibly difficult to ensure that everyone who owns an XL bully can do what they need to do before the deadline in order to keep their dog. The RSPCA mentioned that it is seeing abandonment and relinquishment of these types of due due to unexpected costs before Christmas.The BVA highlighted that the window for neutering should be extended for another six months for dogs under seven months old, as neutering has an impact on their growth. The RSPCA suggested that there be a campaign on responsible dog ownership but also suggested that stakeholders be brought together to see what dog legislation may look like in the next five years.

In addition to my research, The Mirror is supporting the proposed Jack Lis law, which calls for a different approach to dog legislation that will include all dogs and focus on the breeding, training and sale of dogs.

There is much interest in this topic, and rightly so. I do not think that anyone who signed these petitions should be vilified. Many people understand that something needs to be done, but when experts agree that there are problems, the Government should listen. We have to stop these incidents occurring, that is for sure. If we are to ban the XL bully, the timeline for neutering definitely needs to be looked at, and we must really push for responsible ownership.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am genuinely conflicted about this. I was on the EFRA Select Committee when it conducted a previous inquiry into the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was rushed through and not fit for purpose. At the same time, my heart goes out to any family who has been affected by an XL bully dog killing someone, particularly a child. When we talk about responsible dog ownership and training courses or anything like that, my concern is that it will be the owners who are already responsible who take them up, and it is very difficult to spot an irresponsible owner until the dog has caused harm. Has the Committee looked at that?

[Nick Fletcher]

The Petitions Committee has not looked at that, but I believe that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done. I am coming on to that in the next part of my speech.

DEFRA has had a responsible dog ownership steering group, which published a report and confirmed that the recommendations would be shared later this year. Can the Minister say when they will be shared? The Calgary model was mentioned many times during my research, so we have something that we can copy, and improve if required.

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. In the light of the concerning incidents involving dog attacks, particularly those attributed to XL bully breeds, does he agree that the Government should shed light on their plans to implement DNA sampling and to adopt the Calgary model for dog classification in order to ensure accurate identification and classification of such dogs?

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We should definitely look at the Calgary model. I know that the type and breed of dogs is a contentious area, and some work needs to be done on it, but I genuinely believe that people know what type of dog they have. They know whether they have an XL bully. We need to be really careful not to let classification be used as a way of not muzzling dogs that could cause harm. That is the last thing we want.

We are an animal-loving country, but we must encourage personal responsibility when making the decision to own a pet. We must choose a dog that fits our home, our family and our lifestyle. Dog owners must ensure that they understand the costs involved and that they train their dogs correctly—and themselves, for that matter. Some say that we need to enforce chipping of dogs and have a database that accurately records all pets and any bites that have occurred, no matter how minor. We must also look at breeders to see what can be done; many breeders are good, but not all.

We must never again have to hear of another story like Emma’s. In memory of little Jack, we should work collectively to come up with the right answers for the safety of the public and of our pets—and we must do it quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher]

I agree with the Minister that this has been an extremely well informed and well attended debate, which has obviously gone on for quite some time.

There is still work to be done, and concerns remain on both sides of the debate. I encourage all dog owners to be extremely responsible with their pets. When dogs bite, often the first thing that people say is, “Well, it’s never done that before.” Unfortunately with some breeds, even if it has never done it before, the first time can be fatal, and we really have to consider that.

There is a huge amount of interest in this issue. I know we are a dog-loving nation, but I do not want to have to sit in front of a parent who has lost a child, or talk to a father whose daughter has scars on her legs for the rest of her life, because of a dog attack. That is what we need to stop.

A great deal is being done, however, and I am pleased to hear that the Department is doing a lot of work on responsible ownership. I have spoken to many professionals, and whether they agree with the ban or not, they accept that it is going forward; however, they do not want to be in the same place in five or 10 years’ time because we have not done anything about responsible ownership.

We also need a database and we need to enforce the chipping of dogs. We need a register of every bite incident, because one of the concerns about banning the XL bully is that there is no real data on how many bites and fatalities are associated with the dog. If we have a database and this happens with another dog in five or 10 years’ time, we can turn around to the public and say, “Look, we’ve really got the facts.”

I thank everybody who has contributed. The debate will continue on social media, and I echo what others said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey): that behaviour really should not happen. To everybody watching this debate, let me say that Members of this House are doing this job for the right reason: they want to make this country safe and this world a better place for us all to live in. If we take away this arena for debate because Members have been threatened, that would be a travesty. We really must keep the dialogue respectful, and that includes the petitioners, the mums and dads of children who have been affected, and those on the other side of the argument.

I thank all hon. Members once again, and I thank you, Mr Gray. I also thank the Petitions Committee, which does a huge amount of work. It is an honour to lead these debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 624876 and 643611 relating to legislation in respect of dangerous dogs.

Snares

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

6. What contribution the Church has made towards achieving the Government’s net zero target in relation to its places of worship.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The Church of England is trying to achieve net zero by 2030. Examples include solar panels on the roofs of Gloucester and Salisbury cathedrals, heat pumps and underfloor heating in Newcastle cathedral and Bath abbey using natural hot spring water. I even have a vicar coming to see me shortly about a tidal power proposition for his church.

[Nick Fletcher]

I recently attended a wonderful service at St Mary’s church in Tickhill; it is a beautiful 12th century church and the pride of Tickhill. However, it is struggling to raise finance to replace its dated heating system. If that was to be replaced with a ground-source heat pump, that would cost in excess of £750,000. What can my hon. Friend suggest to help the church? Many of my other churches will face the same issue, including those in Hatfield, Rossington, Bawtry and Thorne, among others.

[Andrew Selous]

I absolutely get the scale of the challenge as I have similar churches in my constituency, and I know that the churches that my hon. Friend mentioned in Hatfield, Rossington, Bawtry and Thorne will be looking at the issue carefully. In the first instance, I suggest that they look at the diocese of Sheffield’s green energy audit scheme and the “funding net zero” section of the Church of England website. Emissions savings can be made by, for example, switching from oil to under-pew heating from renewable electricity.

Badger Culling

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 333693, relating to badger culling.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Given the recent events in Ukraine, it feels odd to be standing here talking about badgers. That is not to say that they or any other issue discussed in Westminster Hall debates are unimportant, but when a war breaks out on the other side of Europe, that puts everything we do here into perspective.

At the same time, the war has shown that these debates are more important than ever. What are Ukrainians fighting for if not the right to continue having a democratic Government who listen to them? Petitions are one of the most direct ways that citizens in the UK can interact with Parliament. They draw our attention to issues that the public feel strongly about and require a response from the Government. In this case, that issue is badger culling.

It would be an understatement to say that the policy of badger culling has caused considerable controversy in the near decade since it was announced. Anti-cull campaigners such as Wild Justice, who started the petition, believe that badger culling is cruel and, most importantly, ineffective. For example, last week a peer review study by three anti-cull scientists found that rates of bovine tuberculosis did not differ inside and outside cull zones, and that rates in high-risk areas began to fall before culling began.

On the other hand, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and farmers say that culling is an important part of England’s overall strategy to achieve official bovine tuberculosis-free status by 2038, and that it has helped reduce bovine TB rates by half in some areas. Despite the reduction of bovine TB rates, some 30,000 cattle are still slaughtered each year. As the Government’s response to the petition noted, that represents a significant loss to farmers. If not controlled, bovine TB could also pose a danger to the UK’s agricultural sector.

Managing bovine TB has been a challenging issue for farmers and DEFRA for many decades, with no easy solutions. In the early 1970s, badgers were first identified as a potential wildlife reservoir of infection for cattle, but we still do not fully understand what role badgers play in transmission to cattle. Throughout the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, the Government implemented a series of strategies to reduce bovine TB. Following the 2011 pilot in two areas of south-west England, badger culls were extended to other high-risk areas in the region in 2013. Last May, the Government announced the next stage of their plan to reduce bovine TB in England, which will see badger culling phased out.

As I mentioned earlier, culling is only one part of the Government’s strategy for achieving official bovine tuberculosis-free status for England by 2038. The strategy also includes measures to strengthen biosecurity on farms and increase bovine TB testing for cattle. Vaccination of both badgers and cattle might also have a role to play, although I understand that it is not ready for widespread use yet. Nevertheless, after the past two years we are all more familiar with vaccines and know what a difference they can make in reducing infection.

Since last May, over 1,400 badgers have been vaccinated. Of course, badgers are responsible for only a portion of the infections in cattle, but reducing infections in badgers is expected to cause a subsequent fall in cattle TB incidences. The early results of field trials for badger bovine TB vaccinations are encouraging, with one study showing that vaccinated badgers are between 54% and 76% less likely to test positive for bovine TB. It also found that vaccinating a third of a group of badgers reduced the risk of infection to unvaccinated cubs by nearly 80%. Two other studies reviewed by DEFRA indicate that badger vaccination after culling could help maintain a lower level of bovine TB as effectively as continuous culling in the long term.

So far, bovine TB vaccines for cattle have been used only in research studies. I am aware that the Animal and Plant Health Agency began field trials of a cattle vaccine and skin test last summer, with a view to its eventually receiving market authorisation in the UK. Will the Minister ensure there are no delays once the results of the study are published, so that vaccines and accurate tests can be used on any farm where there is a risk of bovine TB?

I have spoken to the petitioner, Mark Avery, and his main request is whether, should the Government continue with culling, it can be carried out more humanely. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill has just gone through Parliament. Surely that attitude to improving animal welfare should be reflected in our approach to TB reduction. Trapping and then killing is far better than wounding a badger and then letting it die a slow, painful death.

I recognise the steps that the Government have taken so far on controlling bovine TB without badger culls. Last year, DEFRA announced that no new licences for intensive badger culls would be provided after this year. That is not exactly what the petition is asking for, but it is certainly progress. DEFRA has also said that the length of existing licences could be reduced from five years to two years, without the option to renew them.

Most importantly, the Government are developing a monitoring system to track the badger population and disease levels, which will enable future policy decisions to be made based on better information than was available in the past. Nobody wants to cull badgers unnecessarily, but we must also think of the cattle and the livelihoods of our farmers. We all want the same outcome—the eradication of bovine TB—and hopefully by 2038, if not sooner, we will achieve that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher]

It has been a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for her response and thank all hon. Members for taking part in the debate. There is a wealth of knowledge in the room, and I have learnt much myself. I thank the petitioners for bringing forward the petition. I hope that they believe that they have seen a good debate; I certainly think that it has been. The simple thing that has come out of it is that we all want to eradicate bovine TB, and 2038 is definitely a goal for us to reach to. Obviously, if we can bring that date forward, we should. It seems to me that testing and vaccination may definitely be the way forward. We have said that quite a few times in the past couple of years, so hopefully we can learn from that.

The story that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) was devastating—I am sorry that he had to go through that. The personal responsibility that my hon. Friend has shown is an example to everybody who has to go through it. Obviously, nobody wants to see the culling of animals or the slaughtering of cattle like that, but for the farmers, it is also about their livelihood. We heard this from the Minister. Livelihoods are literally being taken away.

I think that this has been an excellent debate. I thank all hon. Members again. We just all need to work together to do all we can to eradicate this terrible disease.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 333693, relating to badger culling.

Agriculture Bill

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I want to discuss Lords amendment 17. Although I believe it has good intentions, it is ill-thought-through and unnecessary, and would unfairly burden farmers who are already doing fantastic work to reduce carbon emissions.

The amendment would force the Secretary of State to introduce an interim climate change target for 2030, and make the Secretary of State commit to that target through regulations within six months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent. Although I agree that farmers should play their part in tackling climate change, I believe that the amendment is designed as a throwaway political point rather than something necessary.

First, the amendment would set a net zero target for farmers, but it provides little detail on how that could actually be achieved, despite its demand that regulations be introduced within a short 12-month timeframe. How could that be done? As has been highlighted in other debates in the Lords, unless there is a miraculous scientific breakthrough within a year, farmers will have no option but to produce less food in order to meet this new target. I do not understand how limiting the amount of British food on our shelves would be of any benefit, as it would negatively affect both farmers and consumers.

Secondly, the amendment would prevent the Government from focusing on other ways in which we can reach net zero. By having non-sector-specific targets, the Government can reduce our greenhouse gases in ways that are efficient and that mitigate any negative trade-offs. This amendment would unfairly punish farmers by making them reach a net zero target 20 years before other industries, many of which are more polluting than the agricultural sector. I do not understand the logic in that, and I am sure that farmers across the country will see it as deeply unfair, as agriculture is responsible for only 9% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. It should also be highlighted that the National Farmers Union has its own 2040 net-zero target, so the demand that it should somehow be reached by 2030 is not backed by either scientific evidence or our farmers.

I would like to end by reminding this House that we were the first major economy in the world to establish a net zero carbon target, and we can be proud of that. Let us also not forget that from 2010 to 2019, UK CO₂ emissions fell by 29%, while our GDP grew by 18%. Although there is more to do, let us celebrate our achievements and continue to support sensible legislation which will ensure that we remain a world leader in reducing our carbon footprint.

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

I have received hundreds of emails from residents in Leicester East who are gravely concerned about the future of food quality and environmental protections after we leave the EU. It is therefore crucial that this Bill includes legally binding guarantees that high UK food standards will not be cut in post-Brexit trade deals, whether with the USA or other countries that produce food to lower standards.

Despite their own 2019 manifesto commitment, the Government have so far refused to do that. The Government have repeatedly said that they will not weaken food standards as part of any trade deal, but they are refusing to make a legal commitment that would guarantee that. They insist that bans on lower-standard foods such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef have been carried over into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but the fact is that those bans can easily be overturned in secondary legislation without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government know that, and they are already under pressure from new trading partners, including the US, to allow lower-standard imports in trade deals.

It is all very well the Government opposing the lowering of food standards in the realm of hypotheticals, but when faced with a concrete opportunity to enshrine that in law, they refuse to act. As with NHS privatisation, the Government are repeatedly asking the public to blindly trust their promises, despite passing up the opportunity to support legal regulations to achieve their aims, rather than flimsy incentives. Based on the Government’s track record of privatisation and prioritising corporate profit over public health, I do not see why my constituents should believe them on this occasion.

I support amendments 1, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 18, which would strengthen the Bill in crucial areas such as food standards and environmental sustainability. I urge the Government to adopt those reasonable amendments, which are in line with their own stated aims. Otherwise, the Government must make clear today the reason why they want to drive down food standards and not support British farmers. During a climate and ecological emergency, it is imperative that we have a clear road map for agriculture to reach net zero carbon emissions, yet there are no targets in the Bill for the agriculture sector to achieve that. Across the board, this legislation fails to protect our food standards, our environment or the health of residents in Leicester and across the country.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I want to stress how pleased I am that the Bill has been brought to the House for its Second Reading today. It will not only allow the United Kingdom again to become an independent coastal state but enable us to set a gold standard for protecting our seafood stocks. I am sure that, like me, many other Members will have had plenty of emails over the summer recess from concerned constituents regarding supertrawlers. I therefore hope that they will reassure their constituents, as I have done, with the fact that this Bill will provide the Government with the powers to protect British fish stocks while allowing our long-beleaguered fishing industry to thrive following the transition period. With climate change and conservation rightly becoming an increasing concern for the British public, I welcome the fact that the Bill will ensure that some of the richest seas in the world are not at risk of becoming empty, and that their biodiversity will be protected and strengthened.

The Bill is also of national importance because it will restore our position as an independent coastal state by replacing the outdated and highly damaging common fisheries policy. I do not represent a coastal constituency, but over the years many of my constituents have been dismayed at the way in which British fishermen have been disadvantaged by that policy. The Bill’s objective to end the automatic access of EU vessels to British waters is therefore most welcome. It will ensure that the previous injustices that saw our seas overfished by foreign trawlers are not repeated. As a result, the Bill will restore confidence in the British public that the British Government are once again in complete control of our maritime future. This will be hugely beneficial to the 12,000 fishermen who play such a vital role in our food supply chains.

As we embrace our new future outside the European Union, the United Kingdom must reassert its historic position as an outward-looking maritime nation once again. The Bill will inevitably allow this spirit to be recognised, and it will also ensure that in our waters, we will truly rule the waves once again.

Zoos, Aquariums and Wildlife Sanctuaries: Reopening

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for allowing me to speak in this debate. Like many of my colleagues across the House, this issue is particularly important to me, as the Yorkshire wildlife park is located in my constituency. Since March this year, the gates of the Yorkshire wildlife park and many other zoos have been closed, and the park has had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a month while generating no income.

I fully understand the reason for lockdown, and I thank the good people of Don Valley for playing their part in saving lives and protecting the NHS. That said, as we are now coming out of lockdown I am delighted that the Government are finally allowing zoos and wildlife parks to reopen.

The park will open on Monday 15 June, and with the help of its wonderful staff it has managed to get everything in place for a safe opening. It has also been able to invite environmental health officers to carry out an inspection. They attended the site on Tuesday and confirmed that the park has everything in place. I am grateful that the Government have recognised the steps that wildlife parks and zoos across the country have taken, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that such venues are fully prepared to operate in a way that keeps the public safe.

As my hon. Friend is all too aware, children have spent a huge amount of time away from the classroom as a result of the pandemic. They are our future scientists, teachers and zoologists. It is therefore only right that educational institutions such as Yorkshire wildlife park are reopened. After all, such zoos and parks allow children to learn and develop, as well as to appreciate the importance of nature. The reopening of wildlife parks will therefore offer a great opportunity for children to catch up on the learning that they have missed, and to improve their wellbeing simply by being in a wonderful, safe outdoor environment.

As we come out of lockdown, the Government must begin to take urgent action to save businesses. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, as it was essential that we locked down to save lives, it is now essential that the Government act quickly so that people have jobs and recreational sites to go back to at the end of this. I therefore welcome the recent announcements and I am less anxious about the loss of jobs and educational sites in my constituency.

That said, I will conclude by asking the Minister the following questions. First, can she assure the owners of zoos and wildlife parks that any additional measures introduced for the safe reopening of those facilities will be reasonable and will not overburden such businesses? Secondly, will the Government continue to engage in dialogue with zoos and wildlife parks, and provide them with the extra financial support that they will need beyond the immediate crisis? It will no doubt be in the forthcoming winter months that zoos and wildlife parks will be at their most vulnerable.

Agriculture Bill

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]]

I wholeheartedly support new clause 1 and the other amendments seeking the same outcome: that there should be no lowering of standards on food safety, the environment and animal welfare as a result of any future trade deals, no undercutting of British farmers and no race to the bottom. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and I had more than a few differences of opinion when we first served on the Agriculture Bill Committee in the last Parliament—unlike him, I was allowed back for the second one too—but on this issue we are utterly on the same page. The same goes for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), on whose Select Committee I served in the last Parliament. I thought that he made a very good speech.

As time is limited, all I will say is this: it has been made abundantly clear that no one—not the farmers, not the environmentalists, not the public, not the consumers and not even Tory MPs—trusts the Government’s verbal assurances on this. It is not enough for the Minister to say that it will not happen; we want it in writing, enshrined in law.

I also support amendments on better labelling, procurement, baseline regulation, and fairness and transparency in supply chains, and the Opposition amendment on food security, which calls for a statement to Parliament every year so that we can end the scandal of food poverty. During the current crisis, organisations such as Feeding Bristol have done a tremendous job in my home city, trying to ensure that everyone in lockdown can get the essential food supplies that they need, and that no one, including children who no longer attend school, goes hungry. The voluntary sector has been brilliant, but our children should not have to rely on charity.

I will focus on amendments 18 and 19, which are tabled in my name. I thank the Landworkers Alliance for its work with the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology, which I chair, and for all that it has done to promote the amendments. I have had many emails from constituents in recent days urging me to back my own amendments, which I am obviously more than happy to do. Agroecology is a cause whose time has come. This pandemic has brought home to many people how dysfunctional our relationship with the natural world has become, with overconsumption, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, a food system that is broken, and birds and wildlife disappearing from our countryside and gardens.

I urge Members to read a recent report, “Feeding the Nation: How Nature Friendly Farmers are Responding to Covid-19”, which includes a quote from a farmer from Northern Ireland. He says:

“The current crisis provides people with time to reflect on the importance of food and farming to all humanity…Our food can only be sustainable and bountiful if it’s produced in harmony with the environment and wildlife.”

The Bill goes some way towards creating a better approach to farm subsidies and rewarding nature-friendly farmers. Despite being an ardent remainer, I will not shed a tear for us leaving the common agricultural policy. I broadly support the public money for public goods approach, but my concern is that it will allow farmers to cherry-pick.

What we need is a whole-farm system approach, so that across the farm, not just on the margins, farmers are using agroecological methods, focusing on getting the best from the whole landscape. Such measures include protecting soil health through no-till farming, which not only boosts food production but helps to sequester carbon; using integrated pest management rather than toxic pesticides; and protecting habitats and promoting biodiversity, so that we see a return of nesting birds, pollinators and beneficial insects to our countryside.

I will finish with another quote from a farmer in that nature-friendly farming report. He says:

“This crisis has made it very clear that we have lost the resilience in our food and farming system, with value being placed on ‘cheap’. This has led to degraded soils, diminishing wildlife and imports of lower food safety and farming standards. We need to shift back to a more sustainable, mixed farming system for resilience across the board.”

That is what my amendments seek to achieve, and I hope that the Government will listen.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]]

While my constituency is primarily known as a former mining area, agriculture has always played an essential role in the local economy of Don Valley and continues to do so. Consequently, as the Government have confirmed that there will be no extension to the transition period, this Bill is more necessary than ever, and its passage today will provide farmers and many other individuals in my constituency with reassurance on several issues.

I appreciate that Members in all parts of the House are concerned about environmental sustainability in food production, as can be seen in the Opposition’s amendment 26. Yet this amendment is wholly unnecessary, as clause 1(4) already outlines that the provision of any financial assistance by the Secretary of State to agricultural businesses would have to take into account whether such assistance would encourage food production in an environmentally sustainable way. I am pleased with the addition of this requirement, as it will ensure that the often wasteful aspects of the common agricultural policy will become a thing of the past.

Furthermore, I am pleased that clause 17 will require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at least once every five years on food security in the United Kingdom. This is particularly relevant at this moment in time. Like so many of my colleagues across the House, I have had dozens of concerned constituents email me about the lack of food in shops as a result of the panic buying that we unfortunately witnessed last month. Some were even scared that the UK would run out of food. Yet I am concerned that the Opposition’s new clause 4 would add such a large number of requirements to the Secretary of State’s reporting that the original purpose of clause 17 would be lost. I appreciate that the new clause is designed to encourage the consumption of healthy food, but clause 17(2)(e) already states that the data put forward by the Secretary of State will include statistics on

“food safety and consumer confidence in food.”

This would inevitably touch on aspects relating to the nutritional value of food and consumers’ confidence that the food available to them was healthy to consume.

This has been a robust debate and I have appreciated the diverse range of views that have been expressed across the House. I end simply by stating that this Bill has my full support and will ease some of my constituents’ environmental and food security concerns.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

This may be an agriculture Bill but it is also one of the most important environmental reforms in decades—a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way that land is managed in this country for the better.

Frankly, the dry phrase, “public money for public goods”, does not really convey the importance of what we are seeking to safeguard through clause 1 of this very important Bill: the air we breathe into our lungs every minute of the day; the precious soil that nurtures the crops that feed us; our rivers, streams and waterways; our hedgerows and wildflower meadows; our ancient woodlands and our rolling hills; the stunning country- side that is one of the greatest treasures of this United Kingdom we are lucky enough to call home. Of course, the “public goods” covered in the Bill also include the civilised and compassionate treatment of animals and the struggle to protect our planet from climate change.

To make a success of these reforms, we need, first, to give proper weight to food security. I was pleased to see this added to the Bill during my time as Secretary of State. Secondly, these reforms must be properly funded. I fought to secure a Conservative manifesto commitment that farm support would be maintained at current levels in every year of this Parliament. Bitter experience shows how hard it is to deliver change on this scale in the context of a shrinking budget.

Thirdly, we need sufficient time for a managed and orderly transition to ELM. If the Government want to stick to their seven-year timetable, I am afraid that we will need to see more detail very soon on how ELM will operate. Fourthly, in designing ELM we need to get the right balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that the schemes are widely accessed by farmers, including upland farmers, and can be delivered in practice; and, on the other hand, ensuring that significant, measurable, positive outcomes are delivered in relation to crucial public goods.

In this Bill, we are setting out on a path that has been closed to this Parliament for nearly half a century. Successive Governments have pushed CAP reform, but generally returned empty-handed from the Council tables in Brussels. Replacing the CAP means that we can deliver a better, brighter, greener future for farming in England, but we will not be able to realise that vision if we expose our farmers to unfettered competition from US imports produced to lower standards of animal welfare and environmental protection. We are already asking a great deal of farmers as we phase out basic payments. They will face even greater challenges if the negotiations with the EU do not initially deliver a free trade agreement. If we add in the complete liberalisation of trade with US producers, that would be a hit from which many livestock businesses would not survive. The aftershock would be felt in all four corners of our United Kingdom because of the centrality of livestock farming to communities in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and of course the north of England too.

The Conservatives were elected on a manifesto with commitments on animal welfare and the environment which are more far-reaching than any before in the long history of our party, but allowing unrestricted imports from jurisdictions with far weaker rules would mean offshoring carbon emissions and animal cruelty, not reducing them. If we are to keep our promises on the environment and on the decent treatment of animals, they must be reflected in our trade policy and in the Bill this afternoon.