Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Trudy Harrison

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Trudy Harrison]

I certainly do. I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. There can be nobody more qualified and experienced in animal welfare than a vet, and he speaks with such sense.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Trudy Harrison]

I will just make some progress.

I will set out what has been achieved since 2010, with a wide range of valuable reforms that make a difference to animal welfare: implementing a revised welfare at slaughter regime and introducing CCTV in all slaughterhouses; banning traditional battery cages for laying hens and permitting beak trimming only by infrared technology; and raising standards for meat chickens. We have significantly enhanced companion animal welfare by revamping the local authority licencing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Trudy Harrison

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Trudy Harrison]

The hon. Gentleman raises a technical question. I am happy to liaise with my colleagues in the Department for Transport on that particular matter, and I will write to him with a response.

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

According to a rural Scottish business panel survey last month, the impact of the cost of living is damaging rural Scottish businesses, with almost nine out of 10 having financial concerns and three quarters postponing investment plans due to cost increases. Despite what the Minister has said earlier, can she tell me what additional support she can provide to support rural communities struggling with higher costs?

[Trudy Harrison]

There is a plethora of support, particularly around energy with the household support fund and including from my colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade—the artist formerly known as BEIS. Surely the hon. Lady has seen the announcement this morning on how we are supporting the transition to green energy, too, which will benefit constituents not only in Scotland, but right around the UK.

Snares

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Trudy Harrison

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patricia Gibson]

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

[Trudy Harrison]

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

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

Civil Nuclear Constabulary: Pensions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Trudy Harrison

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. That is a very important point, which I need not add to. I am sure the Minister is listening. That loss of skills is extremely concerning.

The damage to the recruitment and retention of CNC officers can only compromise, perhaps dangerously, the effectiveness of the force, and it could have extremely serious consequences for public safety. In addition, if we expect such exacting standards of CNC officers, while demanding that they wait until 68 to retire, of course there will be a temptation for ageing officers who know their job could be under threat to mask health conditions that may undermine their performance.

We all know that most public sector workers are now expected to work for longer. However, there are exceptions for certain classes of worker, and it seems obvious that CNC officers should be included in those exceptions. Perhaps the Minister can explain why conventional police officers will continue to retire at 60 but CNC officers will not. What is the logic for that? Despite that fact, CNC officers must meet much higher standards of physical fitness to keep their jobs. Conventional police officers perform firearms duties as an optional part of their duties and can relinquish them as they get older. Every single CNC officer is required to be fully trained in firearms, and they cannot relinquish firearms duties as they get older; they are an inherent part of their duties. In addition, the requirement for CNC officers to retain a very high standard of fitness until the age of 67 or 68 discriminates against women, since only an elite standard of fitness is expected to be sufficient for those aged over 60 to continue their duties.

The vast majority of public servants will be able to draw down a full pension. Should a public service employee choose to retire early, they will have 6% of their pension deducted for each year they retire early. The problem for CNC officers is that they are not choosing to retire early; they are being forced out because of physical inability to maintain obligatory standards of physical fitness and weaponry skills. CNC officers are likely to have their careers terminated as they approach the higher retirement age, and they will see their pensions reduced, perhaps by up to 25% to 30%, as a result. That considerable financial penalty is proving a major career disincentive. In such a situation, how can the CNC stem the decline in recruitment and retention?

I hope the Minister does not respond by telling us that we are all living longer and that keeping the CNC retirement age at 60 would set a dangerous precedent. The CNC is asking only for the same provisions that are in place for conventional Home Office police officers.

Let us turn our attention to costs. Perhaps the Minister will find it reassuring to learn that the CNC has done its own cost modelling, which shows that the gross cost of a retirement age of 60 versus the current plans would be only £4.4 million per year from 2023 to 2030 and £5.2 million a year in the long run. In the short run, those costs would be more than offset by extra case management costs, early retirement and compensation costs, so keeping the retirement age at 60 would produce a net saving of £4.3 million a year. In the long run, once compensation costs were paid, the net saving would be around £1.9 million per year.

Make no mistake, the Civil Nuclear Police Federation has accepted the potential for increased employee contributions to cover increases in costs. That means there is no real financial obstacle to correcting the unfairness between police services created by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and securing the UK’s nuclear safety.

I say to the Minister that increasingly this fine service has been rendered ineffective, due to the dithering and delay from his Government’s unwillingness to resolve the issue.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Does she agree that with the addition of the £40 million CNC training facility at Sellafield, where we have the biggest CNC employment base, and with the nuclear future we are looking forward to, it is more important than ever that we ensure we have a CNC fit for the future?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. I applaud the new training facility that the hon. Lady mentions, but I am sure that many CNC officers would see an irony in investing in training when there is a serious recruitment and retention crisis. There has to be more joined-up thinking.

We know that potential recruits are looking elsewhere and serving officers are voting with their feet. If the UK Government are not willing to listen to CNC officers and continue to deny the truth that everyone in this Chamber can see, perhaps the Minister will explain why his Government have set a pension age for this service which he and they know full well cannot be realistically reached by those who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe. Does he accept that if this service continues to be eroded as it has been in recent years—the Government were warned that it would be three years ago and the truth of that is becoming clearer every single day—it will be for his Government to explain its decisions if there is a situation where nuclear security in the UK is compromised? The service will continue to erode unless action is taken.

As this service is eroded, every single CNC officer’s job becomes more unsafe and more dangerous. As the Minister’s Government dither and delay, the welfare, wellbeing and morale of our 1,250 CNC officers is being undermined. That is simply unacceptable. In today’s context, nobody needs to be reminded of the increased importance of the role these officers play in keeping us safe.

CNC officers do not want the Minister to stand up and pay them compliments about their bravery and the value of their work. They do not want platitudes; they want action, commitment and parity with conventional officers. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and that there is sympathy on the Government Benches for CNC officers. It is time to get this matter sorted. It has already dragged on for far too long and every day is doing more damage to the service.

If the Government do not see, or will not pay attention to, the evidence that is staring them in the face, they should not be surprised if we see serious and catastrophic consequences for national security. The CNC will undoubtedly struggle increasingly to fulfil its important mission of protecting the UK’s civil nuclear sites at home or in transit, and to supplement the resources of armed conventional officers as a part of the strategic armed policing reserve and Operation Temperer.

I urge the Minister to be mindful of the fact that this debate is not just about pensions. It is not about pounds and pence. Ultimately, it is about whether or not his Government think nuclear security, public safety and national security are worth paying for and valuing, and how much he and his Government believe they matter. I know that those things matter to everyone in the Chamber and to my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, in which the nuclear site of Hunterston sits. We all know it matters. What are his Government willing to do, in the face of a mountain of evidence, to show that they too believe that the work, health, wellbeing, careers, and, ultimately, the safety of our CNC officers matter?