Friday 4th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberGlue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 February 2022 - (4 Feb 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I want to speak briefly to the amendments, as it gives me a chance to thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for all his work on glue traps. He has tabled an early-day motion on these barbaric traps and we share the aim of stopping the cruelty and suffering that, sadly, they cause. I want to reassure him: I have also been contacted by animal welfare charities and believe that clause 1(2) closes the loophole:
“A person who sets a glue trap in England in a manner which gives rise to a risk that a rodent will become caught in the glue trap commits an offence.”
I cannot think of a location where a trap could be set even if someone said they were setting it for parrots or for cats; I cannot think of an occasion when another animal could be in a place that could be guaranteed to be free of rodent access. For that reason I did not think that the amendments were necessary, but I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts.
The other points the right hon. Gentleman raises in the amendments give me the chance again to plead with the Minister to make the licensing enforcement regime watertight. I share the concern that people given licences should have to prove a very high level of competence in the ability to dispatch quickly and humanely any animal stuck on a glue trap. I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his contributions.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
I hope I will be able to reassure the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and indeed Muffin, Bobby and Mrs Skittles along the way.
I understand the concern expressed through the amendments on glue traps, as we do want to prevent other small vertebrate animals and indeed birds from falling victim to the traps. The Bill already addresses that in its current wording, however, so the amendments are unnecessary.
The Bill refers specifically to rodents as they are the primary target of glue traps, which are marketed with catching rodents in mind; however, it would not be a defence for a user to claim that a trap had been set to catch a vertebrate that was not a rodent. If a trap is set in a manner which gives rise to a risk that a rodent will become caught, that is an offence regardless of the intent. It does not matter what was the target or intended target of the trap; if a trap is set outdoors to catch another vertebrate animal, that in itself is an offence, so other vertebrate animals at risk from a glue trap would still be protected by this Bill. It is also important to note that it is already an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to set a glue trap in any place where a wild bird could be caught.
Again, I understand the reasoning behind amendments 4 and 5, but the Bill already covers what they seek to address. They might also create difficulties for a future licensing regime. The Bill is drafted to allow a range of licences to be granted in order to ensure that the Secretary of State has the flexibility to grant the most suitable type of licence for the intended use or pest controller. The precise details of the licensing regime will only be worked out following extensive discussions with stakeholders, who will include pest controllers, animal welfare organisations and the licensing body. We do not want to prejudge the outcome of these discussions; however, whatever the form of licence granted, the Bill makes it explicit that licences can only be issued to pest controllers on an exceptional basis.
The Bill sets out clear limits on the Secretary of State’s power to grant licences to ensure that any licence can only be granted once the Secretary of State is satisfied that the licence is necessary to preserve public health or safety and there is no other satisfactory solution available to meet this purpose. It would not be appropriate further to restrict the type of licence that could be granted, as that might need to reflect a number of variables such as their intended use, the pest controller to whom the licence is to be granted, and the measures that can be taken to safeguard the welfare of any rodents or other animals that might be caught in a licensed glue trap.
Finally, I turn to amendment 6. Again, I fully understand what the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is trying to get at in the amendment, but I think it is unnecessary, as it would not change the effect of clause 2 and his concerns will be addressed through the licensing regime. The amendment seeks to ensure that the definition of pest controller is worded to apply to a business that provides a pest control service. The current wording—
“a person…who, in the course of a business, provides a service which consists of, or involves, pest control”—
amounts to the same thing. I know that he is concerned that a restaurant owner could class themselves as a pest controller. However, we cannot see that a court would agree with that interpretation; indeed, no one would like to think of a restaurant business providing its customers with a service that included pest control.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) for her tremendous work in introducing this Bill and for navigating it to this stage. It has been a real pleasure to work with her.
We have heard some excellent speeches this morning. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) made the valid point that there are still some sectors in which it may be necessary to continue to use glue traps. One he suggested is the aviation sector, and if there is an area where a mouse or a rat is causing trouble—particularly in gnawing through wiring, for example—and the layout of the area means it is impossible to get in another type of trap to catch the animal, a glue trap might be appropriate. That is why we have left the licensing provisions in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), who normally talks to me a great deal about fish processing, reminded us—I am not sure that we were grateful—how close we are to a rat, probably at this very moment. She also talked about how intelligent they are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) made valid points about how people are working together in Wolverhampton to make animal welfare better across the sphere. He also made the valid point that litter picking is definitely part of the answer to troublesome rodents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who was soothed to sleep by rodents as a child, discussed the truly horrific event—I am not surprised it is seared on his memory—of his brother killing a rat. However, he also made some serious points, which I will address. The offence in clause 1(5) covers a situation in which a person fails to remove a trap set by somebody else. It is really aimed at people, for example, in house purchasing, such as the new owner of a property. The concept of reasonable excuse, as he knows very well, is widely used in criminal legislation. It does not seek to impose the burden of proof on the defendant. If the defence of reasonable excuse were raised, it would be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuses would certainly include trespass and the tort of interfering with somebody’s property. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but occasionally I cannot help behaving like a lawyer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) talked seriously about the effects of slow death on animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) was also keen to share his experiences of rats, and he was right to draw attention to the large variety of traps available in this very building.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) that I have seen considerably more of her this week than I have of my family. It is, as ever, good to have her support on this Bill.
If I may, I would like to say a little about the rodents for which glue traps are currently marketed. I think it has been accepted across the House that we do need to control rodents, but in our nation of animal lovers, it is important that we do so as humanely as possible. We think the house mouse arrived in Britain in the iron age. Archaeological evidence indicates that they were present in large numbers by Roman times. The Mammal Society suggests that the availability of food and habitat for mice, and in turn their population, will have reduced—and I, for one, think that is good news—since the 1960s owing to changes in housing construction, the way we keep food, such as in sealed containers, and indeed developments in agriculture, including more secure grain storage. It is true to say that mice can breed prodigiously. In man-made environments where there is a good supply of food, litters of between five and eight baby mice can be born at roughly monthly intervals. Although house mice can be found out in the countryside, they are poor competitors with other rodents, particularly wood mice. The house mouse is very happy to live side by side with humans, and its movement patterns and current widespread distribution are really because of its ability to adapt to us.
The brown rat is a very adaptable species. They are mainly nocturnal animals, and being able to climb and swim allows them to exploit a wide range of resources. They prefer habitats with dense cover and, of course, an abundance of food: they will eat just about anything. They are prevalent in rural farm buildings, but also occur in other rural habitats, most notably the river environment as we all know from children’s literature. Densities vary dramatically before and after harvest. Substantial populations, such as the ones we have largely heard about today, also exist in urban areas, where they frequent sewers and other areas where food waste is available. They also live in buildings, and in many coastal habitats, especially salt marshes and grasslands.
It comes as a surprise to many people to learn that brown rats have only been in this country for around 300 years. They seem to have been introduced to the British Isles as a species in around 1720. Their forerunner, the black rat, has a longer history and, rightly or wrongly, is associated with outbreaks of plague. It is not a native mammal to these islands either. The brown rat has subsequently spread throughout the British Isles and indeed much of the world, often carried in ships. Reproduction is observed all year round, females can begin to breed at three to four months old, and they typically have five litters of between six and 11 baby rats a year.
If I may, I will suggest a few alternatives to the use of a baseball bat, which is not recommended by the Government, as a means for trapping house mice and brown rats. They can certainly both be viewed as pests. That has led to humans persecuting rather than conserving them, often through the use of traps. It is likely that people have trapped mice for as long as people have had houses. The word “mousetrap” dates from at least 1475, and reference to “a mousetrap” is made in “Hamlet”. The world’s first produced mousetraps seem to have appeared in the late 19th century. While arguments rage as to who invented it, candidates include a British ironmonger, Mr Atkinson, who in 1897 designed the “little nipper”, which is still the basis of one of the widely used break-back traps today. A wide selection of foodstuffs can be used to catch mice. My husband favours peanut butter, and I am surprised we have not heard more from hon. Members about their preferences for use in break-back traps.
There is a live and wide debate about who was the first to develop the first lethal mousetrap with a spring-loaded cast iron jaw. Various American lay claim to doing so. It is notable that many patents are filed for new mousetraps every year. The Government fully support innovation in this field and the development of more humane means of trapping rodents, which can only be welcomed by us all in this House.
I, too, would like to express my gratitude to animal welfare organisation who have helped with the Bill. Although the scope of the Bill is narrow, it is a vital addition to our animal welfare legislation. We have heard about the suffering the traps can cause and it is therefore right to ban their use in all but the most exceptional circumstances. We look forward to working closely with animal welfare groups and pest control organisations to ensure that the licensing regime is appropriate and effective. I also warmly welcome the positive news that, since the Bill was introduced last year, the Governments in Scotland and Wales have both made announcements of plans to introduce similar legislation. We will wait to see how those develop, but aligning legislation to ensure an effective ban across Britain would seem desirable.
I offer my thanks again to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East for introducing the Bill and to all hon. Members who have contributed today and in previous stages. I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill and wish it well in its progress.
Friday 25th March 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberGlue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 February 2022 - (4 Feb 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I echo the thanks around the House to my noble friend Lady Fookes for her sponsorship of this important Bill, and for the powerful manner in which she made her case. I am also very grateful to noble Lords’ invaluable contributions in today’s debate. Like others, I pay tribute to my honourable friend Jane Stevenson, the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton North East, who successfully steered this Bill through another place with passion and clarity. I also pay tribute to the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation for its support as we progress this important legislation.
I confess that I have been a legislator, in one form or another, for around 17 years, and, in a way, I am quite shocked that we are getting to this only now. I am as horrified as other Members of this House by the nature of this type of pest control, and I am delighted that we are doing something about it at last.
As noble Lords are no doubt aware by now, glue traps cause extreme suffering. As has been said, the British Veterinary Association reports that animals can suffer from
“torn skin, broken limbs and hair removal and die a slow and painful death from suffocation, starvation, exhaustion and even”—
an horrendous concept—
“self-mutilation”.
Furthermore, a study published in the journal Animal Welfare earlier this year concluded that glue traps are one of the very worst methods of rodent management when it comes to their impact on welfare.
I always remember a pest controller telling me why he only used humane traps. He said that it was not the rat’s fault that it is a pain in the—he used a word which is probably not acceptable in Parliament, so I will use another—neck. His point was absolutely right. We must remember that there are often very good reasons for controlling pests, but we must do so in a way which is as humane as possible. The findings that we have discussed today support the British Veterinary Association reports which add that:
“rats may die of exhaustion or suffocation, are unable to perform normal behaviours and are likely to cause fear, anxiety and pain.”
While we can all agree that rodent control is essential, I hope that we can also agree that it should not lead to undue suffering. As has been said, it is not just the intended victims which suffer. There have been over 200 incidents reported to the RSPCA over a five-year period involving some species which are rare, including hedgehogs, squirrels and even a parrot. Victims of these traps have suffered horrendous injuries, many of which may have been fatal. Some of us are no doubt all too familiar with the tragic case of Miles, a black and white cat found in an alleyway in north London last year with four glue traps stuck to him, and with injuries so severe that the only humane choice was to end his life. This is just one of many disturbing incidents which ended with unnecessary animal suffering and unnecessary distress for members of the public who do not anticipate the poor welfare conditions which are likely to come from amateur use of such means.
That brings me on to the purpose of the Bill: to recognise the immense suffering that glue traps can cause and to take them out of the hands of amateurs. This Bill will ensure that glue traps are used only by professional pest controllers, and only in very limited circumstances when they are needed to preserve public health and safety and there is no other tool suitable for the job. This measure is a proportionate step which strikes the right balance between protecting animal welfare and preserving human health. With more humane traps readily available, it is therefore right to ban these traps in all but the most exceptional circumstances.
My officials have had early discussions with the pest control industry to establish when these traps may be needed. The feedback has been that rodents are often cautious of changes to their surroundings and may avoid approaching unfamiliar objects, such as more traditional mouse and rat traps. However, due to the way a glue trap is set, it may capture rodents more quickly than other methods. For this reason, professional pest controllers may need to use glue traps for the very rare situations when rapid speed of capture is important and a delay may cause a serious risk to public health or safety. An example is the possible need for rapid removal of rodents from places with—as my noble friend Lady Fookes said so eloquently—critical infrastructure involving wiring and electrics where there is a danger of gnawing damage and, in extremis, fire. Another possible example is a mouse being spotted in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft. In this case, the mouse must be caught quickly as there is a real risk to public safety if wiring is damaged. Other rodent traps may be harder to position in this case and use of glue traps may allow the mouse to be caught more quickly than using other methods.
For such rare cases where these traps are needed, a licensing regime will be required. This has been set out in the Bill and will enable such traps to be used only by professional pest controllers and only when absolutely necessary. The wording of the Bill is clear that licences may be granted only for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety and where there is no other satisfactory solution. Licences will also place conditions on the use of traps to minimise any detrimental welfare impacts. The licensing regime will allow for the scale of use of glue traps by pest controllers to be monitored and for the inspection of authorised pest controllers to ensure compliance with the terms of licences, allowing enforcement action to be taken if terms are breached.
The two-year lead-in period has been discussed by noble Lords. This period before the offences apply will give adequate time to put a suitable licensing regime in place. We look forward to working closely with animal welfare groups and pest control organisations to ensure that the licensing regime is appropriate and effective.
While some may claim that this Bill could lead to problems with rodent infestations, the experience in other countries does not support this. Both in Ireland and New Zealand, where these traps have been banned, we are not aware of any experience of increases in rodent infestations. The pest control industry in both countries appears to have successfully and easily moved to the use of alternatives.
I will quickly go through some of the questions put to me by speakers in today’s debate. The question regarding Ireland and New Zealand is an interesting one. Ireland has a full ban and New Zealand has allowed exemptions by ministerial approval, such as we are proposing, from the outset. Approved exemptions have declined year on year and are now in very small numbers—single figures—per year, which I think will be reflected here when we implement this legislation.
A question was asked about why are we not banning glue traps in their entirety. I think that I covered that in terms of the cases, in extremis, where life and limb and public health may be put at risk.
I will not goad the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about who is world-leading—she is right that we are not world-leading on this, but it is high time that we did this. We might be UK leading, as we are doing this before Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we will work with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we are sharing, best practice, licensing and all the rest of it.
The two-year delay is an issue; I understand that. I will reflect the mood of the House on that in my discussions with officials and in the process of implementing this legislation.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked why we are not banning the sale of glue traps. Under the UK internal market rules, it is not practical to ban the sale of glue traps in England as they could still be purchased elsewhere in the UK. However, as we discussed, legislation may be impending in those countries. Glue traps also need to be sold to pest controllers under exceptional use licences. We expect a ban on their use to be effective as existing stocks of glue traps are used up over the two-year lead-in time. It should become impossible for the wrong kind of people to obtain them after then. We will engage with the devolved Administrations, as I say, as they progress this legislation.
My noble friend also asked what the Government will do to educate businesses and the public regarding the change to the law so that unnecessary persons are not buying traps that they cannot legally use. In the two years before the offences come into force, the Government will work with stakeholders, including pest control and animal welfare organisations, to educate businesses and the public about the ban on the use of glue traps and the use of alternative, humane traps. We note that, after the Humane Society’s “Unstuck” campaign, also supported by the British Pest Control Association and the RSPCA, many retailers have withdrawn these traps from general sale on welfare grounds. We also expect that, in response to the ban, large importers of glue traps will begin importing fewer of them and offering more alternatives as part of their business planning, so that the market for glue traps will dry up.
There is no indication that the ban on the sale of glue traps will be detrimental to human health. Other humane methods are available; we want to encourage people to use them through both good practice and this legislation.
A question was asked about licensing. We currently expect the public authority delegated with the licensing functions to be Natural England, as it already fulfils this function for other licences relating to wildlife management. However, there may be a change in the remit and responsibilities of Natural England and other public bodies in future, so the provision in the Bill to appoint any competent public authority is needed.
We have been clear that high standards of animal welfare are one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. We already have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. This Bill takes forward an important commitment in the Government’s Action Plan for Animal Welfare
“to restrict the use of glue traps … to help make sure rodents are despatched in a humane manner.”
As I conclude on behalf of the Government by thanking noble Lords for their involvement in today’s debate, in particular my noble friend Lady Fookes for her work in guiding the Bill through this House, I also thank the animal welfare organisations, pest control organisations and suppliers who have engaged with my officials throughout the passage of the Bill. The Bill will add a small but vital part to our animal welfare legislation. I hope that we can ensure its smooth passage through this House.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, in turn, I thank all those who took part in this debate. I also thank the Minister. I was much encouraged by most of his remarks. The old schoolteacher in me says, “Seven out of 10”.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
One query about bodies corporate was not answered by the Minister. My understanding is that this is simply to ensure that corporations cannot get away with it because they are corporations and so can give the blame to somebody else, which is why there is a reference to particular senior people in a corporation who would have to take the blame if anything happened.
The noble Baroness made another point, which I did not quite get, but which related to the paragraphs about inspectors on premises. I know these look rather detailed, but the idea is to make sure that nobody has any wiggle room. They perhaps rather overegg the pudding, but better that than to underegg, in the circumstances.
I very much hope that the Bill goes through unamended, because of the danger that it would otherwise be lost altogether. I will be closely following the speed with which the department acts in dealing with these matters and the care that it takes in drawing up the conditions attached to licences. I forewarn my noble friend the Minister that I will be after him if progress does not seem satisfactory.
Tuesday 26th April 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberGlue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 February 2022 - (4 Feb 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, I want to congratulate everyone who has been involved in bringing forward this important Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has done us all a service in bringing it to your Lordships’ House—as did Jane Stevenson in the other place. So I welcome the Bill and thank the Government for their support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes for her hard work in guiding this Bill through the House. I congratulate her on progressing the Bill to this stage with such determined enthusiasm. I am grateful to all the noble Lords who contributed at Second Reading, and I am pleased that the Bill has been widely supported across the House. I also thank my honourable friend Jane Stevenson, the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton North East, for successfully stewarding the Bill through the other place.
We have been clear that high standards of animal welfare are one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. We already have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, but this Bill takes forward an important commitment in the Government’s action plan for animal welfare to restrict the use of glue traps and make sure that, when rodents are dispatched, it is done in a humane manner. Throughout the Bill’s passage we have heard about the extreme suffering that can be inflicted by these traps, and it is right to take them out of the hands of amateurs and ensure that they are used only by professional pest controllers when absolutely necessary, where there is a risk to public health or safety and there is no satisfactory alternative.
As well as thanking my noble friend Lady Fookes and my honourable friend Jane Stevenson for their dedicated work in progressing this Bill, I am grateful to the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation for its support as we progress this important legislation. I also extend my thanks to all the animal welfare organisations, pest control organisations and suppliers that have engaged with my officials throughout the passage of the Bill. I know that my officials are looking forward to continuing their engagement with these organisations as the details of the licensing regime are rolled out. This Bill will add a vital part to our animal welfare legislation, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I think everything has been said. Let us pass it.