Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will hold further discussions with representatives of the food and drink industry to help ensure the creation of an end-to-end circular economy in packaging recycling.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
We continue our engagement with representatives of the food and drink industry, alongside others, in ensuring industry is prepared ahead of the EPR requirements coming into force. This includes a dedicated fortnightly Business Readiness Forum to update industry and answer questions plus a programme of webinars to deep-dive into specific issues and themes. Among the hundreds of stakeholders from the food and drink industry that have so far taken part in this engagement, and will continue to do so, are trade associations (and their members) such as the Food and Drink Federation, the British Soft Drinks Association and the British Retail Consortium.
Additionally, we have initiated an eight-week visioning sprint programme incorporating over 75 representatives from across the different sectors impacted by EPR to work with us to create a vision for what an EPR scheme will look like in 10 years’ time with a view to creating an end-to-end circular economy in packaging and recycling.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of the proposed new extended producer responsibility scheme on (a) retailers, (b) food and drink manufacturers and (c) other producers affected by that scheme in the UK.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
We published an Impact Assessment alongside the Government Response to the consultation on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging setting out the costs and benefits of the policy. This includes the potential impact on obligated businesses. We continue to engage with obligated businesses as we prepare for implementation and as we develop the next phases of EPR.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies Langholm Moor Demonstration Project’s findings that when snares and other predator control methods are used, curlew numbers increased on average by 10 per cent per annum.
Answered by Trudy Harrison
The management of predators, such as foxes and carrion crows, plays an important role in supporting the recovery of some of our most vulnerable species, particularly ground nesting birds including the curlew.
We have recently published an update on environmental land management schemes which confirms that we are exploring how actions to do with managing predatory species - when those species are impacting threatened species recovery - will be made available.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust's findings in the document entitled A future for curlew that the curlew population declined by 17 per cent. per year without legal predator control and increased by 14 per cent. per year with legal predator control.
Answered by Trudy Harrison
The management of predators, such as foxes and carrion crows, plays an important role in supporting the recovery of some of our most vulnerable species, particularly ground nesting birds including the curlew.
We have recently published an update on environmental land management schemes which confirms that we are exploring how actions to do with managing predatory species - when those species are impacting threatened species recovery - will be made available.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if he will publish the outcomes of his recent review of environmental land management schemes.
Answered by Mark Spencer
We remain committed to our environmental land management schemes and are looking at how best to deliver the schemes to see where and how improvements can be made. We will continue to work closely with the sector in developing the schemes and publish more information by the end of the year.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 30 September 2022 to Question 53520 on Animal Welfare: Electric Shock, what comparative assessment he has made of the power of electric (a) livestock fences and (b) training collars; and on what basis his Department concluded that electric livestock fences only produce slight discomfort for the animals which touch them.
Answered by Scott Mann
The proposed ban on the use of electric shock collars controlled by hand-held devices was developed after considering a broad range of factors, including the potential impacts of such a ban. HM Government considered academic research, public consultation responses, and direct engagement with the sector and concluded that these devices present an unacceptable risk to the welfare of dogs and cats and that their use should not be permitted.
The Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock states, users of electric fences should ensure that they are designed, constructed, used and maintained properly, so that when animals touch them, they only feel slight discomfort. As stated in our answer to Question 53520, anyone causing unnecessary suffering as a result of a poorly installed electric fence may be prosecuted under relevant animal welfare legislation.
In addition, please note that the statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs includes guidance and reminders for owners about their responsibilities to provide for the welfare needs of their animal, but also to keep their dogs safe and under control. The code of practice is available here:
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the welfare implications for dogs which (a) touch a livestock fence delivering 15,000 mJ of electricity and (b) are startled with an electronic collar delivering 5 mJ of electricity.
Answered by Scott Mann
Defra’s "Action Plan for Animal Welfare" demonstrates our commitment to a brighter future for animals both at home and abroad. Electric fences used to deter animals from crossing a boundary and which deliver a shock directly to the body are different to e-collars. The use of electric fences in agricultural settings is subject to statutory guidance which requires anyone installing an electric fence to ensure that it is designed, constructed, used and maintained properly, so that when the animals touch it they only feel slight discomfort. Installers and users should also comply with any relevant local regulations and ensure that their responsibilities under other relevant legislation, including the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974, are properly discharged.
Animals are protected from suffering as a result of poorly maintained or installed electric fences by animal welfare laws, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it is an offence to cause an animal unnecessary suffering. Anyone who is cruel to an animal may face an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to five years, or both.
The Defra commissioned research into the effects of e-collars was robust and showed that e-collars have a negative impact on the welfare of some dogs. The research showed that many users of the handheld devices were not using them properly in compliance with the manufacturers’ instructions. As well as being misused to inflict unnecessary harm, there is also concern that e-collars can redirect aggression or generate anxiety-based behaviour in pets, making underlying behavioural and health problems worse.
Asked by: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 25 May to Question 3747, on what date did his officials become aware that academics his Department commissioned to research electronic training collars for dogs had previously made representations to the Department to ban them.
Answered by Baroness Prentis of Banbury
I refer the hon. Member back to my answer of 25 May to PQ 3747. In particular, the Government is satisfied that the processes for tendering and considering bids, relating to the research on e-collars in 2007, were conducted in accordance with the rules on government procurement exercises. The Government is also satisfied that the resultant peer-reviewed Defra-commissioned research carried out between 2007 and 2010 is robust.