Snares
Jim Dowd Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the indiscriminate and cruel nature of snares, the failure of previous attempts at voluntary and self-regulation amongst operators, and the continued suffering caused to thousands of animals every year by these traps; and calls on the Government to implement a full ban on the manufacture, sale, possession and use of snares at the earliest opportunity.
First, my thanks go to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to bring this motion to the House. I am keenly aware that, because of the urgent question on school funding, we are running late and that the summer Adjournment debate is generally oversubscribed, so I shall attempt to be brief and hope that we can conclude this matter in a reasonable time. I do not propose to push this matter to a Division, but let me assure the House that if there is a Division I will defend the motion.
Motions arising from Backbench Business debates have a somewhat uncertain pedigree—the status of them is disputed. They are not binding or mandatory. A number of motions have been passed in recent months urging the Government to take action, but the Government have declined so to do. Therefore, I have no illusion that, were this motion to be successful, Government action would swiftly follow; I suspect that it probably will not.
I will attempt to outline as briefly as I can what I believe to be an extremely compelling case for the prospect outlined in the motion. There is widespread support across the House for such a ban. I remember the late Eric Forth who used to be in the Chamber on Fridays meticulously—more so than just about anybody else. Whenever someone said that their Bill had widespread support from Members, he would wave his arms magisterially and say, “Where are they then?”
Jim Dowd
They knew you were coming! No, that is not true.
I am deeply grateful to the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Cat Protection League and other animal welfare organisations that have assisted me in this matter. I also know that there are Members who are ideologically opposed to bans of any kind. Obviously, I do not share that view myself, but we need to exercise caution and judgment. The legal framework in this country under the rule of law is generally about regulating what behaviour is and is not permissible and what should and should not be punished.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
On that point, is not one of the issues with the use of snares now that they simply are not being used for the stated purpose? Often, the species that is targeted is not the species that is captured.
Jim Dowd
I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for his point. I hope to go on to elaborate on that in a bit more detail. The thrust of the motion is about not just the inherent cruelty and barbarism of snares—the single snare that is currently legal—but the gross inefficiency of them. They are not even useful in what they do, and they cause unacceptable consequences.
We have to exercise our responsibility as legislators when we are acting on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves—whether it be children or animals. I believe that there is an imperative here for us to take action. Snares are thin wire nooses set to trap animals seen as a pest or a threat, usually foxes and rabbits. They are intended to catch animals around the neck rather like a lasso. There are two types of snare. The self-locking snare, which is not legal, tightens around the animal the more it struggles. Even when the animal ceases to struggle, the device is still tightened and causes serious injury and death, but, as I said, that is illegal under the current regulations. This motion refers to the free-running snare, which is still currently legal. If it is operating properly, it should tighten as the captured animal struggles, but relax when the animal stops pulling. It is intended to hold the animal live until the snare operator returns to kill it, usually by shooting, or release it if the snare has not caught the right target creature. The disadvantage of a legal free-running snare is that it can in many circumstances act like a self-locking snare, which is illegal, when it becomes kinked or rusty.
Although their purpose is to immobilise target animals, most snares cause extreme suffering to animals and often lead to a painful, lingering death. Animals caught in snares suffer huge stress and can sustain horrific injuries. Snares can cause abdominal, chest, neck, leg and head injuries to animals. Some animals get their legs caught in snares and end up with the wire cutting through to the bone. Such animals may attempt to escape by gnawing off their own limbs. Others are caught around the body.
The number and diversity of animals that fall victim to snares is immense. It is not possible to control which animals will be caught in a snare. A snare set to catch a fox is just as capable of catching other species. Cats, dogs, badgers, otters, deer, hares and livestock have all suffered terrible injuries or been killed by snares.
In 2012 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs produced an extensive report on snaring in England and Wales, which suggests that up to 1.7 million animals are trapped in these primitive devices every year, which equates to almost 200 animals caught each and every hour. Moreover, because snares capture any animal that happens to step into them, little more than a quarter of the animals trapped were found in DEFRA’s field studies to be foxes, the intended victims. The other three quarters included hares, 33%; badgers, 26%—both of which are protected species—and a further 14% described as “other”. That is almost a quarter of a million animals, including deer and domestic pets such as cats and dogs, captured every year. That goes to the heart of the inefficiency of snares as a device for animal control.
DEFRA’s independent working group on snares concluded in 2005 that it would be difficult to reduce non-target catches to less than 40%. According to DEFRA’s 2012 report, 260,000 snares are in use in England and Wales. The report reveals that 95% of landholdings do not use snares, with the use of both fox and rabbit snares being far more likely on landholdings with game bird shooting. I will not go into detail about my attitude towards shooting as a so-called sport. That is an argument for another day, but in common with more than 62% of the population of this country, I am opposed to shooting as a sport and cannot see what possible pleasure can be derived from blasting a living creature to smithereens.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the piece of scientific research called “Waders on the Edge”, which shows that the place to see species such as curlew and lapwing, where their numbers are rising rather than falling, is on managed shoots in the uplands?
Jim Dowd
I am aware of many things; I am not aware of the hon. Gentleman’s entry in the register and I am not sure what relevance that has. Perhaps we can have a look later. There are all kinds of conflicting arguments, but the snare and the way it is used is inherently cruel and barbaric. If the price of seeing a curlew or a lapwing is the considerable suffering of tens of thousands of innocent creatures, I do not think that is a price worth paying.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
In all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has just laid out, the key concern for me and for the many constituents who contacted me is the welfare of wildlife. Does he agree that we should put that at the top of our priority list?
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee, and on the compelling case that he is making. Will he accept from me on behalf of the constituents who contacted me that most people are appalled by the barbarity of the practice and the cruelty inherent in it? More power to his elbow for raising this important issue.
Jim Dowd
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support and that of his constituents.
Snares are currently completely legal in only six European countries—Belgium, France, Ireland, Spain, Latvia and the United Kingdom. In all other countries in the EU they are banned, strictly controlled or are not used at all, so the idea that they are an essential means of animal control clearly is not true. Large numbers of European countries do not use them at all. The predominant legislation in this matter covering all parts of the United Kingdom is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which prohibits the use of self-locking snares, as I have already mentioned, lays out the requirement to inspect the snare once in every 24 hours, and prohibits the use of snares to catch various protected mammals, including otters and badgers.
The code of practice acknowledges the welfare problems associated with snaring. DEFRA introduced a voluntary code on the use of snares in 2005 which was designed to reduce the suffering caused by snares through the adoption of best practice. Gamekeepers have shown themselves to be incapable of complying with DEFRA’s recommended code of practice on the use of snares. In its 2012 report, which I mentioned previously, DEFRA found that although 95% of gamekeepers surveyed were aware of the code of practice and some—38%—had also been trained in the use of fox snares, not a single fox snare operator visited during the study was fully compliant with the code of conduct a full seven years after it had been introduced.
Among farmers there is a lack of knowledge of the code of practice, with a shocking 36% of farmers unaware of its existence. It was clear from the report that, whether people were aware of it or not, the code of practice was not being adhered to. Most snare operators use snares which are not compliant with the code of practice. Some 60% of snare operators had at some time caught non-target animals in fox snares. The majority of snare operators set snares in sites where entanglement was likely. Most rabbit snare operators took no measures to avoid the capture of non-target animals and nearly 30% had caught a domestic cat. Snares must not be used as killing devices. However, according to the DEFRA study, 19% of snare users set snares to kill the target animal. Over 30% of snare operators visited during the study were found to be using snares which were rusty or where the cable was distorted.
The League Against Cruel Sports has always questioned the likelihood that snares would remain smoothly free-running when used in an outdoor environment, and has warned of the potential welfare impacts of rusty wires, which can prevent the snare from slackening off.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, much of this issue is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but it remains a concern to many of our constituents and has been the subject of many complaints. Since 2013 it has been an offence to set a snare in Scotland unless the operator has successfully completed a snaring training course run by an approved body. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that an appropriate measure to help counter some of the issues that he has identified?
Jim Dowd
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I was going to come on to it later. The devolved Assemblies have made far more progress on the matter in recent years in Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland. Tightening the code of practice is one route, but after examining the case, my strong feeling is that it is ineffective and impossible to implement. The only humane response is a ban, but I am aware of the progress that has been made in Scotland, in particular.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate. I have had many letters from constituents who all say the same things. They think this method of killing is obscene. Every 20 seconds an animal is caught in a snare somewhere in the UK. Around 1.7 million wild and domestic animals are killed by snares each year. Snaring is cruel, lethal and a sop to the commercial shooting industry, as we well know, so all power to my hon. Friend’s elbow.
Jim Dowd
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those words and the support of her constituents. The point about snares is that they are not supposed to kill. They are supposed to be a disabling device, if they have worked correctly, to allow the target animal to be humanely disposed of, and if it is not the target animal, as in the majority of cases, to allow it to be released. Snares are not supposed to kill, but in far too many cases they do.
Additionally, during field trials in which fox snares were set in accordance with the code of practice, non-target species were still captured, illustrating that it is impossible to eliminate the risk to non-target animals.
A recent investigation, again by the League Against Cruel Sports—incidentally, I should say in passing that I am delighted to be an honorary life member of the League Against Cruel Sports—has provided further evidence that the code of practice cannot prevent animals from suffering in snares. In February 2015—just last year—investigators captured graphic scenes of foxes and rabbits caught in snares. Despite Government guidelines stating that snares must be used only as restraining rather than killing devices, all the animals filmed were dead when found.
The footage exposed a large death pit—a purposely dug pit filled with the carcases of livestock and wildlife—designed to lure foxes into snares set along the edge. A dead fox was found hanging from one of the snares, clearly strangled to death. Placing snares alongside a pit or hole violates the Government’s code of practice on the use of snares, yet a snare operator admitted that he caught 50 to 100 foxes this way every year, demonstrating—this is point I was making earlier—that attempts to regulate a clandestine activity that takes place primarily on private land in remote locations is futile, hence my conclusion that we need to introduce a ban.
At a second location, the soaking-wet bodies of several rabbits were discovered in snares. Two of them were trapped in snares set along a fence, in which the rabbits had become heavily entangled during their struggle to escape. The placement of these snares again clearly violated the code of practice. The league has brought forward plenty of other evidence to show that, where the code is not being flagrantly ignored, it is completely and utterly ineffectual.
Most people are opposed to snares. According to a 2014 Ipsos MORI poll, 77% of British people think snares should be banned. According to a Dods poll taken last year, 68% of MPs would support a ban. Veterinary opinion also firmly supports a ban on these cruel and indiscriminate traps. A 2015 poll of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses across the UK found that 87% of respondents believed that snaring is not a humane method of pest control. The figure was even higher—92%—among those who had experience of treating animals that had been snared.
In testimony to the Scottish Parliament—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)—Professor Ranald Munro, a leading veterinary pathologist, stated:
“From the veterinary perspective, snares are primitive indiscriminate traps that are recognised as causing widespread suffering to a range of animals. At their least injurious, snares around the neck can result in abrasion and splitting of the skin. However, being caught in a snare is extremely distressing for any creature and vigorous attempts to escape are natural. These efforts cause the snare wire to kink, thereby changing a free-running snare to a self-locking one. Strangulation and choking follow. It is commonplace for snares to lodge around the chest, abdomen or legs rather than the neck. In such instances the stop restraint is ineffective and the wire cuts through skin and muscle and, eventually, bone. Badgers may be eviscerated when the abdominal wall is cut through. Amputation of the lower limb and foot by a snare is well-documented in deer. These unfortunate animals suffer immensely.”
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government and, indeed, his sponsors in this debate—the League Against Cruel Sports—have occasionally used snares for research and tagging purposes. All the descriptions he has just attached to this practice apply when it is used for those purposes, which could be construed as important.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. What I would say is that you have been very generous—maybe over-generous. The fact is that it is normally 15 minutes for the opening of a debate. I have been very generous and very tolerant—quite rightly, because this is a very important subject—but I do want to get other Members in because we have another debate to follow.
Jim Dowd
Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your direction implicitly. I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion.
This motion is overwhelmingly supported by animal welfare organisations—not just the League Against Cruel Sports, but Animal Aid, Cats Protection, the RSPCA, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and many others. If a medical product was as ineffective as snares are in achieving their purpose, and if it had the same hideous and detrimental side effects as snares, it would be banned, and I believe that snares should be as well.
I will leave the final word to Mr Chris Packham, a naturalist and well-known TV broadcaster, who said:
“Indiscriminate and inhumane, they should be illegal—there is not much more to say about snares.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim Dowd
I have listened to what the Minister said. Unfortunately, I am not assuaged by it because, to coin a phrase, I have heard it before—now it will be “very soon”. It took the Government two years to publish the DEFRA research and development unit report. It began in 2010 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out, took until 2012 to produce it.
I apologise for my appalling bad manners in not welcoming the Minister to her new position. I hope she makes a success of it and enjoys her new responsibilities.
The one unifying factor across the House is that everybody accepts the need for animal pest control and decent standards of animal welfare. Nobody disputes that. The question is always one of means, not ends. If the means deployed involve exceptional cruelty and barbarity, that is not a price worth paying. The Minister mentions there being no alternatives. There are plenty of alternatives—unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker stopped me from getting on with my speech—including adequate poultry housing, fencing, scare devices and shooting.
I was delighted to hear what the Minister said about wild animals in circuses. Members may recall that that started as a resolution from this Chamber in a Backbench Business debate. I hope that that is an omen and a precedent. I hope the House will adopt the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the indiscriminate and cruel nature of snares, the failure of previous attempts at voluntary and self-regulation amongst operators, and the continued suffering caused to thousands of animals every year by these traps; and calls on the Government to implement a full ban on the manufacture, sale, possession and use of snares at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, the Government sneaked out, alongside 29 other written statements, confirmation of a major increase—2.8% in 2017-18—in tuition fees. Two days ago in the House, when we debated the Higher Education and Research Bill, Ministers made no reference to this. Is it not disgraceful that they should use this cynical last-day-of-term mechanism? Have you had any indication that a Minister is available to answer questions from colleagues before we disappear for five and a half weeks?
Wild Animals (Circuses)
Jim Dowd Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
That contribution can best be described idiosyncratic, or idiotic, depending on the point of view taken. To say that it is not about the welfare of animals is either a display of stupidity that is quite mind-numbing or a deliberate attempt not to face up to the heart of the issue. As the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said in opening the debate, this is entirely about animal welfare. Only about 40 or so animals are involved—there are various numbers; perhaps it is 36 or 37—but the numbers do not matter. What matters is cruelty.
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, in the absence my having been able to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful not to be too harsh on my hon. Friend, who wrote the foreword in 2009 for the Great British Circus and previous forewords as well. Perhaps that is why he would not allow me to intervene.
Jim Dowd
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; I suspect that he might be on to something.
I am puzzled because this is a relatively minor issue: as I say, somewhere between 36 and 40 animals are involved. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) quoted the British Veterinary Association. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) did not grasp the difference between domesticated and captive animals. Captive animals may still be wild and nowhere near domesticated. Even until the nth generation, they remain wild and their instincts are those of wild creatures. The British Veterinary Association said that in captivity in circuses, there are no circumstances under which such animals can demonstrate their natural behaviour. That will remain the case, regardless of a regulatory scheme. The big disadvantage of a regulatory scheme is that it would be a more complicated way of dealing with the matter and it would be much more likely to increase, not reduce, the number of wild animals being used in circuses.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I have received a huge number of e-mails and correspondence from constituents about this matter. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), whom I congratulate on having initiated the debate, mentioned how the conditions in which the animals are kept adversely affect them. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) referred to facts. The usual life expectancy of animals kept in such conditions is much shorter than that of animals not kept in those conditions.
Jim Dowd
Indeed. The hon. Member for Romford was being most disingenuous or misinformed, depending on one’s point of view, in saying that there was not a body of evidence based on animal welfare considerations that supports the ban. The argument in favour of a ban is entirely predicated on that. He may not have understood the evidence, but that does not mean it does not exist.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
As a scientist I am very interested in evidence. Could the hon. Gentleman spot what the facts were that we were being asked to listen to by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)? I missed all those, whereas the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) seemed to cite facts that were much more interesting.
Jim Dowd
The hon. Gentleman has it exactly right. The speech of the hon. Member for Romford would bear rereading, as they say. Perhaps we can have a prize for anyone who can mine a single fact out of it—but please do not send that to me.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), I and Brian Blessed, among others, were over at Downing street towards the end of March to hand in a letter calling for the ban to be introduced. I know that there are those on the Government Benches who are ideologically opposed to bans of any kind, which is a strange position, but it is understandable. Parliament and the whole body of law is about bans of one kind or another designed to change people’s behaviour in different ways. A law says, “If you behave in a certain way, there will be certain consequences,” but no law can ever make people better. What it can say is that there are patterns of behaviour and conduct which are acceptable and there are those which are not. Cruelty to animals is one of those considerations.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Is it not a fact that zoos have spent a great deal of money doing the research to find out what sort of facilities should be made available for the sort of animals that we are discussing? Clearly, travelling circuses cannot provide such facilities.
Jim Dowd
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. When we speak to those involved with zoos and aquariums, it is clear that they are looking carefully at the kind of animals that they will and will not exhibit. Large mammals and large carnivores are very much at the top of their considerations.
As just about every Member knows, animal welfare is one of the most persistent issues raised with us by our constituents over time. From the 19 years that I have been in the House, I have a database running into many thousands of people who have raised various issues with me. People feel very strongly about these issues, and rightly so. It is the hallmark of a civilised nation that it has the highest possible animal welfare standards, and I still believe this to be a civilised nation. There is a maxim that suggests that the hottest corner of hell is reserved for those who are cruel to children and animals, and in that regard, despite being a life-long atheist, I hope that there is a hell.
Constituents raise concerns with us because they care about them. For the hon. Member for Romford—I do not want to concentrate on his contribution, but it really was quite extraordinary—to describe the entire pantheon of animal welfare organisations, many of which have royal charters and have been around for decades, if not centuries, as part of some kind of trendy conspiracy invented simply to please Guardian readers is ludicrous.
I accept that the Minister is in a difficult situation, and he has made his personal opinion clear. What I cannot understand—the hon. Member for The Wrekin alluded to this—is why the Government have handled such a relatively straightforward issue in this fashion. The idea of No. 10 getting personally involved in such as issue shows a curious lack of proportion. It also appears curious when tested against the idea that the Government are now listening and that listening is a sign of strength.
Mark Pritchard
I am pleased to announce that the coalition Government, certainly on the Conservative side, have heard the voice of the British people, seen sense and will now allow a free vote on the matter.