Clause 1 Offences relating to glue traps in England Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chair With
this it will be convenient to discuss that clauses 2 to 10 stand
part. Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) It is a great
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank all
fellow Members who have come today for joining me to discuss this
important Bill. I am delighted to be able to bring forward a
Bill...Request free trial
Clause 1
Offences relating to glue traps in England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that clauses 2 to 10
stand part.
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I thank all fellow Members who have come today for joining me to
discuss this important Bill. I am delighted to be able to bring
forward a Bill that will advance the country’s standards for
animal welfare. The Bill proposes the ban of glue traps for
catching rodents in all but the most exceptional
circumstances.
Glue traps have the potential to cause immense suffering to
animals caught in them. The British Veterinary Association
reports that trapped animals can suffer from torn skin, broken
limbs, hair removal, and die a slow and painful death—from
suffocation, starvation, exhaustion and even self-mutilation.
While they are sold as rodent traps, many animals get caught on
them, with more than 200 incidents reported to the RSPCA over a
five-year period, involving cats, garden birds, hedgehogs,
squirrels, and even a parrot. The animals suffer horrendous
injuries. Miles the cat, who made the local press, was stuck to
four glue traps and had to be put to sleep as nothing could be
done to save him.
As a lifelong animal lover, my grandfather—grandad Mattox, who
was born in wonderful Wednesfield in my constituency—instilled in
me a love of animals, and of birds especially. For anyone
doubting the cruelty of these traps, a quick Google search will
bring up some horrific photographs of robins, owls and songbirds
stuck on them. This Bill has wide support across the Chamber, and
it is not surprising that a 2015 survey found that over two
thirds of people supported a ban on glue traps.
Although it is important that we control rodent populations where
they are causing a problem, other pest control methods are
available. Effective rodent proofing is often a good solution, as
are live capture and release or humane lethal methods such as
break back traps, which would kill instantly. It is right to
prevent the use of glue traps by the general public. The Bill
proposes that they should be a last resort for professional pest
controllers, where there is no alternative.
(Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I applaud the progress the hon. Lady has made on this Bill, which
I fully support. One area of concern is on the definition of a
pest controller. I am concerned that a restaurant’s owner or
cleaner, for example, could designate themselves as the pest
controller and could therefore have access to glue traps.
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I would also
like to thank him for his work on raising awareness of glue
traps—over many years, I think. All these concerns are, I think,
things for the licensing regime, which will be coming into force
over the next two years if the Bill is successful. However, I
absolutely agree. We must be aware that those people licensed to
use the traps must be qualified—and qualified in dispatching
animals humanely, because glue traps do not kill animals; they
just leave them stuck and stranded.
There is another thing for the licensing regime to consider. I
have spoken with many animal welfare organisations over the past
year, and one suggestion was the use of pressure pads. I think
that technology could help to make traps even more humane when
they do have to be used. A pressure pad would alert the pest
controller that something has triggered the trap. The current
recommendation is to check traps every 12 hours, but I hope that
licensing will encourage the use of technology so that animals
are left in traps for the minimum possible time.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for introducing the
Bill. The use of glue traps sounds like a completely gruesome
practice, and I am glad that she is taking steps to minimise it.
I am a bit confused about how the licences would work. Clause
2(2) states that the Secretary of State may grant a licence
if
“there is no other satisfactory solution”,
which sounds as though there would be quite a detailed assessment
of when it is and is not appropriate to use glue traps.
However, clause 2(1) suggests that licences are not granted to
pest controllers for specific incidents—they would not go to the
Secretary of State every time there was mouse to deal with. I am
not quite sure how those two provisions work together. If a
licence is already granted and the pest controller can use it,
how can the Secretary of State consider whether glue traps are
the only satisfactory solution for a particular incident? Sorry
that question is a bit garbled—I hope it makes sense.
Again, I agree that the detail on when licences are issued needs
clarification, but in the case of a hospital power control room,
for example, the licence would cover the location rather than one
specific instance of infestation. Another example that has been
raised is that of the aeroplane cockpit, where dealing with an
infestation quickly is important. Whether licences would be
granted to an airline, an airport or a hospital, for example,
needs clarifying in coming legislation, on top of the Bill.
Some Members have expressed concern that the Bill will impair our
ability to control rodent populations, but no evidence supports
that. Both Ireland and New Zealand have banned glue traps but
have not seen an increase in out-of-control rodent infestations.
Alternative, similarly priced options are readily available. If
we need to kill animals, surely we have a responsibility to do so
as quickly and as humanely as possible. The licensing regime will
ensure that glue traps are available as an option, in extreme
circumstances, if they are needed to preserve public health or
safety where there is no solution.
I thank all members of the Committee for being here. I also put
on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro
and Falmouth (), who very ably and
kindly stepped in for me when, sadly, my brush with covid
prevented me from leading the Second Reading debate in the
Chamber. I commend the Bill to the Committee, and I look forward
to contributing further to drive up animal welfare standards in
our country.
(Rotherham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East
() on her Bill making it this
far. As I think she can hear, there is an awful lot of support
for it.
As the hon. Lady highlighted, glue traps are an inhumane and
cruel form of pest control. Once an animal is trapped, it faces
prolonged suffering until it is put out of its misery or dies of
hunger or dehydration. An animal caught on a glue trap can be
left unchecked for between three and 24 hours—or even
longer—before dying. As she said, between 2016 and 2020, the
RSPCA received 236 reports of glue trap incidents involving
animals for which the traps were not intended—the story of the
cat is just horrific. Additionally, there is no guarantee that
traps will actually catch the animals for which they are
intended, and we know that they cause misery for animals that are
trapped unintentionally.
There are more humane traps for when pest control is required. I
welcome the Bill’s proposal for a public ban on glue traps. I
heard what the hon. Lady said about specific circumstances, and I
hope that the Minister will say more about that.
The proposals would make provision for glue trap licences to be
granted to
“all pest controllers, a class of pest controllers or a
particular pest controller”
and
“to be valid for the period specified in the licence”,
only where
“there is no other satisfactory solution.”
Those conditions are welcome, but I urge the Minister to do
better. The RSPCA says that it would like the exemptions to be
clarified and loopholes tightened so that the law can be as
effective as it can be.
The primary offence in clause 1 is setting a glue trap to capture
a rodent, and the following offences focus on rodents; however,
other animals can get caught in glue traps, usually by accident.
I would like the offence to become less specific. The RSPCA
suggests that the best way of doing that is by changing the word
“rodents” to “vertebrates”.
In New Zealand, as the hon. Lady said, the law requires
individual users to apply for a licence on a case-by-case basis.
Prospective licence holders should be required to provide
evidence that they are adequately qualified in the use of glue
traps, that there is a public interest, and that the traps will
be used only as a last resort after other methods have been
considered. Will the Minister provide assurances that there will
be similar oversight of the licences, and strong criteria to
ensure that all licences granted will be time limited and
situation specific?
Organisations such as Humane Society International are calling
for a more specific and narrow definition of a pest controller in
the legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and
Deeside spoke about that. The proposed definition is
“a person—
(a) who, in the course of a business, provides a service which
consists of, or involves, pest control, or
(b) is employed by a public authority to carry out pest
control.”
Humane Society International argues that a pest controller must
be defined as someone who is also appropriately trained to
provide such services, to ensure that glue traps do not continue
to be misused by amateur or incompetent users.
Finally, we should aim to ensure that the public will be aware of
the new law, and that the sale of glue traps is monitored so that
people cannot buy a trap that they cannot use.
On that point, I have just gone on eBay, where there are many
listings of glue trap. These things are not easy, but we need
assurances that something will be done about that. It is one
thing banning it, but if people can get the traps, which are
often produced in China or somewhere else, they will still be
used.
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point that we keep raising. We
make laws here, but unless the Government make the public aware
and produce supporting guidance, the crime can continue and
people argue that they did not know.
I raised that matter as the Bill was being drawn up. I think the
issue was with the devolved Administrations. Given that people
could easily purchase glue traps from Scotland, Wales or other
sources, it was difficult to ask for the Bill to be drafted to
ban the sale of them. However, I know that in Wales and Scotland
there are moves to ban glue traps. I hope that at a future date
the legislation, when it is aligned, will ban the sale of glue
traps, rather than just the current proposals.
The hon. Lady will be aware that there are many examples of where
we lead and, unfortunately, Scotland does not always follow the
common-sense approach—[Laughter.] All that said, I am so pleased
that the law will reduce the use of glue traps and the
unnecessary suffering of animals. The change is very popular with
the British public. A 2015 YouGov poll found that 68% of the
British public agree that glue traps should be banned in the UK,
so will the Minister agree to make the law as strong and as
robust as possible?
1.45pm
(Broadland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I pay
tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North
East. What a great addition to our legislation the Bill will make
when, as I hope, it becomes an Act. I have been persuaded by the
arguments on Second Reading about the cruelty of glue traps that
their use should be limited. I know that she is aware of my
support for the purposes of the Bill.
However, I have one concern about the drafting, which I raised in
the House on Second Reading, relating to clause 1(5). It
states:
“A person commits an offence if the person—(a) finds a glue trap
in England that has been set in a manner which gives rise to a
risk that a rodent will become caught in the glue trap,”—
in other words, one that has been set and is active—
“and (b) without reasonable excuse, fails to ensure that the glue
trap no longer gives rise to such a risk.”
I have in mind the innocent bystander or passer-by who comes
across a glue trap that they did not set, perhaps because they
are not the owner of the premises. The clause, as currently
drafted, creates a presumption of guilt against the finder. In
harsh terms, it shifts the burden of evidence away from the
prosecution to establish their motives, to the defendant to
establish reasonable excuse and to explain why they did not take
effective steps to put the glue trap out of commission.
My question, which I hope the Minister will be able to address in
her remarks, is what would amount to a reasonable excuse under
this drafting? Would ignorance of the law relating to pest
control amount to a reasonable excuse? Although many of our
constituents are well versed in the legislation around pest
control, some are not. In fact, I would suggest that 99% of those
innocent bystanders or passers-by would have no idea if a glue
trap is an illegal device and whether its application in that
context is licensed or otherwise.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point, because
I had that flagged as a concern as well. For a start, what does
“finds a glue trap” mean? Someone renting a holiday cottage on a
farm, riding a horse at a stables or renting an office might come
across one. There are so many circumstances in which it would be
absolutely nothing to do with them and they would be in no way
culpable by being there.
There is also knowing what to do. When the clause says
“fails to ensure that the glue trap no longer gives rise to such
a risk”
it sounds as if the person that finds it is expected to dismantle
it. Most people would not have the slightest idea how to go about
that safely.
I am grateful for that intervention; we clearly agree with each
other. I do not want to put unnecessary barriers in the way of
the progression of this Bill—we want it to have a following
wind—but there appears to be cross-party concern that the wording
might need to be tightened up, or at least that explanations as
to what might amount to a reasonable excuse should be given.
Mr (South West Hertfordshire)
(Con)
Thank you for the honour of serving in this debate, Mr Dowd. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North
East () on her private Member’s
Bill reaching Committee. I attended its Second Reading on 19
November last year and greatly enjoyed the contributions of many
Members, and was glad to hear the Government support for the
Bill.
In the United Kingdom, we are rightly proud of the welfare
standards for animals. The Brexit dividend has enabled us to
continue to advance our world-leading animal welfare standards.
Future legislation will introduce strong legal protections for
all animals and ban the use of inhumane glue traps.
Pest control is necessary as pests can be a huge threat to public
health, but they should be captured and controlled as humanely as
possible. Other traps, such as snap or break back, are more
humane, cost effective and reusable. Glue traps inflict slow,
painful deaths on animals that have been captured, and do not
just target rodents because other wildlife can be caught by these
indiscriminate traps. They are described by many as one of the
cruellest forms of rodent control. Therefore, I support the ban
on this mechanism. Ireland and New Zealand already have bans and
have transitioned seamlessly.
In my eyes, people with professional pest control licences should
be able to continue to purchase these traps, because they are
qualified to use them. The pest control industry is evolving as
people become more aware of animal sentience and the need to
treat all animals humanely. I welcome this legislation, and I
once again applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton
North East for introducing it.
(Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon,
Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North
East for raising this important issue and for the constructive
way she has worked with Opposition colleagues. I commend her,
because she has secured what the authors of so many private
Members’ Bills really want—the elusive support of Her Majesty’s
Government. I hope she will share any tips on how she has
achieved that.
This has been a busy week for the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs and its Ministers, and it is good to see
the Minister in her place. It feels like only yesterday we were
both on the Front Benches in the Chamber—oh, yes, it was only
yesterday! We still welcome the Bill, as we did on Second Reading
last year. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Hallam () noted that banning glue
traps was supported by a range of campaigners, stakeholders and
organisations. That support still stands today, and extends
across the Opposition Benches.
We have had an excellent debate about positive and constructive
ways to move forward today. My hon. Friends the Members for
Rotherham and for Bristol East and my right hon. Friend the
Member for Alyn and Deeside have all made constructive, helpful
comments about enforcement, the scope of the Bill and the
language, including the issuing of licences and the definition of
pest control. We must nail down those important issues to ensure
that the Act is as strong and powerful as possible. Will the
Minister indicate what further thinking has taken place in the
Department since Second Reading? We have not tabled any
amendments at this stage, but we reserve the right to do so on
Report. Much will depend on the Minister’s response to the points
raised today.
Issues about animal welfare, including the need for this Bill,
have had a good hearing this week. We debated the Animal Welfare
(Sentience) Bill yesterday and we await the next stage of the
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Discussions are ongoing about
that. That will help to put this Bill in context. These pieces of
legislation demonstrate why we need to make this Bill fit for
purpose, to ensure we are delivering the strongest possible
animal welfare policy across the piece.
On enforcement, covered in clauses 4 to 6, we need to think about
a joined-up approach with the devolved Administrations. We have
all had discussions and thoughts about mice racing across the
border between Wales and England, or the other way around, so I
ask the Minister to address that point in her response. As a
Welsh MP, I highlight that Members in Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland are no less passionate about care and welfare of
animals. We want to be part of the solution. The Bill has our
support.
I hope the Minister will reflect on colleagues’ contributions as
the Bill progresses through the House. The hon. Member for
Wolverhampton North East has done many animals a service by
bringing the Bill to this House. I thank her for doing so. I look
forward to working with colleagues in making the Bill as strong
and purposeful as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East for
bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, which is, as she
said, so important for animal welfare. I join her in thanking my
hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (), who stood in for her
when she had to take some time away from this place—although I
know she was watching on. It has been an absolute pleasure to
work with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East
on progressing the Bill. As we have heard today, the measures are
sensible. Everybody wants to stop the use of glue traps.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I thank the
organisations that supported the introduction of the Bill; the
hon. Member for Rotherham referred to some of them. I reassure
her and other Committee members that one of the reasons for a
two-year delay was to get this right; we needed those further
conversations about how to do this most effectively. My hon.
Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East talked about new
technology, such as pressure pads that inform someone
electronically when an animal has been caught in a trap, so that
it can be dispatched as soon as possible. They are still in use;
there is also the point about making sure, through licences, that
we know where such devices are. That will have to be done in
steps.
As the hon. Member for Newport West said, there is a challenge in
that we are slightly out of step with the devolved
Administrations. My offer to her before the sitting was to
discuss how we can talk to the devolved Ministers with
responsibility. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for East
Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow said that she felt that the
Scottish Government would be interested in looking at the
matter.
On pressure pads or humane traps, such as those where the mouse
goes into a tube and can then be released, they are humane only
if they are checked; otherwise, the mouse dies probably a far
worse death than it would have under other trapping methods. That
is why it is important that a licensed person checks the traps
regularly, rather than thinking that they have done their job by
setting the traps.
That is why we need to think about how we go forward with the
licences, applications, resourcing and so on. It is arguably why
there is a two-year delay. Once again, campaign groups have run a
really good campaign challenging shops not to stock the traps. I
take the point about the internet; it is a challenge. I also take
the point that several hon. Members made about educating the
public and ensuring general awareness. I will answer the inquiry
of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland more directly, but
this also goes to his point: setting aside use of the traps by
licensed operatives, once we have taken the items away, the
likelihood of their being in places where they should not be is
diminished.
E-scooters are not allowed to be used on the road or pavement,
unless they are the rental ones, but more than 300,000 have been
sold, and we know that they are used on the road. I have had an
ongoing battle to determine whether it is the responsibility of
shopkeepers, the police or whoever to make it clear to people
that they are spending hundreds of pounds on something that they
cannot use. If we are saying that people selling glue traps
somehow have a role to play in preventing them from being sold to
people without licences, I do not think that would really
work.
I ask the hon. Lady to forgive me, if that is where she felt that
I put the onus. I was not putting it on shopkeepers directly;
that approach has to be part of a suite of approaches. As we have
mentioned, these items are legally available because Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland are not banning them. We cannot
move forward until we are in lockstep. As and when that
happens—hopefully we can discuss that—we can be more rigorous.
Until then, with all due respect, our hands are tied when it
comes to making the law more definitive. On education and making
people aware, I take on board the point that, although some of
our constituents are pest control experts, especially it seems in
rural constituencies, many will not be aware.
The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside asked whether pest
controllers will have to demonstrate evidence of training or
competence. There is no recognised training or accreditation that
can be relied on to define who is competent in the use of glue
traps, but it is not necessary to specify that in the Bill, as
the Secretary of State has discretion to grant licences to
particular pest controllers and certain classes of pest
controller, and to impose a condition on any licensee. That
includes a requirement to have attended training and for a
company’s operatives to be trained in the appropriate way to use
glue traps. That would allow licences to be granted only to pest
controllers who have completed certain training, or can
demonstrate that competency, which I think is what everybody
wants. That is why further conversations about how this is set up
are important.
2.00pm
I was asked which bodies might be responsible for the licensing
functions and why they were not named. The public authority to
which we expect to delegate the licensing function is Natural
England, as it already fulfils this function for licensing
relating to wildlife management. However, there may be a change
in remit and responsibilities, and there may be other public
bodies, so the provision in the Bill is to appoint a competent
public authority, and clause 2 allows for that flexibility.
I was asked whether the Government will monitor the number of
glue traps, licences and applications. Yes, we would expect the
licensing authority—Natural England, for the sake of this
discussion—to introduce monitoring of the number of licences and
applications approved. As I said, I would like this to be digital
and transparent, so that people can look at the figures.
I was asked who would be authorised to inspect, and whether they
would need to give notice before inspection. They will be
appointed by the Secretary of State, and we expect that they will
be employed by Natural England. Inspectors will be authorised to
inspect pest controllers who permitted to use glue traps—they
will be a known quantity, because they will be using the traps
under licence—to ensure that licence conditions are being
fulfilled.
The hon. Member for Rotherham asked about those broader
arrangements and why there was not more specificity. As a range
of licences can be granted, the Secretary of State has the
flexibility to grant the type of licence that is most suitable
for the pest controller, given the intended use. Whatever form of
licence is granted, the Bill makes it explicit that licences can
be issued to pest controllers only on an exceptional basis. That
is the point that I want to make. We want glue traps to be used
in the most infrequent of circumstances, when no other method can
be used.
(Romford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North
East on this excellent Bill, which I hope will be another advance
in animal welfare in this country. On a point of clarification,
obviously in kitchens there are sticky traps and fly rolls, which
are used for food safety. Does this Bill have any knock-on effect
on controlling insects? Will those methods end up being banned
because of this legislation? Has that been taken into
account?
No, this is about banning glue traps that capture animals. I will
come on to why we have used the term “rodents” rather than
“vertebrates”, but the Bill is specific to animals. There is no
mission creep into other areas.
Although the Bill refers only to rodents, by default it will
protect all other animals that are at risk from glue traps—we
have been over this several times—because it will be an offence
to set the trap
“in a manner which gives rise to a risk that a rodent will become
caught”.
Examples were given of animals that might be caught; if a glue
trap is not set for a rodent, it cannot catch a cat, a garden
bird or any other mammal about which we might be concerned.
Finally, the hon. Member for Broadland talked about a person
being found guilty of an offence if they found a trap but did not
set it. The offence applies only if a person does not have a
“reasonable excuse” for failing to remove the trap. A reasonable
excuse explicitly includes reasonably believing that the trap was
set under licence, as may well happen in some of the examples
given of business premises.
Clause 1(5) is intended to close a potential loophole in which a
person, having come across a glue trap that has been set by
someone else, fails to remove it in circumstances where it would
be reasonable for them so to do. The concept of “reasonable
excuse” enables magistrates to decide on the facts of the
individual case. It is a concept commonly used in criminal
offences to allow magistrates to determine whether the
defendant’s actions warrant the imposition of criminal liability.
For example, if someone were renting a holiday home, they would
have no knowledge of a trap being laid. It would be for the owner
of the holiday home to defend that action. A person who moves
into premises and finds a glue trap there, however, is unlikely
to have a reasonable excuse for not removing that trap. On the
other hand, a passer-by is more likely to be able to provide a
good excuse for not removing a glue trap that has been set. An
example of a good excuse might be where removing a glue trap
might be a cause of trespassing. The two-year delay allows for
these items to be removed, so we should not have that problem,
but I take on board the point made by Members from across the
Committee about whether we should do more educationally, via
organisations and so on, to ensure that the general public are
better informed about the fact that these items will be banned
and cannot be used other than by a licensed pest controller. I
think that is a fair challenge.
As we have discussed, clause 1 sets out the offences relating to
glue traps and makes it an offence to set a trap in England for
the purpose, or in a manner that gives rise to the risk, of
catching a rodent. The clause specifically refers to rodents, as
I have said, because they are the primary target. We know that
other small animals may get caught, but by default it is always
about catching that rodent. If a glue trap was set to catch
another animal, it would be likely to catch a rodent. With due
respect, it is a bit of a circular argument.
Clause 2 sets out licensing provisions to allow the use of glue
traps by professional pest controllers under certain exceptional
circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton
North East mentioned. A glue trap licence may be granted to a
pest controller for the purpose of preserving public health or
safety when no other satisfactory solution is available. I expect
applications for such a licence to be few and far between.
Licences may be subject to any condition specified. That will
allow licences to be granted only to pest controllers who can
demonstrate the evidence of competence to which I referred
earlier. It would also allow licences to impose a condition to
safeguard the welfare of trapped animals, and conditions to do
with monitoring, whether via electronic or other means.
Clause 3 sets out the offences in connection with glue trap
licences. It replicates provisions relating to licence
applications under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Clauses
4 and 5 set out the enforcement powers of constables and
authorised inspectors. These inspectors may be authorised by the
Secretary of State in a similar way to inspectors under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act. The expectation is that they will
be employed by the public body delegated with licensing
functions, which in this case is likely to be Natural England.
Authorised inspectors are granted powers to inspect the premises
of pest controllers who have a glue trap licence in order to
ensure that the conditions of that licence are being adhered to.
Clause 6 sets out offences in connection with authorised
inspectors; it replicates the provisions for wildlife inspectors
set out in the aforementioned Act.
Clauses 7 to 10 consider who is liable if an offence is committed
by a body corporate, and how the Act applies to the Crown. The
clauses define various terms used in the Bill and set out its
extent, commencement and short title. The offences in clause 1
are expected to commence two years after Royal Assent; that gives
individuals and businesses sufficient time to transition to
alternative methods of rodent control, and provides ample time to
put in place a suitable licensing regime, in discussion with
stakeholders such as Natural England and the bodies that we have
mentioned in proceedings on the Bill.
I thank Committee members for their comments and their support
thus far, and I commend the Bill to the House.
I will finish by thanking everyone for their contributions. We
have had an interesting debate, and some important points were
made about ensuring that the Bill achieves its intended
purpose.
I could not close the debate without again thanking the animal
welfare organisations that have been in close contact. We had a
Zoom meeting with, I think, a dozen animal welfare organisations,
which have been incredibly supportive. I thank them for their
work in getting the Bill to this stage. There are probably too
many to mention, but the list includes the RSPCA, Humane Society
International, the UK Centre for Animal Law, Cats Protection, the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Animal Aid.
I have a special word for the Conservative Animal Welfare
Foundation; I spoke about this Bill at its event at our party
conference, and speaking at the same event was , who was such a champion of
animal welfare. He will be hugely missed by those who support the
cause of animal welfare, and it is for all of us to continue his
amazing legacy.
I thank the Minister for working so kindly with me, for being
patient, for supporting the Bill and for her explanation when she
summed up. I also thank the team at DEFRA, the team in my office
and you, Mr Dowd. There is nothing more to say, other than that I
am very grateful for the support for this Bill. It is important
that we get it on to the statute book, and that all the licensing
regime issues are dealt with once the Bill has passed through the
House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
|
