Food Security

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Yes, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the wrong kind of trees planted in the wrong place under the wrong management style will be a loss for both the environment and the social element we want in our countryside. That is why there are very clear rules under the woodland carbon code which corporates would have to abide by, and why the Forestry Commission, if applying through grant aid schemes, will require standards to be maintained. For example, planting will not be permitted on deep peat; it will be concentrated on poor land.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, it is a nonsense to allow private companies to acquire vast hectares of arable land, often removing generations of farming families, in order to offset their carbon emissions and carry on with business as usual. British farmers are essential to the country’s ability to produce food. Does the Minister agree that importing food which is not produced to the same high animal welfare standards as we enjoy in the UK, to replace that which we might have grown ourselves, is a backwards step?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I suggest that we look at this as the glass half full: there are plenty of examples where private sector finance can be a massive boost towards the environment by working with farmers and seeing tree planting on poor-quality land, for example. Some 57% of agricultural produce is produced on 33% of agricultural land. This shows that, if we favour the productive land to produce food—every single farm has corners of it that can be planted with trees or for other ecological benefits—this will benefit the farmer and is in accordance with the food production targets and ambitions of this Government. It can work; we want to root out the bad behaviour which the noble Baroness rightly points out.

Farmers

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I have already outlined one area in which we are helping. I am glad to say that the fertiliser production plants in this country that were either mothballed or operating at half-rate are producing again. We want to make sure that we are doing all we can to reflect the global issues here. The truth is that we are almost self-sufficient in wheat; we get very little from Ukraine and Russia. What is happening is a human tragedy in those countries, but it is also a tragedy in countries that depend on them for wheat. The perverse result is a very high spot price for wheat of £318.75 in November, which will be of huge benefit to farmers as they plan for future years. But we have to understand that the Ukraine crisis is causing global uncertainty, and Britain has to be a part of resolving that.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the removal of the CAP should be liberating, but only when farmers are sure that the replacement will not lead to drastically falling incomes, making food production uneconomic. The rush for carbon offsetting is leading to the sell-off of farms for tree plantations so that air travel can continue unhindered. Does the Minister agree that, if farmers feel it is more economic to sell off their land rather than continue to use it for agriculture, surely there is something wrong with how the Government are implementing the changeover?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The Government want more trees planted, but we want the right trees planted in the right way. Many of these plantings are under the headline of environmental social governance. To me and the Government, the “S” matters as well as the “E”. If an airline—the noble Baroness used this as an example—is buying land and kicking off the farmers, that may be quite “E” in terms of what they are planting, but it is not very “S”. That is why we are taking action to make sure that private sector investment in our natural environment is done properly, with the proper social underpinning.

Zoonoses Research Centre

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

There is a very large number of pets in Ukraine; it has one of the highest pets to human population percentages anywhere in the world. Rabies is an endemic disease there, but the good news is that over 95% of the many pets that have been brought with migrant families showed immunity to rabies when we applied the ELISA test, which indicates that they have been inoculated. We are trying to fast-track a means of quarantining them which is kind to the migrant but also protects our rabies-free status.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the GB Wildlife Disease Surveillance Partnership focuses on detecting known and emerging diseases in wild animals, such as rabies-like viruses in bats and bovine tuberculosis in badgers. When cases are confirmed, controlled methods can be implemented. There is a need to broaden this surveillance to pathogens found in wild and domestic species. There is currently no funding for non-notifiable pathogens in UK wildlife. Is it not time that the Government took a more holistic view to prevent future outbreaks and provided such funding?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are providing funding for diseases that can come from wildlife. One of the worst ones to hit us in recent months and over the last two years has been avian influenza, which is brought by migrating birds. We are putting a huge amount of effort into learning the lessons from both last year’s and this year’s outbreaks to make sure that we are supporting the industry with as much biosecurity as possible to prevent future outbreaks.

Import of Animals and Animal Products and Approved Countries (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

I very much thank the Minister for his explanation of this SI and thank his team for the helpful Explanatory Memorandum, which, I must admit, I particularly appreciated—I have to say that the instrument itself is hardly riveting bedside reading. I also noted the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

I need hardly tell this audience that the risks to the biosecurity of the UK animal population are ever present; we are in the midst of a huge avian influenza epidemic at the moment. That infection is particularly difficult to control because migrating birds and in particular wildfowl bring it to the UK. However, pigs do not fly, and what would be more serious would be an incursion of, for example, African swine fever. In recent years that has devastated the pig population of China, has been spreading westwards in continental Europe slowly but irrevocably and has in fact reached Belgium. Apart from causing serious disease in domestic pigs, it infects wild boar; when there is a wild animal host, it makes the eradication of such an infection doubly difficult. Worse still, of course, is foot and mouth disease, which we suffered from greatly in 2001, and I regret to say that our ability to deal with such major livestock outbreaks since 2001 has been seriously eroded by the shortage of veterinarians we now have, particularly those with livestock experience. For these reasons, it is extremely important that we maintain high levels of biosecurity, and regulation and inspection of imported animals and animal products is a key and important tool to maintain that biosecurity.

I therefore strongly support the principal objectives of this SI, which will enable, following expert advice from the animal disease policy group, a rapid administrative response to threats to animal and indeed public health by restricting imports from third countries instead of what could have been a dangerously delayed legislative process. It is relevant to note, as the Minister emphasised, that these changes simply bring into effect a process for third-country importations which will align with the current processes for imports from EU and EFTA countries.

However, as context to this particular instrument, it is a matter of great concern that, for the fourth time, recently the Government have delayed the implementation, for example, of checks on food imports from the EU to Great Britain. The failure to introduce such checks, apart from disadvantaging commercially our own farmers, may provide a short-term financial gain but risks a long-term extremely serious financial pain—remember that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak cost the UK an estimated £8 billion in 2001.

With regard to this particular SI, my one concern, on which I seek reassurance from the Minister, is that I note that, as well as providing the administrative power to enhance our biosecurity in the face of assessed threats, it also provides for the reverse: the converse administrative mechanism to reduce inspection controls or remove or lift restrictions without parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister assure us that this instrument will not be a vehicle to enable the calls by some members of Her Majesty’s Government to unduly delay, reduce or in some way compromise important checks in future and potentially risk our animal health biosecurity?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee debated this SI and asked several questions of Defra, which were raised by Friends of the Earth. I understand that, as a result of the avian flu outbreaks in 2020 and 2021 in Ukraine, a ban on the imports of birds covered the whole of that country, whereas the outbreaks were, in reality, confined to certain areas. Therefore, it seems sensible to restrict the import of affected animals and animal products to those specific areas, rather than the whole country. However, this could have consequences.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has eloquently referred to numerous animal diseases that could affect our domestic flocks and herds. Surveillance and vaccination are essential to provide protection. Might it be possible for an area of a third country to have an outbreak but not declare it in order to be able to continue to trade? Can the Minister say whether that might be likely to happen?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was assured by Defra that the power in the SI would be used very rarely and only in extreme and emergency cases. However, there is already legislation in place to enable emergency action to be taken where needed. Therefore, is it necessary to introduce new, stringent legislation, which is not scrutinised by Parliament? Parliament is being cut out of the process, and the decision rests solely with the Secretary of State, after consideration with the devolved Administrations.

The Explanatory Memorandum states, at paragraph 11, that guidance for trading partners and border control posts will be issued

“prior to the instrument coming into force.”

If I understand the process correctly, we debate this SI today, and probably tomorrow or Thursday the SI will be approved in the Chamber and will come into force immediately. This SI could have a devastating effect on our farmers and markets if disease outbreaks are not dealt with effectively and efficiently. Can the Minister say where the all-important guidance is currently in the legislative sausage machine, and when it will be published? Time is of the essence.

Paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to allowing restrictions to be imposed immediately when a disease outbreak is notified, and states that restrictions can be removed quickly where risks are diminished. Can the Secretary of State be sure that the risk is diminished? Instead of rushing to release an area from risk, would not it be better to wait and be sure that it is completely disease free?

The new powers are primarily to be used for imposing import restrictions, lifting import restrictions and imposing and amending additional conditions that need to be met for trade to continue. All this rests with the Secretary of State at his or her discretion, with no reference to parliamentary scrutiny.

The animal disease policy group will recommend whether new countries can be added to the third-country list and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister reassure us that the processes and safeguards carried out by the animal disease policy group are sufficient to ensure the UK’s biodiversity? Will the Secretary of State use the same criteria in each case? I would like clarity on just what discretion the Secretary of State has. Is it likely that a country the Government are keen to admit to the list of third countries and begin trading with might not get the same rigorous assessment as others? Are some likely to get special treatment?

It is extremely worrying that Parliament is being bypassed on an issue which would be of considerable concern to the public if they were aware of it. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on this subject that all angles have been covered.

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.

This instrument delivers changes for a reformed and more accountable Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board that will play an important role in supporting farmers through a time of significant transition. While it marks an end to the AHDB’s levy work in horticulture and potatoes, it also marks an important new beginning for how the AHDB engages with and delivers for other sectors, including cereals, oilseeds, beef, sheep, pork and dairy. It respects the outcome of the ballots in the horticulture and potato sectors to end the AHDB statutory levy in their sectors; it is clear from the ballots and industry feedback that the statutory levy mechanism does not meet the very diverse needs of horticulture and potato businesses and that a different approach is needed going forward.

However, we must recognise that, while the overall result of the horticulture ballot supports an end to the statutory levy—with 61% voting against it continuing—there are a diverse range of views, with some subsectors such as soft fruit, tree fruit and mushrooms voting to keep a levy. I recognise the concerns of those subsectors at losing levy investment in important research and crop protection activities that the AHDB has traditionally funded and delivered. Therefore, while this instrument respects the ballot by repealing the statutory levy provisions, it also ensures that the horticulture and potato sectors can remain in scope of the AHDB order. This means that any parts of the industry that want to continue to work with the AHDB can do so on a voluntary levy or commercial basis in future. This will also enable the AHDB to continue to deliver legacy research and plant protection services to these sectors during a transition period.

I can also assure noble Lords that the Government continue to engage proactively with the horticulture industry to develop alternative industry-led funding models, such as syndicate funding for specific crop research and voluntary levies, that will better suit the diverse needs of the sector going forward.

I also highlight that this instrument marks the beginning of a new direction for the AHDB—an AHDB that is more accountable to levy payers in other sectors, including beef, sheep, pork, dairy, cereals and oilseeds. It delivers a new duty on the AHDB giving levy payers a regular vote on sector priorities. This will ensure that levy payers have more influence over the AHDB’s sector programmes, how much levy will be raised and what it is spent on in future.

The AHDB has been working hard to deliver this already through its “Shape the Future” campaign, where levy payers have recently voted on the priorities they want to see the AHDB deliver over the coming months and years. This could be such things as the work the AHDB does to open new export markets, its consumer marketing campaigns to promote UK produce and defend the industry’s reputation, or the market intelligence it delivers to inform farmers’ decisions. This is a momentous step forward for the organisation and marks a turning point in putting levy payers right at the heart of everything it does.

I also draw your Lordships’ attention to a technical drafting point. As a consequence of removing the horticulture levy provisions, this instrument will broaden the definition of the horticulture industry in the AHDB order. The definition will now include the growing of a wider range of horticulture products by way of business. This will deliver more flexibility in future, as it will enable more businesses in the horticulture sector to work with the AHDB on a voluntary levy or commercial basis if they wish to.

To support this flexibility, this instrument also includes provisions to clarify that the AHDB can charge to cover the costs of any services it may deliver in future to any agriculture or horticulture business in scope of the AHDB order. It also ensures that, where a sector is paying a levy, any additional charges can only be made for the cost of services not already covered by the levy.

In conclusion, these legislative changes sit alongside significant governance and cultural changes which the AHDB has already put in place to deliver a more inclusive, democratic organisation that is in a stronger position to meet the needs of farmers. I hope I have assured noble Lords on the need for this instrument, which establishes a reformed AHDB that will help farmers improve their productivity, reduce carbon emissions, engage in environmental land management and access new markets at home and internationally. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time—and that of his officials—in providing a briefing for this afternoon’s statutory instruments. It is important that those engaged in both the horticulture and potato industries know when the levy that they pay is to be removed, in order that they can plan. I assume that the consultation carried out has provided some indication of timetables.

The levy was first implemented in 2008 under powers in the NERC Act. In January and February, the potato growers triggered a call for a ballot. Only 5% of the membership is required to call a ballot, which seems a very low threshold. In the horticultural sector, there was a 69% turnout and, as the Minister has said, of those who voted, 61% voted to abandon the levy. In the potato sector, there was a 64% turnout, with 66% voting no to continuing with the levy—overwhelming figures. As a result, the Government have abandoned the levy for future years.

However, there is still the issue of how the money accumulated in the past and in future will be spent. A five-yearly vote on how the money is spent seems a long gap between decisions on spending priorities. Are the results of the vote on spending plans monitored against sector planned priorities? Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that levy payers have a say in how the levy is spent. Can the Minister say whether this happens in practice?

With the abolition of the levy, there is a fear that the research and development work of the AHDB will be restricted. However, as the Minister has said, there is an opportunity for the AHDB to charge for services provided. I could not find any reference in the EM or in the statutory instrument itself to the scale of the charges. Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The impact on the public sector is the loss of levy funding for AHDB horticulture and potato services.”


Does this mean that the AHDB will be financially unviable for these sectors, or will the charges they can impose cover the loss of the levy?

There are 10 other sectors covered by this SI within the overarching definition of the horticulture industry—from protected vegetables grown in glasshouses and indoors to trees and saplings in tree and forest nurseries. It is important that research and development continue to provide protection for all categories, especially as many diseases are airborne and difficult to control.

The current levy produces an income of £5.6 million from the potato industry and £5.7 million from horticulture. This is a large sum to be replaced by charges, which appear to be ad hoc but I hope have some rational basis. All other sectors, including pork, beef, dairy and sheep, produce an income of £70 million. At this time of uncertainty in both the EU and other trading markets, it is vital that R&D capacity is not weakened across any sector. There is ongoing consultation with sheep producers on the levy. I look forward to the results of this consultation.

I am encouraged that the Government are listening to industry growers in abolishing the levy for potatoes and horticulture, but I am concerned about the effect on R&D. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance but generally welcome this SI as a step forward.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing beforehand. I should declare an interest through my involvement at the Rothamsted agricultural institute. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we will not oppose this SI. The issue seems to be straightforward, particularly given the democratic ballots that have taken place in the horticulture and potato sectors. However, the fact that these changes have been felt to be necessary raises some wider questions, which I hope the Minister will feel able to address.

First, can the Minister explain when Defra and the AHDB became aware that there was such disillusionment among those sectors under the previous levy regime, and why was no action taken to change the levy system at that time? It seems rather extreme, if I may say so, that the two sectors had to organise themselves to demand a ballot when, had there been ongoing consultations, there might have been a bit more sensitivity to their disillusionment. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about what happened in the run-up to the two groups organising a ballot.

Can the Minister also say something more about the underlying concerns that the sectors had about the levy? Was it just about the cost, or did they feel that they were not getting value for money in a broader sense from the payments that were being made? For example, was there a problem with the quality of the research and advice that they were getting for their money? If so, are we confident that that is now being addressed? And, if that is the case, why were those concerns not addressed at the time that we first became aware of them?

Secondly, as the Minister has explained, arrangements are now being made for the other sectors covered by the levy to have regular ballots, which is to be welcomed. Is he confident that those new consultations will prevent the other sectors from triggering unilateral ballots, now that they have seen the success of the potato and horticultural action? Is he confident that those arrangements are now settled and that people are now happy with the new proposals?

In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the devolved nations also considered a

“proposal to extend the scope of the Order to other agricultural industries on a UK-wide basis”.

Can the Minister explain what is happening with the devolved nations? Are they all doing the same thing at the same time now—in other words, will the AHDB equivalents in the devolved nations all have these regular ballots? Is that what the proposal is? And how does that fit with the proposals before us today?

Thirdly, and most importantly—this echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—what will be the impact of the loss of the levy on the work of the AHDB? Is there a danger that vital research capacity will be lost, which might have a wider impact on future disease control and climate mitigation techniques, for example, as well as investment in better techniques for cultivation in the future? Are there wider implications that the Government should have a concern about rather than just greater productivity? Are we sure that that ongoing research will still be addressed when the levy is no longer here?

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum also makes mention of delivering

“legacy research and plant protection services”

on a transitional basis. That is great, but what will happen when that research comes to an end? Presumably, it was felt to be necessary in the past, so what will be the future of that research and plant protection services? Are we confident that it will still be covered? Otherwise, given the UK’s ambitions for the agriculture sector, we might find that we are losing out if we do not have the research base in the future.

Fourthly and lastly, the EM makes it clear that, as the Minister said, sectors can continue to work with the AHDB on a voluntary or a commercial basis if they wish to. Can the Minister say something more about how that cost basis will be different to the old levy structure? Is there a danger that only the larger producers will pay the levy in the future? In other words, are we in danger of having a two-tier system where the big producers have the money to invest with the AHDB but the smaller producers do not and therefore fall further behind, when we would want to make sure that smaller producers have the research capacity as well? I am just a bit worried about how that cost basis will work.

Food Security: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

It is precisely those people who will be the greatest victims of climate change. In the short term we are working with the World Bank to lever the largest ever financial commitment, $170 billion, to support countries faced with economic hardship, both in the short term as a result of insecurity and the war in Ukraine and in the long term, working with international bodies to address these very problems for the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we are a trading nation and always have been. It is essential to ensure that harmful practices are not offshored, as environmentally degrading practices are making the biodiversity crisis we face worse. In turn, this makes growing crops on much of the planet harder. Can the Minister assure the House that the new trade Bill will not allow the import of goods produced to lower standards than ours? In the long run it would be utterly pointless and self-defeating for us and our allies to do so.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have to make sure that we are not, through our environmental policies, just pushing carbon emissions and biodiversity practices that we do not allow here to other countries. We are part of a global community. Our food supply chains are very complex and we want to manage them with our international relations and make sure that we are protecting our environment at home, continuing to produce good food and playing our part abroad as well.

Ukraine War: UK Food Security

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

No, it will not be for the Government to cap prices. Price-capping policy has been disastrous in the past, but there are other ways to support people on low incomes. The Government are spending many billions of pounds addressing the rise in household costs, and we will continue to do that.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, food security is at risk, and the Government have no target to bolster food security and food chain resilience. They have targets to secure biodiversity and tree planting. In 1984, the UK’s overall food self-sufficiency was 78%, but in 2021, it was down to 60%. Why are there no ambitious statutory targets for self-sufficiency in the UK food sector that would take us back to a more sustainable level?

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse thoroughly the remarks of my noble friends Lord Herbert and Lord Moylan. I congratulate the Minister on entering this whole discussion with great good humour and with a certain amount of patience as well, because we have certainly asked him many questions and put him under quite a lot of pressure, but I hope that at all times we have been courteous to him, too.

My starting point was exactly the same as that of my noble friend. This Bill really was not necessary. If one looks at the raft of legislation in this country that protects and stands up for animals, one sees that it is one of the most effective legal frameworks anywhere in the world. Some of those laws date back to the start of the last century. Flowing from those different Acts of Parliament have been numerous regulations, such as the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations, which are pretty comprehensive.

So the Bill was not necessary, but in the context of realpolitik, I understand why the Government decided that they had to move down this route. The Bill has certainly been improved by the Commons amendments, which I welcome. I once again thank the Minister for what he has done to help improve the Bill substantially from where it was when it started out.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Commons amendments to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. This was a very small Bill which was trailed in the Conservative Party’s manifesto. I am not usually an advocate of following another party’s manifesto, but, on this occasion, it was necessary to bring forward the Bill in this parliamentary Session. I would have wished the Bill to have had more detail in it and perhaps to have had more support from the Government Benches, but to have amended it further would have delayed it, and it could possibly have been lost in the welter of other legislation we are dealing with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to the shortcomings in the Bill, as have others. It is nevertheless long overdue that animal sentience should be recognised in law and on the face of legislation. This Bill fulfils that need.

The Bill, although short, received minor amendments in the other place. The first, to Clause 2, inserts the provision around religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage. It seems sensible that those who have strongly held religious beliefs should be able to have those rites and cultural traditions respected; this is the correct way to proceed. However, insertion of the provision is not necessary, as the Bill already gives the ASC the right to consider non-welfare factors, but we are content to let it stand.

The other amendment made in the other place was to Clause 6. A clause inserted in the Lords prevented any charge being placed on the people—on public funds—but it was removed in the other place. We do not oppose the removal of that amendment and hope that others similarly do not oppose its removal.

Water Companies: Duties and Accountability

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Like any development, it has its opponents locally, and who can do anything but feel sorry for those whose lives are disrupted by it? However, a water reservoir such as that provides not only the benefit of water resources but a massive benefit in terms of well-being, leisure and the environment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, in 2021, the leading water and sewerage utility companies had very high revenues, with Thames Water recording £2.1 billion. Over the last 10 years, water companies have paid out £13.4 billion in dividends and directors’ pay. Given the number of illegal sewage discharges into our streams, waterways and seas, is it not time that the Government insisted that water companies clean up their act immediately and not in the future?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, we are about to embark on the largest investment in water infrastructure that any Government have ever overseen. This is at a cost, but we can delay the impact of that cost on the customer until 2025. After that, the cost, on average, will be about £12.50 on each bill. If people want more to be spent, however, they must understand that this will be reflected in the cost to customers. We have to be absolutely honest with customers: we are going to spend more now and in the coming years, and rightly so, to eliminate the grotesque image that we have all seen of sewage going into our rivers.

Glue Traps (Offences) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her excellent introduction to this Bill. The noble Baroness has a strong reputation on animal welfare and has been a formidable advocate on animal welfare issues for a great many years. She is a force to be reckoned with.

Glue traps are extremely effective at catching small animals and are designed to deal with rodents, such as mice and rats. However, they are an indiscriminate tool and catch everything that is unfortunate enough to pass over their surface, including birds, snakes, hedgehogs, kittens and even, in one case, a parrot. The animals so caught struggle to get free but cannot and suffer a long and painful experience, before death eventually releases them from their agony. While it is desirable to get rid of rodents, this is an inhumane way of doing it.

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to set a glue trap where wild birds may be captured. The RSPCA found, in a survey undertaken in 2015, that 73% of the animals caught in glue traps were species other than rodents. I have not personally had experience of a glue trap. However, glue traps are readily available and members of the public can buy one and set it to catch a rat or a mouse, with no knowledge of what will happen or how to deal with the animals caught in their trap. They are unaware of what will happen to the animal and how to dispatch it humanely or quickly end its misery. Glue traps are not an appropriate mechanism for dealing with either a minor rodent problem or an extensive infestation of rats.

I support the need for a properly trained pest control officer to be able to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State to deal with a specific infestation in a particular location, where another means of pest control would be inappropriate or impossible. This safeguard in exceptional circumstances is essential. The example given in the briefing of a rat in the cockpit of an aeroplane is one such circumstance.

Clause 5(5) lists, in paragraphs (a) to (h), a range of purposes when an inspector may enter premises to make an inspection. These provisions are very wide. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and perhaps the Minister, say why it is necessary to have such a wide range of detailed restrictions for action to be taken? Clause 5(7) says:

“The inspector must, on request, provide a record of anything that is seized under subsection (5)(h) to any person who … has possession or control of the thing seized immediately before its seizure.”


This seems a bit obscure. Can the noble Baroness or the Minister please give a little more detail on what it actually means?

Clause 7 refers to “Offences by bodies corporate” and its subsection (1) to an offence under the Act being

“committed by a body corporate”.

Can the noble Baroness give some indication of what kind of body corporate she is referring to?

Clause 9 refers to several interpretations of what is meant in the Bill. Under “premises”, paragraph (b) refers to

“any tent or movable structure”.

I imagine this might refer to a marquee which has been erected for a fete or a wedding. Can the Minister confirm this, please?

In 2015, a YouGov poll indicated that 68% of the British public agreed that glue traps should be banned in the UK, with only 9% opposed. Since 2015 was seven years ago, is there any more up-to-date information on what the public think about glue traps? Given the general tenor of public opinion on animal welfare, I imagine that this figure may have increased, not decreased.

Lastly, I come to the date of implementation, referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. Why will the offence of setting a glue trap not come into force for two years? I can see no rationale for this, other than that it might take that long for stocks of existing glue traps to be used up. Surely this is unacceptable. To be condemning small animals and rodents to acute suffering during this period is not humane when it could be stopped sooner. The Welsh and Scottish devolved authorities have indicated that they plan to introduce similar legislation, and I welcome this. Given the time lag, if the UK Government are not careful, Wales and Scotland will have their legislation in place before England. Surely the Government can act sooner to end this abhorrent practice.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on bringing forward this legislation and fully support the aim and thrust of the Bill.