Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Grand Committee

With these assurances in mind, I hope my noble friends will feel content not to press their amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I have a quick question to ask the Minister. The cost of the committee will be very substantial indeed, with its wide-ranging remit across all government. If these amendments are passed, can he tell us exactly what would be saved in the costs of running the committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I understand the question and apologise for missing it first time. No, I cannot give my noble friend that assurance, because the work programme and what the committee would look at will change from year to year as developing evidence about animal welfare takes it down different priority routes. The amendments would obviously quite dramatically restrict the ability of the committee to influence government policy, but I cannot put a monetary value on that. It would be part of the economic impact assessment, which would have to take place at a different stage in this process.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I have also received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I want to follow up on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about ritual slaughter. We have been reading in the newspapers that, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will become illegal to drop lobsters into boiling water to kill them. Is that one aspect of the thinking behind what the Government are doing? If that is the case, where does it leave pigs being slaughtered? They are highly intelligent animals and with a very high sense of smell. One might say that the slaughter of pigs does serious damage to them and to their feelings. I would just like to know where the Minister stands on this.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 18 and 19 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20.

Amendment 20

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am moved to intervene briefly because the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said that the people want it—I think I quote her exactly. I think the people want animals to be well treated; I think that everyone in this Room wants them to be well treated, and we have pretty good legislation that already protects animals, both domestic and wild, from unnecessary cruelty and ill treatment. However, in my 23 years in the House of Commons—I know that the noble Baroness represented people in the London Assembly—I can certainly say that nobody mentioned animal sentience. They mentioned lots of animal welfare issues, but nobody mentioned animal sentience. I think they were about as concerned about animal sentience as about the divine right of kings, which the noble Baroness also mentioned. Although the noble Baroness cannot intervene, perhaps my noble friend the Minister might say how many people came to him when he was an MP and said they wanted an animal sentience Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I think that I may be interrupted by a vote at some point so I will try to be quick, although I might not be.

I thank the Minister for his comments; I will read them in Hansard to make sure that I have understood fully where our interests overlap and where there is any divergence. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I listened carefully to everybody. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Mancroft, care deeply about these issues. Their views are valuable, but I found them quite repetitive. We have heard all this before. We have been told that the two committees will not clash and will have particular remits that will be extremely clear. I think that we perhaps underestimate the interest of both committees in terms of being able to understand where they might work together and where they absolutely must not because it is not relevant, so I do not have the same fears about any sort of overlapping.

I am happy that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, agree with the concept of policy in the round. The minute they started agreeing with me, I started to wonder whether I did not know what I was talking about, but I will look into that.

The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is trying to tie the hands of the animal sentience committee. I just do not think that that is appropriate.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned animal rights activists. This term has been thrown at me since we did round one of this Bill; perhaps he can tell me what he thinks he means by it in reference to me. He can always send me a private email if he would prefer.

I offer a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his comments and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, for their support, which is incredibly valuable. They both made an excellent summary —much better than I did. I thank them for that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about the committee being a critical friend, which is incredibly valuable and something that the Government do not have enough of. I would argue that your Lordships’ House is a critical friend, but we do not always have the same opportunities to support the Government when they change their mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, talked about the tsunami of people who wanted us to put animal sentience back into legislation. Of course, most people probably had not used that term before, but they certainly had once the Government had taken it out of the EU legislation that they moved over—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness but I must adjourn the Committee for five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee is resumed and I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

Finally, I thank the Minister for his simple explanation of how the two committees will work. That is incredibly useful, and I hope that it calms the fears of the noble Lords who have worried about that during the course of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendments 21 to 27 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 28.

Amendment 28

Moved by

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 15, 39 and 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefings. Clause 2 currently allows the animal sentience committee to prepare reports on any government policy that

“is being or has been formulated or implemented”.

The scope is wide, but some rationalisation is required. Government policy is extensive, and the committee could be overwhelmed in attempting to take a strategic and prospective approach to its work.

Amendment 15, especially proposed new subsection (4A), would create a category of government policies that the committee must report on: policies that can reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the welfare of animals, judged by the duration and severity of effects and the number of animals affected. The committee would, however, retain the freedom to report on any other policy that it felt may have impacts on the welfare of animals as sentient beings, including medicine, trade and, possibly, defence.

It is crucial, for the ASC to be successful, that it does not dilute its activity by spreading itself too thinly and investigating policies that will have no effect whatever on animals. The whole thrust of the Bill is about preventing harm and mistreatment of animals as sentient beings, but it is also important that the committee can look at policy that will make a positive improvement to the welfare of animals, not just minimise adverse effects, important though that is.

Amendment 39 would place a duty on the Minister to inform the ASC of any policy that is in preparation that comes within the remit of its work. This duty should not be onerous, as Ministers will know in advance of any policies likely to arise with an animal impact—for instance, trade deals involving shipment of live animals, or the import of meat from animals reared in a country with very different animal welfare standards from our own.

Lastly, I turn to Amendment 45, which would introduce a new clause after Clause 3 and should ensure that the ASC had a strategy that it was working to. The Secretary of State should produce an annual statement to Parliament on the progress of this strategy. Parliament, and indeed the public, will want to know how many welfare impact assessments the ASC has carried out over a 12-month period and what the outcome of that work has been.

Following Second Reading, it is clear that a wide divergence of opinions on the Bill is likely to be expressed this afternoon, most coming from the Minister’s own Benches. The Conservative manifesto made it clear that the Government would be bringing forward an animal sentience Bill in the new Parliament. This is an important matter for the voting public. However, it seems that some members of the Conservative Party did not quite understand what this would involve, or perhaps thought that the Government would quietly ignore this pledge. In all events, there is clearly a degree of disappointment in the Bill. I do not envy the Minister his role this afternoon as he seeks to negotiate a passage through some quite choppy water on the Bill, but I fully support it and look forward to his comments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to raise a few points. I am a little confused by comments from my noble friends and those opposite that they do not know exactly why the Bill has been brought forward. I thought the Bill had a clear purpose; I thought it was replacing the recognition of animal sentience that applied from 1999 but fell out of UK law when the Brexit transition period came to an end in January 2021. That means that, for the first time in more than two decades, there is currently no requirement for the interests of animals to be considered in the policy process. The Bill, as we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was reflected in the Conservative manifesto, and it will fill the gap and provide that requirement. I do not think that it will bind Ministers to any particular course of action, but it will ensure that their decisions—I emphasise their decisions, not the committee’s decisions—are properly informed of any relevant animal welfare aspects.

That said, I have a couple of questions that have arisen during this debate. For example, it should be clear that this will have no effect on medical science. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising made a good point about predator control. Perhaps because I regard myself as a conservationist, I understand that predator control is important, but that does not mean that animal sentience should not be taken into consideration. After all, I think it was in 1904 when we made pole traps illegal. As long as the methods of control are humane, I do not think there should be any cause for concern, but I would be interested to hear my noble friend the Minister’s views on that.

I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Moylan talking about the potential effects of radiation and things that you cannot necessarily see. Perhaps I should have looked at the Bill while I was sitting here to see whether the Ministry of Defence is excluded. I have been reading and I know about the release of munitions underwater by the Royal Navy, which has had a potential effect on cetaceans.

Those are the sort of things that the sentience committee would have to look at. However, as I just said, this is for Ministers to decide, not this committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I am speaking to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to which I have willingly and gladly added my name.

I start with a question: why has this short Bill, which elaborates on a principle with which we can all agree—that the welfare of sentient animals is important—generated so much criticism and so many amendments? To a large extent, it is obvious from what has been said so far that this is due in part to a lack of particularity in the Bill. Such matters include who and how many will be the members of the animal sentience committee, what authorisation will be required before the committee starts work on any policy, the committee’s relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee, and what options are open to the Government in response to a report and recommendation of the sentience committee.

I suggest that the proposed amendments are in large part because the Bill is entirely negative, in the sense that it seeks to impose restrictions on the way people go about their work, the way they relax and enjoy themselves, and the ways in which they can give effect to their religious values. Such restrictions go to the heart of what we regard as a diverse society in a democratic state. They go to the heart of freedom of personal conduct and belief.

This is why Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty, which recognises animal sentience and requires full regard to be paid to the welfare of animals, stipulates that member states must nevertheless respect

“the legislative or administrative provisions and customs”

of EU countries

“relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, elaborated on the history behind that provision. As he said, the UK was one of the key EU members that lobbied for Article 13, qualified in that way, so there appears to be no reason why a similar qualification is not to be found in the Bill. The provision of that minimum balance is the object of Amendment 31, which uses identical language to that in Article 13, as does Amendment 35 put forward by the noble Earl.

The need for balance in the Bill with the same or similar qualification as in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty also has a legal aspect. I am not qualified to speak about farming practices. However, recreational activity and adherence to religious practice fall within the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights. Recreational activity, including the enjoyment of country sports, falls within the protection for private and family life in Article 8 of the convention. Limited exceptions to that right are set out in Article 8(2) but, so far as I can see, the only ones that might be relevant are

“the protection of health or morals”

and

“the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Even so, a restriction or limitation falling within Article 8.2 is valid only if, among other things, it is proportionate. That is simply a legalistic way of describing the need for balance. Many of the amendments put forward today are essentially concerned to achieve proportionality, including, for example, no retrospectivity in the work and recommendations of the sentience committee and provisions as to its composition.

On religious rites, particularly at issue in the present context is religious animal slaughter. The importance of expressly preserving in the Bill the right of citizens to adhere to their religious practices is perfectly clear. That right, which falls within Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights is expressly and necessarily stated in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has highlighted in many cases the importance of the rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist, democratic society. Our Human Rights Act 1998, which enabled disputes on convention rights to be resolved in our own courts, contains the specific provision in Section 13 that:

“If a court’s determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.”


It is not necessary for present purposes to go into the nature of religious animal slaughter in the form of shechita or its Muslim equivalent. There is scientific evidence on both sides of the debate about the humanity of this, but it is clear that the protection of the right to manifest religious belief is enshrined in the treaty obligations we already have and in our own domestic legislation. Therefore, there can be no good reason why, as in the case of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, the considerations and recommendations of the sentience committee should not be made expressly subject to respect for religious rites. This would provide balance, clarity, certainty and compliance with Article 9 and Section 13 of the Act.

Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Wine) (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2021

Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who, with eloquence and guile, has taken many of my points: I feel none the worse for being a shadow and an echo of much of what he said. Before that though, I welcome these regulations, straightforward but important and correcting, as my noble friend the Minister said, an error as we transpose legislation as a result of the end of the transition period. I shall focus, very much as my noble friend Lord Moynihan did, on the VI-1 forms.

In no sense do I wish to pre-empt the Minister, but I believe that my noble friend Lord Moynihan very effectively answered his own question: there is no purpose or point to VI-1 forms. Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at the Reducing Friction in International Trade paper that I alerted him to in the autumn of last year? That concerns a digital solution to this problem, a proof of concept for Australia-to-UK wine imports, not just about customs documentation but about all documentation, linking the digital, the legal, the physical, the health and safety and the viniculture all together through various new technologies, not least distributed ledger technologies, IoT and several other elements. What the proof of concept demonstrated was that we can today, if we so choose, have a real-time, effective digital solution to this issue; yes, with EU-UK trade; yes, with all trade.

It may be worth noting that we are not just an importer of fine wine from continental Europe; we have a stunning importer/exporter wine industry at all levels and at all sections of the wine industry. It is a less well-known but fabulous part of the British economy. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Hannan correctly identified, we have a growing range of fabulous wine producers, not least across the south coast of England, which is set in only one direction, and that is positive and set for growth. Does the Minister agree that we can work together and bring in a digital solution which would be far more effective than just taking into digital means the unnecessary details currently stored on VI-1 bits of paper? Until then, does he agree that not just until 31 December this year, but well beyond, to eternity, we should not have VI-1 forms in our trade with the EU or the world? They have no purpose; they merely leave UK drinkers with an acrid aftertaste in their mouth. If the forms come back, they will leave drinkers having to swallow increased prices and reduced choice. I know that my noble friend the Minister cannot want that. I very much look forward to his response.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.05 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021

Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]]

I too thank the Minister for setting out clearly and in detail the purpose of these regulations and their application in Northern Ireland. I shall preface detailed consideration of the regulations with a couple of general remarks, which I am sure the Committee will understand.

While these regulations are highly technical, they are another piece of the jigsaw of legislation required purely as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. They amend previous regulations which, as the Minister said, applied to the whole of the United Kingdom and were passed to take care of the situation in the event of a no-deal exit from the European Union. I remind noble Lords that many of us find the need for this kind of legislation—amending legislation that applies to the whole of the UK and making specific provision for Northern Ireland—deeply objectionable in principle, to put it mildly. It is having to be done to implement a protocol over which no one in Northern Ireland had any say or any vote. It is important to make that point over and over again on these regulations because they are important. Laws will be made in this Parliament of ours that will, effectively, mean that new regulations, in this and many other areas, can be made in Brussels. They will then come into force in Northern Ireland without anyone at Westminster or Stormont, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, having any input or vote on them. That is a bizarre and unacceptable way of making laws for part of the United Kingdom. It is certainly not taking back control.

Turning to the detail, these regulations do two things. First, they allow for the continued application in Northern Ireland of the European regulation on the EC fertiliser regime. Secondly, since under EU law there can, as the Minister said, be a dual regime for fertilisers, they enable UK fertilisers, so labelled, to be marketed in Northern Ireland. This part of the statutory instrument is very welcome—there will be a UK-wide regulatory regime for the marketing of UK fertilisers and it means that manufacturers in Great Britain can market their products across the United Kingdom, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of course, EC fertilisers can still be marketed in Northern Ireland alongside that.

I note that the devolved Administrations have been consulted and have consented to the making of the instrument. I further understand, having made some investigation in the matter, that officials are currently preparing an implementing instrument that will fully implement in Northern Ireland the provisions of the UK retained law to allow for both the manufacture and marketing of UK fertilisers in Northern Ireland.

I close by asking the Minister, given the degree of consensus on this instrument, and on a more general but relevant note, whether he anticipates being able to obviate and alleviate some of the difficulties. I put that mildly—there are really difficult consequences concerning movement of agriculture-related products between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Can he give some reassurance that producers and consumers will get some relief from some of the current problems in moving such goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?

The situation since 1 January has, as noble Lords will know, caused considerable consternation to many, and extra cost and hardship. One reason the Minister gave for advocating these regulations was that they would save costs and keep products on the market in Northern Ireland. That should apply right across the board, so I would be grateful if the Government would commit to doing everything in their power to overcome the current obstructions and restrictions and permit unfettered trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.