Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee Report

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, as with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, it was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and staffed by our in-House team and the special advisers. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, the committee put forward a very impressive bid to tackle this issue holistically and coherently, looking in parallel at the issues of hunger, health and sustainability to try to develop some coherent policies.

My remarks will be brief because I must apologise to the House that I have to leave shortly for a meeting. I shall not be able to listen to everybody’s speeches. Therefore, I thought your Lordships should be saved from listening to me drone on.

Like the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Krebs, I was disappointed by the Government’s response. Since the report was published and the Government published their response, there have been several initiatives by the Government in this field, notably in the obesity strategy, where some of the approaches that they look to take will have unintended consequences—but there will be time enough to discuss those when the regulations on calorie labelling come before this House shortly. Other of the Government’s initiatives are far more welcome. I am sure that few Members of this House do not look favourably on the provisions in the Environment Bill to mandate weekly collections for food waste, which is an important step forward.

However, the stock response to the report seemed very much to be, “Well, we’re waiting for the food strategy from Henry Dimbleby and we will publish a White Paper in due course.” I wish to make one suggestion in regard to that. Our recommendation 51 was:

“The Government’s White Paper … must include a definitive outline of what constitutes a sustainable diet with regards to health, social and environmental impacts. It must be accompanied with a graded … plan and communications strategy to move towards this diet.”


Choice is what we have in this country, and choice is what people should have in their diets, but I contend that it is the role of a responsible Government to give advice to individuals as consumers about what constitutes a diet that will support their health and the health of the planet. Since our report and the Government’s response were published, the Government have accepted as the sixth carbon budget the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee, outlining that they support the delivery of a target of a 78% reduction on 1990 levels by 2035.

However, the Climate Change Committee was absolutely clear that a fundamental tool to achieve that target was a 20% shift away from meat and dairy towards more plant-based diets. We have yet to see the Government’s net-zero strategy, which will show us in some detail how they intend to deliver their new, welcome target for 2035, but it is hard to see how they would achieve it without taking forward the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee on diets. Not only should they accept those recommendations but, as the committee said:

“An effective strategy to tackle awareness of the climate impacts of what we eat is an essential part of our pathway.”


That was something that our committee made absolutely clear: that, as we move forward, the Government need to communicate clearly with the public, educating them about what constitutes a sustainable and healthy diet. When the Climate Assembly was brought together to look at how we can bring people along with us on the journey towards net zero, it was very strong on the need for people to be supported, educated and communicated with about the issues of a sustainable diet. It focused particularly on the areas of education, procurement and waste.

I can hear the Minister now saying, “Oh, it’s fine. She’s saying things which are all about the national food strategy and we can just say, ‘It’s lovely to hear what the House is saying and, of course, we will reply in due course’.” I am expecting that, so why did I bother to make my one point today? I made it because, before we get to the White Paper following the national food strategy, we need to address this issue of communication.

Of course, Public Health England has been disbanded, and, by this autumn, we will have a new centre for health promotion, which will be an in-house department—part of the Department of Health and Social Care. Therefore, there is a genuine question that needs to be answered now—I hope that the Minister will respond to this in his remarks at the end—about what Defra is doing now in terms of discussing the constitution of that new body to make sure that the issues around sustainable diet will be addressed at the same time as the laudable aims for tackling the nation’s health, making sure that the resources are there, the connections are made and the remit includes the issue of sustainability so that we can make those joined-up solutions. It will be a wasted opportunity if, by the time we come to the Government’s response in their White Paper, this new body, which will have significant resources to promote public health, has been set up and it is too late to include sustainability in its remit.

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

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for agreeing to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, yesterday to discuss this SI, which as he says is a simple one that corrects a technical omission. I thank him for his gracious mea culpa at the beginning; we all make mistakes, but it is important to acknowledge them. As Peers are always busy dealing with SIs, the fewer we have of them in future, the better.

I do not think that the omission does anything to suggest that the Government are not serious in how they treat the issue of GI schemes. I believe that they understand their value, to both consumers and the trade, in delivering benefits to both. I would like the Minister to commend the staff for spotting this error. I think there was a nine-week period during which these regulations could have been exploited so, as I say, they should be commended. During that time, there was no protection for the investment made by companies that have invested in these high-quality products. As other noble Lords have said, those are mainly from Europe, with brands such as champagne and rioja but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, says there is a growing number of English sparkling wines, which we should be and are proud of—not just in Hampshire, I would like to say, but in the neighbouring county of Surrey, where I live.

I have no wish to prolong the debate, but I ask the Minister one question. When we last debated this matter, a number of noble Lords outlined the concerns that they had around the problems that people were having in importing wine from European countries. Can the Minister update us on the situation vis-à-vis imports of European wine into the UK, given that half of all the wine that we import into this country comes from the European Union? Therefore, a problem with the amounts of importing from Europe would be a significant blow to those who enjoy drinking those products.

Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for arranging with his officials a debrief on the SIs in advance of today. That was extremely helpful. I certainly do not oppose this SI. As the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said, it is a complex task to find a system that protects both consumers and traders as we move post Brexit. However, this is the second such SI in less than two months. I am glad that the Minister has not said what a colleague of his said on the earlier one—that he was confident that these statutory instruments had been drafted to make the new system work. It is clear that this is complex and that we will need more of them. This SI recognises in a welcome way the mutual recognition of organic standards between the EU and the UK until the end of the year. As some noble Lords will know, the TCA recognises those mutual standards until the end of 2023, so we will certainly need another SI in the future, if not the near future, on that.

The bridging arrangements proposed are reasonable, as are the proposals for the new category for the Japanese rush grass. I particularly commend the remarks of my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the future arrangements for wine. However, as Baroness Parminter, of Godalming, I fear I should declare an interest, given that the Sainsbury’s food survey at the end of 2020 showed that Godalming took the title for having consumed the most wine in the whole year.

One figure that was not referred to by my noble friend Lord German about just how much wine came to the UK from the EU was the number of bottles, which puts into perspective for me the amount we are talking about. Yes, over half our wine comes from the EU, but on an annual basis that is just under a billion bottles, so how these matters are handled is significant. Given that wine importers were not previously required to have certification for coming from the EU, that could well be another cost from Brexit passed on to consumers. I certainly echo my noble friend’s comments and hope that the matter can be pursued speedily with the relevant wine association.

The issue that I want to raise that has not been touched on by noble Lords is the fact that the SI amends the regulations concerning geographic indications. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum specifically refers—I apologise in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—to Lough Neagh eels. I learned today that, due to Brexit and the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland fishermen will not be able to sell one-fifth of their catch in Britain. In the past, it has gone to Billingsgate for sale as jellied eels, and there are issues about restocking the lough with juvenile fish, which previously came from other parts of the UK. On the SI on 30 November we discussed this, the issue of GI logos post Brexit—including four Northern Ireland products, one of which being Lough Neagh eels—the requirement to carry on using the EU logo and being under EU regulations for any implementation of the GI scheme, and the possibility of joining the UK GI scheme as well if that were wished.

The Explanatory Memorandum of the 30 November SI also mentioned Lough Neagh eels, yet there was no mention then or today of this problem being a result of Brexit and the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Given that the ban of sales with any country outside the EU has been as part of the wider conservation measures in EU legislation since 2010, I must ask the Minister why the issue was not mentioned in the debate on the previous SI or today. Given that those specific GI eels cannot be sold now in the UK, does Brexit mean that jellied eels are off the menu in Britain, or is he confident that there are adequate supplies in the rest of the UK so that the British appetite for those jellied eels can be satisfied?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We had technical difficulties of various kinds earlier with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Naseby, so I will see whether we can deal with that now. I call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. No? We do not seem to be having much luck there, so let us move on to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is vital that we support the organic industry, given that it is critical to meeting our climate and ecological challenges while producing the food we need. It is to be applauded for using fewer pesticides, reducing soil erosion, and helping us to tackle biodiversity loss. I do not oppose—in many regards, I welcome—this statutory instrument, but I query why it has been tabled with urgency and therefore without a draft instrument being laid in advance.

I query that because the SI removes the mandatory EU logo being placed on UK organic produce, yet we have agreed an equivalence of standards with the rest of Europe until the end of 2023—which I am pleased about. I understand why we might wish to remove the mandatory element, but I am not sure why it has to be so urgent. Similarly, I cannot understand why it is urgent to make this SI, given that, when we had a meeting with the Minister and his team in advance of another SI, he kindly informed us that Defra had “no plans, at present” to bring forward a logo.

It is puzzling, because the Explanatory Memorandum itself sets out no rationale for the UK to introduce its own organic logo. When the EU introduced its logo, 10 years ago, it was absolutely clear. It had a strategy to increase the percentage of organic farming in the European Union and, given that there was a plethora of organic labels, it decided to create one EU logo and promote it vociferously to consumers. Indeed, this year, I understand that the EU is hoping to introduce a new organic farm action plan with a target of 25% of agricultural land in the EU being put into organic farming by 2030. It has set aside €40 million for the promotion of organic farming. On the last day before I stopped coming into the Lords because of the lockdown, I remember standing on Godalming station facing a massive poster for the promotion of EU organic apples. Yet here in the UK, we have no strategy to increase organic farming and there is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum of any guaranteed funding for any logo that might result from it.

Equally, we have no design, yet we know that designing logos is controversial, given that it will relate to issues of land and identity and will require the consent of the devolved Administrations. Nor is there any mention of any commitment to consult the public, yet the public are the people who must understand any resulting logo. When we had an SI recently on the three new logos for geographical indications and foods that the Government produced, they had already consulted on the logos, including with the public, and the designs are available for all of us to see on the government website. Yet in this instance, it is somehow urgent to make a requirement that people in future use a logo, but we as parliamentarians have had no guarantees on who will be consulted on a controversial issue and no sight of said logos, when we had that for the three GI protected logos which were produced recently.

Similarly, I should like the Minister to reassure me that this is not a case of putting the cart before the horse, given the Government’s welcome commitment to introduce mandatory “method of production” labelling in future. They said that proposals for consultation would come forward fairly shortly, so why insist on doing this organic logo in advance? We could well end up with logo proliferation such as we see on a young person’s Scout sleeve.

In conclusion, as I said, I do not oppose this SI, but I very much hope that the Minister will be able to commit in his remarks that no logo will be produced in the absence of a strategy to increase organic farming or without a commitment to full public consultation and guaranteed funding to promote the logo and, through it, the valuable organic farm businesses that we need to support. Without those three things, this SI will not achieve what I hope all of us in the Grand Committee want, which is an increase in the percentage of farmed land in the UK given up to organic farming.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, broadband and mobile connectivity in the countryside is clearly very important, which is why the Chancellor announced the first £1.2 billion, as I recall, of the £5 billion scheme that we wish to roll out. Clearly, this is a project of huge importance in rural areas. As the Minister for Rural Affairs, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that I am constantly in communication with DCMS about this.

The right reverend Prelate is right in using word “bureaucracy”. That is why we have wanted to simplify the BPS and, as we move forward, remove some of its most complex aspects by removing greening rules and improving arrangements for cross-border farmers, and removing the complicated rule that required farmers to claim payments on their entitlements every two years.

I understand the frustration about whether there should have been more detail but, in our quest for a less bureaucratic ELMS—a less bureaucratic arrangement —I emphasise that we must co-design these schemes with farmers so that the farmer sees it is as their scheme, not the state scheme. We want to make sure that it is not bureaucratic. The advice, support and guidance that will be available to farmers will ensure that, while there will undoubtedly always be worry, they get a helping hand rather than a heavy hand, so that they understand what schemes are available and, I hope, will apply for them and be successful.

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Statement refers to a modern approach to regulation. When will a formal timeline for farm regulatory reform be published so that taxpayers can have confidence that this new approach genuinely delivers public goods for public money?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

We want to ensure accountability and value for money; we think that the situation has been unduly draconian under previous regimes. This came up with regard to regulatory models in the health and harmony consultation and, indeed, in the Dame Glenys Stacey review. There are key improvements that we can make next year: increasing the use of warning letters instead of resorting always to penalties, introducing a greater range of more proportionate penalties for some breaches, improving inspection experience and simplifying, for instance, the cross-compliance guidance. Of course, all this is predicated on ensuring that there is value for money. We will be consulting on this so that we get the appropriate regulatory regime and can ensure that the taxpayer—and anyone else—realises that not doing the right thing has consequences. However, we think that the previous regime was not proportionate.

Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like fellow colleagues in the House, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, for his passionate maiden speech today and for the breadth of cultural experience that he brings to the House. We might not always agree as Members in this Chamber, but that is one of the great things about having such a breadth of expertise. However, we try to hold each other in respect, and I look forward to debating with him in the future—probably sooner rather than later, if the Government get their way—on the regulatory framework that controls the gene-editing technology to which he so eloquently referred.

As other noble Lords have noted, the two SIs are not contentious. When the primary legislation was discussed in, I think, the 2008 Session, they were not debated in either House. As others have said, they ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I would like to ask a question about the potential in the future for divergence relating to GMOs. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, now is not the time to debate the ins and outs of the merits or demerits of making a policy move to genetically modified organisms. However, given that that seems likely following what the Minister said during debate on the Agriculture Bill about the Government introducing a consultation on gene editing this autumn, there is a fundamental question that I would like to ask him. If the Government consider making changes to the policies around GMOs in the future, will they give a commitment that they will not do so in advance of laying before Parliament the policy statement on environmental principles, which is promised in the Environment Bill and which would make clear how environmental principles, such as the precautionary principles, are to be interpreted?

Turning to the regulations on organics, like other noble Lords I fully support the organic farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises in our country, who do so much for animal welfare and the environment, and indeed give consumers the choice on food standards that they need and demand. It is important that we approve this legislation today so that there are rules and regulations to enable them to keep trading.

I have two issues, the first of which is around paperwork and checks. As others have alluded to, producers will need to fill in new paperwork and have new checks, and there will be physical inspections on Northern Ireland land. Last week, the National Audit Office put a report out in which it made clear that there were serious concerns about how those checks will work in Northern Ireland and trader readiness to implement these new requirements upon them. It said quite clearly that DAERA was

“severely hampered by … the lack of clarity”

on the measures required. Of course, this will apply to organic farmers.

DAERA has concluded that it is not possible to complete the necessary work or the systems and infrastructure by 1 January. It also does not have sufficient time to mobilise its trader support services. I ask the Minister to update the House on how those measures to introduce the new checks and physical inspections are moving forward. I also ask the Minister to say a bit more, perhaps, about the contingency operations that DAERA has now admitted it will have to invest in because it is convinced that it will not have those checks and inspections in place in time. As I say, this will directly impact on the 6,000 organic farmers and, indeed, other traders in the future.

Those concerns were echoed last week by Sainsbury’s, which said that the supply of dairy, meat and fish products, which would of course include organic products such as sausages, could be seriously affected from January. There are 13 Sainsbury’s stores in Northern Ireland, and other traders will also be affected. It is important that we hear from the Minister today about the state of readiness in relation to implementing these checks and balances.

Finally, I will follow up on the point so well made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There are concerns about organic farmers’ ability to continue to export. Of course, we are all desperately hoping for a deal between the EU and UK, which would mean that there would be that equivalence for the control bodies for organic farming. However, if there is not one, then all the organic bodies will need to be recognised by the EU for any trade to continue. My understanding is that, currently, there are six of those bodies. Therefore, like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I would like the Government to say a bit more about the discussions they have had with the European Union about equivalence and, if not, what the state of play is with regard to those organic bodies being recognised by the EU for trade to be able to continue.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 74 resumed.

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Fookes, for this amendment, which is a means to embed the needs and welfare of animals in agricultural policy and to partly fill the vacuum of this Government not transposing across EU animal sentience legislation or introducing their own legislation, which they had promised to do in their manifesto. The Liberal Democrats accept that animals are sentient beings with intrinsic worth. We have consistently argued this throughout the stages of this Bill, in my remarks at Second Reading when welcoming the fact that Clause 1 allows payments to be made for animal welfare, and in opposition to easing the regulatory framework on gene editing.

Animal sentience is the only issue not being brought across when we leave the EU at the end of the year. It marks the end of a proud era when the UK led the rest of Europe to better animal welfare standards. Indeed, it was the UK Government who first suggested and then got animal sentience accepted into the treaty article in 1997.

We support the intention of this amendment. If the Minister is not intending to accept it, can I press her to say when legislation on animal sentience will be delivered, and whether she guarantees that it will have comparable or stronger powers than the existing EU legislation? I ask her to be very clear on the latter point, as there are rumblings of a pushback in the Government on the way that Ministers report how they take into account sentience when making decisions. Only an open and transparent process will give people confidence about how the needs of animals are considered in policy decisions. Without a guarantee to at least match the existing powers, the sad reality is that our animals will have less protection than has been the case as members of the EU.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill in 2017, there were several amendments in the Commons on animal sentience. There were also debates on the issue when the Bill was in the Lords and attempts to table similar amendments to other pieces of legislation. Theresa May’s Government committed to clarifying the legal position on animal sentience as part of their Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. This Government reintroduced the Bill in 2019, but it fell when Parliament was dissolved for the general election. A commitment to strengthen animal welfare rules was included in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech, and, as I understand it, there is a Private Members Bill which will have its Second Reading in the Commons in October. We hope that it will be similar to the previous Government’s legislation and that if this is a substitute for a government Bill, Ministers and Whips will give it the time it needs to reach us in the Lords.

In the meantime, I express regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, felt that she needed to table the amendment in the first place, given that Her Majesty’s Government have not managed to deliver a Bill in three years on this important issue. We agree that there should be a strong protection for animals and a recognition of their ability to experience feelings and pain, with all the implications that has for our treatment of them. However, we are not convinced that this is the appropriate vehicle for it. As such, I hope that the Minister can clarify the point about the Commons Private Member’s Bill and, if that response is satisfactory, the amendment will not be pushed to test the opinion of the House.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Fookes, for tabling these amendments and enabling these important animal welfare issues to be debated tonight. I shall speak on Amendment 71 first, prior to taking on Amendments 72 and 73.

On Amendment 71, I accept the scientific evidence that the practice of killing by throat cutting, without pre-stunning, compromises animal welfare. This is also the view of the BVA. However, I respect the arguments of those who believe that the animal welfare concerns do not outweigh the rights of our own communities to religious freedom.

Government trade policy should refuse to look at exporting our livestock to other countries for slaughter without pre-stunning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, so powerfully articulated. It is possible to take advantage of new trading opportunities that we are told will open up post Brexit without agreeing to export animals slaughtered without pre-stunning. New Zealand exports huge quantities of sheep to the Middle East, and all are pre-stunned with halal certification.

In supporting the aims of this amendment, I ask the Minister to confirm that when the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said earlier today, in response to a question, that the UK is at

“the cutting edge of free trade agreements”

this does not include the Government seeking to increase trade through increasing our exports of farm animals which are not stunned before slaughter.

I absolutely support the principles of Amendments 72 and 73. In fact, when I joined the RSPCA in the 1990s my first campaign, and one of the proudest I have worked on, was on the issue of live transport. I echo all the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the number of animals who suffer and the quite unnecessary levels of suffering that go on, given that this is all about profit. While I support the aims of these amendments, I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about concerns over the WTO complications. Equally, I think I am correct that live transport is a devolved matter and, as such, the Bill cannot make provisions concerning it for another Government. My personal understanding is that the Scottish Government oppose a ban on live exports.

The Minister might therefore say to us at the end that the Government are not able to accept this amendment. However, he can outline how they intend to tackle the economics that drive this trade. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, reported to, was commissioned by this Government and the devolved nations back in 2018. It recommended improvements to transport journey times, ship and lorry standards and possible maximum journey times, once we leave the EU’s regulatory orbit. This approach would be WTO-compatible and achieve the same results as stopping the live exports, as it raises costs, and live exports only happen because of the economics.

When will the Government release the report from FAWC—now known as the Animal Welfare Committee —and, at the same time, undertake alongside it a consultation on live transport and exports? I would like to hear that it is an imminent consultation because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned, during Brexit we heard a lot about how Brexit was going to be about improving animal welfare, and live transport was an issue that was trumpeted. We have had that FAWC report since 2018. If we do not see something imminently—and I would expect that to be in the next few months—we can only assume that this is just another hollow promise from the Government on their commitment to animal welfare.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I intend to speak briefly, but in doing so I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Baroness Hodgson, for these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, reminded us, she has been a lifelong campaigner on these issues and I pay tribute to her infamous doggedness and determination.

Noble Lords will recall that I spoke in favour of similar issues in Committee, and nothing I have heard then or since has dissuaded me from my view that exporting live animals is cruel and unnecessary. The noble Baronesses have once again illustrated the appalling animal cruelty that occurs in long-distance transport, whether through accident or deliberate neglect. It is clear that the occasional stories which appear in the press are symptomatic of a much deeper and endemic problem.

In Committee, the Minister reassured the House that the Government are actively considering how to take forward their manifesto pledge to end long journeys for animal slaughtering and fattening, whether in the UK or abroad. We welcome that commitment and look forward to receiving more details. The Minister also warned that the issues were complex, and we acknowledge that. But I sincerely hope that this will not be used as a reason for inaction, as he can be assured that the British public have high expectations in this regard. So I hope he is able to reassure us tonight that progress is being made and that the Government do now have a plan to deliver that manifesto commitment.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

If we are to be sure that support for farmers will also support nature, we need not only a proper system of measurement but to ensure that, when farmers are paid to enhance the natural environment, the payments are targeted at the right things. To quote the management guru Peter Drucker, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.” Otherwise, the Government will not achieve their great ambition and future generations will wonder why we got it so badly wrong.

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to have added my name to the amendment, which is now a cross-party amendment. While I will not repeat what other noble Lords have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on the state of nature, I will say that we have had another report only this week from the RSPB, which shows that over the last 10 years the Government have missed a number of key biodiversity targets.

We will turn our natural recovery around only by giving the right economic incentives to our farmers. I think the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was the first this evening to mention nature-friendly farming. We will not get the recovery we need for our nature unless we give the incentives to our farmers, who manage 69% of the land in our country. They are key to our nature recovery.

As it stands, the Bill gives the Secretary of State complete leeway between the allocations of funding for the different purposes in Clause 1 and Clause 2. Schemes with little environmental value might be supported; we could find that allocations are weighted towards productivity improvements or gobbled up by tier 1 options that add the least environmental value. We cannot afford to do that. We need to ensure that there is synergy between the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill. The Government’s own discussion paper on ELMS says that the outcomes in the 25-year environment plan are a key guide for this financial assistance. We need to turn that into a reality. The way to do that is to put this in the Bill.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I add my support to the thrust of this amendment, moved so excellently by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I support the idea that we need a joined-up approach to tackling environmental challenges. The aim of linking the Agriculture Bill, the Environment Bill and the 25-year environment plan by putting this into the Bill makes eminent sense, especially as I know that this Government are committed to real action and development on climate change and have already done significant amounts to make sure that this country is a world-leader in pushing forward with environmental protections and climate change planning.

I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure the House on this issue and, ideally, table the Government’s own proposals at the next stage, so that we are able to put this in the Bill. I know that we can be proud of the Government’s record on climate change and that there may well be significant desire to ensure that this is not a contentious issue and that there is cross-party support, as we have seen in the debates so far.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]]

I support this amendment as tabled and ably presented by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington and supported very convincingly by other contributors this evening. I support it for two reasons: first, it is in line with the stance that has been quite rightly taken by the Government when debating these issues in Brussels, so why would they not support it?

Secondly, this is an important test case in that our ability as an industry to explore new science is at risk if we are denied the opportunity to consult on this technology. We have world-leading science institutions and we need to re-establish our reputation as a place where sound science is welcome, trialled and tested. Scaremongering by comparing gene editing to genetic modification is unhelpful and the difference has been explained very convincingly by my noble friend Lord Krebs. I hope the Minister will support this amendment.

Finally, I endorse all the compliments that have been paid to the two Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—for their endless patience and gracious responses during the seven days we have spent on this Bill, and to the staff who have enabled these debates to take place with remarkable efficiency in difficult circumstances.

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry. On this occasion, however, I believe this amendment is a Trojan horse seeking to end the classification of gene editing as genetic modification and replacing the EU regulatory framework with the Americans’ proof of harm.

Good regulation is about managing the risks and the benefits of a process, and while we have heard about the potential benefits of gene editing from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and other Peers, there are risks too. Although the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, may not wish to acknowledge these, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for articulating some of them. For brevity’s sake, I am not going to repeat them now.

I accept that the amendment sets out some undertakings before the Secretary of State could uproot regulations governing the food on our plate, but this Bill is not the place to do it and the amendment is, at the very least, pre-emptive. The Government must do two important things: first, they must lay before Parliament the policy statement on environmental principles as committed to in the Environment Bill, which will explain how environmental principles, including the precautionary principle, will be interpreted now we are outside the EU.

The Government have said that they remain committed to the precautionary principle. We are signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which invites governments to take a precautionary approach with regard to synthetic biology. The Americans, with their proof-of-harm regulatory framework, uphold neither the convention nor the precautionary principle. Until Parliament has fully debated how environmental principles will be interpreted now we are outside the EU, there should be no consideration of changes to gene-editing regulations.

Secondly, the Government must introduce new laws on animal sentience, as they promised to do in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. These laws should place a duty to pay all due regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings and, given that gene editing allows animals to be altered for food, would inform policy in this area. In America they sell AquAdvantage salmon, gene-edited to grow to size in half the normal time of three years. Animals are sentient creatures with intrinsic worth and should not suffer to obtain more productivity and profit. These invasive procedures can be painful, and animals that do not deliver the required traits are euphemistically “wasted”. It is not just me who is concerned. The Royal Society conducted research on gene editing in 2017 which found that the public were very concerned at its use on animals, particularly to increase the productivity and profitability of meat production.

The Bill rightly commits to the highest animal welfare standards and working within environmental constraints to enhance biodiversity and provide the food that we need. Into it has been smuggled this Trojan horse, studiously avoiding the words “genetic modification” or “gene editing”, at a parliamentary stage that limits wider debate. I cannot support this pre-emptive approach to remove a regulatory framework that takes a precautionary approach and requires mandatory food labelling. The welfare of our farmed animals, our biodiversity and public trust in our food are too important for that.

[Lord Trees [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 275, proposed by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington. Under strict regulatory processes, and after consultation—I emphasise that that is in the amendment, as referred to by other noble Lords—it is about applying exciting new technologies, supporting our superb UK biotechnology industry to continue as a global leader and an economic success. Above all, it is about strengthening global food resilience and security while potentially reducing chemical or drug use.

The amendment has particular relevance to plants but I want to support it with respect to animals and their diseases. I draw a contrast with the opinions of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who I respect immensely. The priority of disease control in animals increasingly lies in prevention, and key tools in prevention are management and husbandry, vaccines, and genetic resistance. Genetic resistance has of course occurred spontaneously by natural evolutionary processes in wild animals.

Apart from knowing what the R number is, many noble Lords will now be aware from the Covid-19 pandemic of the remarkable innate resistance of, for example, bats to viral disease. They carry infections that are lethal to humans, such as rabies and the Covid-19 virus, without apparent clinical disease. By definition, the process of natural selection occurs over many years, so conventional breeding methods to create disease resistance in domesticated animal species are extremely slow and raise real ethical problems.

Now we have the amazing potential ability to very precisely identify the parts of an animal’s DNA that permit specific pathogen invasion and then, in a very targeted way, adapt them by gene editing so as to be non-permissive to infection. This mimics changes to an animal’s DNA that might occur spontaneously but very rarely in nature, and does it in a fraction of the time. It is distinct from the wider techniques involving genetic modification yet is currently included within them and prohibited in current EU legislation, as many other noble Lords have said.

In relation to animal disease, there is already promising research to breed pigs with resistance to African swine fever, a highly infectious pathogen in pigs, distributed worldwide, that in recent years has killed millions of pigs in China, is now killing pigs and infecting wild boar, which are symptomless carriers, in continental Europe, and presents a real and present danger to our own domestic pig population in the UK.

The Roslin Institute at the University of Edinburgh has recently created, using gene editing, pigs with resistance to the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, a disease endemic in the UK pig herd and a welfare concern as a cause of severe disease and high mortality, as well as having a substantial economic impact.

Finally, I stress that unlike processes involved in gene cloning, for example, using gene editing to establish a founder stock which breeds normally involves relatively few animals and no more intrusive processes for the animals initially than are used in normal veterinary practice. I very much support this progressive, forward-looking amendment.