UK Shellfish Exports

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is important. The working of the Northern Ireland protocol and the fact that Northern Ireland is part, clearly, of the United Kingdom, our quartet of nations, are why the meeting that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have with the Vice-President of the Commission on Thursday is important. We wish to conduct trade as good neighbours, but within the context that we are a United Kingdom.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have recently been in touch with my friend Ronnie Norquoy, who operates boats from Orkney. He tells me that this ban is only the latest in a series of crises: first, the restriction of the China market; secondly, Covid closing the hospitality sector market; thirdly, the wave of red tape and export chaos caused by Brexit; and, now, the Seafood Producers Resilience Fund, which barely covers two weeks of his operating costs. These are not teething troubles. When will the Government get serious about rescuing this vital sector that is fast going out of business?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, that is precisely why we wish to discuss with Commissioner Kyriakides a situation that we do not think is founded on a correct interpretation of the law. It is clear that the fishing and shellfish industries are going through difficulties, as the noble Lord said, partly because of a reduction in demand due to Covid and partly because of issues that we need to resolve. However, in the long term this is a very important part of our food supply and we will support it.

Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, given the plethora of issues raised by colleagues around the Committee, I am just going to focus on one additional matter that has not been raised either here or in the Commons. It relates to the welcome introduction from the Minister, who made it clear that this is a technical statutory instrument; my disappointment is that it is not more substantial. My question, which I will expand on a bit, is: if the Government are really serious about banning circuses with wild animals, why did they not take the opportunity in this statutory instrument to ban the importation of circuses that do just that?

The Minister made it clear—and the EM made it absolutely clear—that we are not under any legal obligation to adhere to the EU rules for trade following exit. This is a unilateral decision. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also made it clear that it hoped that this Committee would scrutinise the department’s choice of unilateral recognition of current import arrangements. As other Members have made clear, our own animals may not be able to be exported if we are not accepted as a third country, and even if we are accepted as a third country, it may take some time. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has heard six months; newspapers at the weekend suggested nine months. There could be a considerable time lag and administrative burden on pet owners and commercial exporters of equines and dogs, and yet we are unilaterally saying that anybody who has a circus with wild animals can happily bring them in.

The Minister made clear in his opening remarks that this is all about making it easy for business to trade with the UK post Brexit. However, we know that circuses with wild animals are cruel. The majority of the population oppose them; in Defra’s own recent consultation on the matter, 95% of the consultees said they wanted them banned; and Scotland and Wales have banned such circuses. I appreciate that this statutory instrument is only about circuses with wild animals coming into the country, and to be fair, none has done so in the past few years. However, acts and trainers may move around, and resident UK circuses can bring them in. The somewhat inappropriately named Great British Circus brought in some elephants just a few years back. That is elephants, lions, tigers and bears cooped up in small mobile cages, travelling around Europe, coming with the consent of this SI to the UK.

The Secretary of State, Michael Gove, has said that he will ban circuses with wild animals:

“as soon as parliamentary time allows”.

My question, therefore, is: why was this SI not looked at as a possible vehicle? On page 19, Regulation 18 sets out quite clearly the conditions that have to be met by circuses bringing animals into the United Kingdom. Paragraph 3(b), which Regulation 18 inserts into Article 4 of the EU regulation, requires:

“a register of animals in the circus in accordance with the model laid down in Annex I”.

I have looked at Annex I, which is a one-page document, and in box 2.4 you have to identify the “Species” that you are bringing in. I am no lawyer, but a little asterisk about not allowing wild animals might have been something that the Government could at least have thought about.

The Minister will say, I suspect, that any such amendment goes beyond what is required to maintain the operation of the law after EU exit. However, the Government have made changes in other statutory instruments. The Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 proposed removing,

“unnecessary legal burdens on industry”.

So, we can take out burdens on industry but we cannot protect animal welfare. Will the Minister tell us whether Defra discussed the potential for using this statutory instrument to halt the importation of circuses with wild animals? Specifically, did it take any legal advice before it laid the instrument to achieve just that?

Unless there are overwhelming legal reasons why this has not happened, we will be forced to believe that, when the Government have to choose between supporting trade and supporting animal welfare, we know where they will go. It gives us little confidence that, in future deals, animal welfare, which we all hold so dear, will be upheld.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, in harmony with our commitment on the Labour Front Bench to recycling, I am speaking for my party in a guest slot. These regulations are complex and somewhat impenetrable—I think I drew the short straw—so I am afraid they raise many questions, some of which may be related to, but not directly affected by, these regulations. I hope the Minister will forgive me for that. Personally, I very much support the points just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on circus animals.

According to figures that I have seen, products of animal origin and live animals imported to the UK are valued at over £19.3 billion each year. Of this, 80%—about £15 billion, which is twice the amount suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—comes from trade with the EU. This covers an area of huge significance to our agricultural economy and the economy as a whole; given its effects, it also risks a further nudge for the nation in the direction of veganism should the trade be too much disrupted.

As we have heard, the UK will be treated by the EU as a third country if we leave without a deal. The SLSC recommended that the SIs be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I welcome the Government’s decision to accept this recommendation.

Without listed status, no exports to the EU can take place. Defra’s no-deal technical notice confirmed that,

“The EU would require the UK to be a listed third country”,


and it could not,

“be certain of the EU response or its timing”,

for an application. Without this,

“no exports … could take place”.

Can the Minister tell us what the usual timeframes are for dealing with third country applications? As we have heard, there are concerns that this could take up to nine months.

In order to be prepared for all possible outcomes, we understand that the UK submitted its application for listing as a third country in November. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the UK’s application will be granted? Have the Government formally requested that the UK’s application be expedited? Is the Minister 100% confident that, in the event that we leave the EU on 29 March with no deal, the approval for the export of live animals and animal products will have been granted in time for day one? If not 100% confident, what level of confidence does he have, and how will that change if there is a delay—to, say, June—for a no-deal exit?

The NFU says it has been told informally that, although Britain is in complete regulatory alignment with the EU, if there is no deal the same health checks that countries such as China and the US undergo will apply to UK suppliers. This would mean that 6,000 meat processing plants that export to the EU would have to undergo individual audits by British authorities. These would be checked by EU officials and then put to a standing veterinary committee for approval, a process that the NFU has calculated will take six months, “at a conservative reading”. These checks will also be conducted on any other companies supplying food and drink to the EU, including those exporting bottled water, honey, jam, dairy and other fresh foods. Does the Minister agree with this projection by the National Farmers’ Union? What is his assessment of the impact on the viability of food and drink businesses in the UK in the short and long term if that is the case?

I turn now to model certificates. Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the instrument,

“has provision to allow existing forms of model certificates to continue to be used for transitional purposes for such period as is published by the appropriate authority”.

I would love it if the Minister could expand a little on this. Is it dependent on the transition period following a deal, or can this also apply in the event of no deal? The use of the word “transitional” is quite confusing in that respect.

Then there are border checks. Under EU law, all animal and agri-food, including animal feed and plant produce, has to go through health checks. However, the necessary border inspection posts do not exist at, for example, Calais. This is because those checks have not been needed for anyone trading within the single market. The nearest border inspection posts are in Zeebrugge and Rotterdam, which have historically acted as the gateway for non-EU traffic, or Liverpool on the route to Ireland. Does the Minister envisage placing UK officers in Rotterdam, or will we reply on post-import checks within the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, also referred to BIPs. Consignments originating in the EU will not initially be required to enter the UK through a border inspection post. For this reason, we do not anticipate a significant increase in demand for BIPs at UK ports receiving ferries coming from the EU. This is based on our assessment that, as there were requirements within the EU for food safety and so forth when we were a member, this is a sensible and pragmatic approach.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

Before the Minister moves off border inspection posts, can he comment on the role of BIPS in terms of exports, whether we have sufficient capacity and whether the scenario I painted in respect of Northern Ireland is accurate?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

On the particular points about exports, my understanding is that, from the point of view of port authorities and others such as port health authorities, the ports feel that they have sufficient resources to handle imports and exports. However, I think it would be helpful, particularly given my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s points about exports and imports, if after this debate I produced one page on imports and one on exports as to how the geography looked.

On the noble Lord’s question about import notification systems, with us no longer being part of EU TRACES, the noble Lord is right that we will introduce our own system for import notifications and controls: the Import of Products, Animals, Food and Feed System. IPAFFS will allow importers, or agents acting on their behalf, to create an import notification and legal declaration of consignments bound for the UK before arrival. The notifications will be received by the port health authorities, which can then recall checks on the system. IPAFFS is being released in phases, with testing already under way, and will be available for those importing from outside the EU from day one.

However, as the noble Lord has said, UK importers importing from the EU will need to use a separate electronic process until the summer of this year. My note here says, “Why the delay?”, so I should say that the highest-risk goods such as live animals, germplasm and certain animal by-products currently require an ITAHC validated by an official vet in the EU member country on TRACES. The UK is then notified of the movement and required health assurances to follow risk-based post-import checks. To ensure certainty for businesses, and to ensure IPAFFS’ delivery for non-EU imports from day one, Defra has decided to remove EU imports from the system until the full functionality is available in the summer. As a result, UK importers importing from the EU will need to use separate electronic system processes, as I have said.

Detailed guidance is to be published very shortly. This process is expected to involve importers downloading forms from GOV.UK and emailing them to the APHA to process ahead of any import arriving in the UK. The rules on the documentation required for travel are unchanged. The APHA will continue to arrange post-import checks on high-risk consignments and sample checks on low-risk consignments, as it currently does. In other words, the same arrangements on checking would continue. I sense that the noble Lord has another question.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I am terribly grateful. I understand that there is a need for the new system to be fully functional—I guess, to be able to have the right integration with TRACES. The question then is: if it is just an interim system, is it already in existence? Is it being tested? Can we have some assurance that it will work smoothly? The new one is not fully functional yet there is some magical interim solution that is going to work, which seems a little odd to me.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Again, the best thing I can do is to ensure that I get this absolutely right. We are undertaking this in the phase I described to ensure that importers know which system they should use and have a guarantee that the system works. The system we are bringing in—IPAFFS—is being tested and is working. Dialogue and engagement with importers is under way. We thought it pragmatic to ensure a straightforward interim system for importers from the EU, until I can give your Lordships an absolute assurance that IPAFFS will work for the full range of them. Most importantly, this ensures that the level of checks will not change, so high-risk consignments will benefit from the clarity of checks and low-risk consignments will face the same arrangements.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

What is the interim system?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

It will be pulled off GOV.UK and sent to the APHA, in the same way as it would be checked in arrangements from the EU where the EU standards will be the same as ours from day one.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned EFSA. Obviously, these decisions will relate to negotiations. The FSA undertakes robust risk assessment and provides evidence-based risk management advice and recommendations for future food and feed safety issues. The FSA has built its capacity for risk assessment and risk management. The independent scientific advisory committees are being strengthened by recruiting new experts to establish three expert groups. The FSA has already expanded its access to scientific experts providing advice and other scientific services to inform our work. However, again, it is not in my gift to talk about EFSA. It is a matter for negotiations at a later stage.

Water Bill

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee too long on this one. When I saw this provision, it jumped out of the page at me because the Bill seems to delete the requirement to provide mapping of flood vulnerability. Having now checked the impact assessment and checked with the Environment Agency, I see that it is clear that the particular clause is not inappropriate in the circumstances, but I thought I would use this opportunity to ask the Minister to tell us, perhaps in writing, what maps are now statutorily required for flood risks.

This issue will arise significantly when we come to discuss, as we will do in the next day of Committee, Flood Re and the properties that are to be covered by that system. The issue also arises in terms of resilience and, for other bodies, in terms of planning decisions, as well as in issues for the insurance industry that go wider than the Flood Re system. While the section that is to be deleted may be redundant, it is important that we ensure that the resources that the Government give the Environment Agency and other bodies are sufficient to provide detailed, robust and accessible maps defining the flood risk around the country.

There is some urgency to the issue because I know that there are, to put it neutrally, constraints on the Environment Agency’s resources in this area. The agency is, probably rightly, trying to focus what resources it has on front-line services. However, if you focus on front-line services in a diminishing budget, you inevitably cut backroom services, some of which are in this area of mapping and prediction—which is done by the Environment Agency but often in conjunction with the Met Office—of where flood risk is likely to arise in future. As I said, I do not expect a detailed argument from tonight’s discussion, but I would like, before we proceed further with the Bill, an indication of what mapping is required and what resources are there to carry it out. I beg to move.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Whitty in his challenge to the Government and, to some extent, the Environment Agency. At the moment, my home down in Dorset is technically under a flood alert. I can look at maps on the Environment Agency’s website and the detailed data on river levels at the station near to my home which, during this sort of scenario, are updated every few hours. In conjunction with looking at the Met Office website—because I am an experienced watcher of these things—I can predict pretty accurately whether we will flood. I am willing to put on record that I do not think we will flood over the next 24 hours. We put our floodgates up—some of them, but not all of them—but that is mostly because we could not be bothered to take them down from the last time.

This whole business is obviously very worrying for householders. I pay tribute to the Environment Agency for making all the data available so that people like me can, assuming we are online and confident enough to use those tools, make that judgment. However, it is really important that those resources are sustained and, as technology and resource allows, are improved as more and more householders, given climate change, worry more and more about their resilience for flooding.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, when I heard the earlier debate about consolidation and clarifying legislation, I thought that this was a case in point. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly spotted that, too. This amendment allows me to put something on record. The issue is about duplicate records. Our plan is to repeal Section 195 on the basis that a single record is all that is required. The Environment Agency is not aware of any request having been made for the inspection of the duplicate record required by Section 195. Of course, it will continue to maintain its primary and comprehensive sets of data, including maps. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that public access to this information can be obtained under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, or for that matter under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is a small efficiency and cost saving to the Environment Agency, without detriment to necessary data collection, maintenance or public access. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with details of the data held by the Environment Agency. On that basis, I hope he will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Peatlands

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, of course, we have to take all factors into account in these decisions, but I shall pass on my noble friend’s comments to my colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, reminded us, only around 4% of our deep peat is in sufficiently good condition still to be actively forming peat. That is a decline from 6% in 2003. We also know that Birmingham, Exeter, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, as well as all of Cornwall, rely on peat catchments for their water. The Peak District peatlands alone supply 4 million people. Will the Minister therefore tell us what estimate the Government have made of the costs that could be avoided if the water storage and purification services provided by upland peat were restored?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not have a figure for that, but the gist of his question is entirely right. Peatlands perform an absolutely essential function in ensuring that we have clean and pure water supplies.

Badgers: Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans there are in future years to continue with a cull of badgers as part of the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Programme, following the withdrawal by Natural England of the licence to cull badgers in Gloucestershire.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate follows the decision by Natural England at the end of last month to prematurely halt the extended licence to cull badgers in Gloucestershire. I believe that this decision indicates that the overwhelming view of the independent scientists on badger culls was correct: that a cull is costly and impractical and that continuing for the remaining years of the licensed cull risks exacerbating the serious problem of TB in cattle.

The problem has been growing over recent decades. I live in the south-west of England, where dairy farmers have been particularly badly hit. It has cost the taxpayer as much as £0.5 billion over the past decade in testing, compensation and research, with further sums borne by the agricultural industry. It therefore follows that urgent action must be taken. There is a logic in thinking that killing badgers should be a part of that. Badgers are undoubtedly involved in transmitting TB to cattle and it therefore seems obvious that fewer diseased badgers will lead to less disease in cattle. However, infection is also passed from cattle to cattle, from cattle to badgers and between badgers. The Government are therefore right to pursue other measures as part of their eradication plan for bovine TB, such as pre- and post-movement testing for cattle.

However, in continuing with culling, the Government ignore the most important part of the science: that the social behaviour of badgers produces a much more unpredictable effect due to the effects of perturbation. I am very happy to stand corrected by the real experts in this debate—the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Trees—but in layman’s terms, perturbation is brought about by the territorial behaviour of badgers. A group of badgers will stick to a territory around a sett if they detect other badgers at their boundary but will extend their range in the absence of other badgers.

The randomised badger culling trials carried out by the previous Government, devised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who I am delighted to see in his place, had clear and undisputed findings. First, localised small-scale culling of badgers in the RBCT increased bovine TB. Secondly, 100 square-kilometre areas receiving widespread culling had lower cattle TB rates than those with no culling. The benefits took several years to emerge but persisted four years after culling ended. Thirdly, land adjoining the widespread culling areas experienced rapid increases in cattle TB. These detrimental effects faded over time but never turned into benefits. The trials, as with the current pilot culls, tried to reduce these effects using natural impermeable boundaries such as rivers.

These findings informed the current government policy. The licensing criteria are intended to produce large-scale, long-term, rapid and efficient culls, as the trials agreed that small-scale, short-term, slow and inefficient culls will increase cattle TB. By extrapolating the RBCT effects to a 150 square-kilometre circle, it followed that Government-led cage-trapping of badgers could reduce local cattle TB over a nine-year period by 12% to 16% below what it would have been with no culling. However, because background TB levels are rising, this 12% to 16% relative reduction over nine years actually represents a slowing of the rate of increase of cattle TB, not an absolute fall. On average, farmers would probably experience as much TB as they do today, or more. Farmers on adjoining land would almost certainly experience increased TB risks. To get this limited impact, the licence required 80% confidence of culling 70% of the badger population in the area.

When the policy was announced in October 2012, more than 30 of the leading scientists in this area wrote to the Secretary of State. At the very end of their letter, they said:

“Implementing these criteria entails substantial challenges, both for government and for farmers and, as a result, beneficial effects on cattle TB cannot be guaranteed. For example, licensees will be required to cull a minimum number of badgers (to avoid net increases in cattle TB) without exceeding a maximum number (to avoid causing local extinction, which would breach the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats). Setting such minimum and maximum numbers is technically problematic, especially when local estimates of badger numbers—”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, before the Division I was reading an extract from a letter to the Secretary of State from 30 scientists sent in October 2012. I will continue:

“Setting such minimum and maximum numbers is technically problematic, especially when local estimates of badger numbers are very imprecise. Furthermore, shooting the required number of badgers sufficiently rapidly and with due regard to public safety is likely to be challenging in the face of public protest and potentially inclement weather”.

So the Government were warned by the leading scientists.

What do we now know about how the pilots have gone? In Somerset, 65% of the estimated population of badgers was culled in the pilot area. In Gloucestershire, it was just 39%. Based on the science that the Government used to design these pilots, this means that the cull was not sufficiently effective to reduce cattle TB, and in Gloucestershire is likely to have caused more harm than good. Will the Minister therefore tell us when we will get any statement on the record from the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Defra’s chief scientist and the Chief Veterinary Officer, and their analysis of whether the pilot culls have increased or decreased the incidence of bovine TB in Gloucestershire, Somerset and neighbouring areas?

Will the Minister also take this opportunity to explain one other curiosity? The licensing is for trapping and shooting and for free shooting. The data show a sudden increase in the more expensive trapping and shooting halfway through the initial six-week pilot. The extension was stopped at the same time as the cage-shooting season ended, with three more weeks to run for free shooting. This suggests that those carrying out the cull voted with their feet and abandoned free shooting. Is this true? Do the Government expect free shooting to be widespread if they push ahead with a cull over the next few years? Will he publish a new cost-benefit analysis accordingly?

It looks like an effective farmer-led cull is very difficult, due to weather and protesters, as scientists predicted, and due to badgers moving the goal posts, which no one predicted. If an ineffective cull is what we have ended up with, it will make matters worse, so what should we do? The answer appears to be vaccination of badgers. Thanks to FERA trials on the safety of an injected vaccine, we know that it reduces the transmission of the disease among badgers. We do not yet know the effect on cattle, but we could, through the evaluation of vaccination pilots.

The case for piloting vaccination is profound. It plays to the perturbation effect, not against it. Vaccinating an area reduces disease in the badger population in that area while keeping badgers alive. Those badgers then keep out other potentially diseased badgers, thus creating an area where the situation is improving, which also blocks further spread of the disease in badgers.

There are normally three broad arguments against badger vaccination. The first is cost. This objection is because it needs cage-trapping. Given that that is what culling now seems to favour, that element is cost-neutral. Unlike culling, there is negligible policing cost. The pilot culls have cost considerably more to police in Gloucestershire than expected, for example. The remaining element is the cost of the vaccine, offset against the cost of disposing of badger corpses. It is also clear from voluntary vaccination programmes that there is considerable public support. Many come forward to volunteer and some are funding vaccination.

Secondly, people say that we cannot wait for a vaccine to take effect; that it is too slow, with no effect on animals already infected. To that I say: ask the scientists. The annual mortality of badgers is 25% to 35%. Hence, vaccination would work pretty quickly compared to the cull impact of 16% over nine years.

The final argument is that vaccination does not remove infected badgers. The evidence is that, with culling, the reduction in infected badgers is much slower than the overall reduction in the badger population due to perturbation. We know that culling will not reduce the overall level of infection because the overall level of reduction is offset by background levels of rising TB. However, vaccination would at least reduce transmission between badgers without the increase in transmission created by the perturbation effect induced by culling.

To summarise, I am assuming that we mean vaccination by injection; I think there are issues attached to oral vaccine that have to be addressed. There is long-term potential attached to a cattle vaccine, but that is more complex and not something that we can proceed with as quickly as we need to. The Government should look closely at the pilots that they have carried out and then be led by science. This will tell them that culling is impractical, due to perturbation. It may have worked against non-native invasive possums in New Zealand with very different social behaviour, or in Ireland, where much lower badger density leads to much less of a perturbation effect. But the evidence from England is great and consistently shows that it does not work. The efforts and resources spent on culling badgers should be replaced by a vaccination pilot. I look forward to other contributions and to the Minister’s response.

EU: Regulation on Chemicals

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, there are significant consequences for small and medium-sized enterprises of incomplete registration. Can the Minister please tell us how many businesses have already been informed by the European Chemicals Agency that their registration is incomplete, and what action has he taken to ensure that businesses complete all of the agency’s registration requirements in time to avoid those significant consequences?

[Lord De Mauley]

In terms of specific numbers, no, I cannot. However, I will write to the noble Lord on his question.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, perhaps I should clarify the answer I gave to the noble Lord. Research by Professor Christl Donnelly indicates that up to 50% of infections in the high-incidence area are due to badgers. Bovine TB can affect a wide range of species, including pigs, sheep, goats and camelids; it can affect wildlife—for example, badgers and wild deer—and pets, including cats and dogs, and of course humans. The key thing, however, is that in cattle and badgers the infection is self-sustaining. It is thought that most other species generally only act as spillover hosts.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s strategy is obsessed by badgers and the transfer in what is a really difficult issue for farmers and is costly to the taxpayer. What are the Government learning from the recent outbreak of bovine tuberculosis in County Durham, clearly caused by cattle-to-cattle transmission?

[Lord De Mauley]

I cannot accept the noble Lord’s first contention, but in response to his question about Durham, this is a beef-fattening unit, and it will therefore have bought animals in from elsewhere. That is why we introduced risk-based trading in partnership with auctioneers and the industry, to provide fuller information about TB status and history of selling herds to the market. Initially this is on a voluntary basis, but we will look at it again if necessary. We are also considering post-movement testing of cattle for those moving from high-incidence areas.

Animal Welfare: Cats and Dogs

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Black, on securing this excellent debate and on the way in which he introduced it? The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is right to resist getting a dog or a cat until she is ready. I was not so strong, and have two delightful dogs, Chesil and Otis, at home.

We are a nation of animal lovers. One quarter of us have a dog and a fifth of UK households have a cat, but it is clear that, as has been reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and others in the debate, there are more cats, kittens, dogs and puppies than there are good homes for them. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, has given us a timely reminder of the need to educate owners and potential owners in the run-up to Christmas.

The defining legislation is, of course, as we have heard, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, brought in by the Labour Government. Under that Act, powers exist for secondary legislation and codes of practice to be made to promote the welfare of animals. I know that the Government are considering a number of specific issues, including updating or bringing in new regulations or codes. Until such new provisions are made, existing laws will continue to apply. We look forward with impatience. As a result of that legislation, there is guidance for pet owners and codes of practice that can also be used in courts as evidence in cases brought before them relating to poor welfare. Clearly, owners should therefore be aware of them and I wonder whether the Minister has any plans to publicise them further through vets, pet shops, pet insurers or other media.

There is a plethora of legislation relating to the keeping of cats and dogs, their sale and their welfare. Your Lordships’ House is separately debating the need for stronger dog control. I pay tribute to the work of Angela Smith MP and Julie Hilling MP who are driving a lot of this work in the other place, and to my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon who is leading for this side on the Bill that we are interrupting this evening.

When we ask people about the welfare of dogs and cats, many ask what we can do about breeding and better regulation of breeders. The Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 provides protection for dogs used in breeding establishments. Under this legislation, any person who keeps a breeding establishment for dogs at any premises and carries on at those premises a business of breeding dogs for sale must obtain a licence from the local council. Those people who are not in the business of breeding dogs for sale—the so-called hobby breeders—and produce fewer than five litters in any period of 12 months do not need a licence. I would be interested in whether the Minister agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Black, and others who argue that this should be lowered to two litters in 12 months and whether that should be extended to cats.

The local council has the discretion under current legislation whether to grant a licence and, before doing so, must satisfy itself that the animals are provided with suitable accommodation, food, water and bedding material; that they are adequately exercised and visited at suitable intervals; and that all reasonable precautions are taken to prevent and control the spread of diseases among dogs. Local councils are responsible for enforcing the legislation. I am interested to know the Minister’s judgment as to whether he believes that councils still have the resources and expertise to do that.

In addition to ensuring that dogs are kept in suitable accommodation, the law also places limits on the frequency and timing of breeding from a bitch. Bitches cannot be mated before they are one year old, must have no more than six litters in a lifetime and can have only one litter every 12 months. Breeding records must be kept to ensure that these requirements are adhered to. Puppies produced at licensed breeding establishments can be sold only at those premises or a licensed pet shop. There is no mention of the internet. Does the Minister agree that this regime needs to be revisited?

The Welsh Assembly Government are acting: they began a three-part consultation in 2010, which ended last month. It seeks to repeal the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and replace it with regulations made under Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act in relation to Wales. The policy intent is to improve the animal welfare of all dogs on licensed breeding establishments. Importantly, once again, we in England are being left behind. Wales will have consulted and be reforming the laws on dog breeding before the coalition Government have even begun.

On this side, we therefore call on the Government to follow the leadership on animal welfare being demonstrated by the Labour Administration in Wales and to consult on the law and regulations on breeding of dogs and licensed breeding establishments in England so as to repeal outdated legislation and bring forward new regulations to improve the animal welfare of all dogs on licensed breeding establishments.

The Pet Animals Act 1951, as amended in 1983, protects the welfare of animals sold as pets. It requires any person keeping a pet shop to be licensed by the local council. That council may attach any conditions to the licence, may inspect the licensed premises at all reasonable times and may refuse a licence if the conditions at the premises are unsatisfactory or if the terms are not being complied with. Councils are responsible for enforcing the law in this area and anyone who has reason to believe that a pet shop is keeping animals in inadequate conditions should raise the matter with the council. However, much of this Act, which was written in 1951, is still relevant but much is out of date. Even its 1983 revision predates internet sales of pets, which we have heard is rife. Pets cannot be sold in the street, on barrows or at markets but they can be sold on the internet. Will the Minister please tell us when that will be updated?

If I had time, I would talk about puppy farms, which have been addressed well by the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Trees. I would also have referred to the excellent brief by Cats Protection and have raised the issues around neutering, which were so admirably raised by the noble Lord, Lord Black.

I have run out of time. We have had a good debate and I look forward to hearing answers to some of the questions from the Minister.

Food: Waste

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes a very important point. Indeed, that is why we are continuing to pursue the Courtauld commitment initiative, which was started under the previous Government and which has been extremely effective.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, as the growth in popularity of TV food programmes shows, we Brits love our food but we also love a two-for-one offer and the convenience of bagged salad. Between bake-off and BOGOF is the contradiction that many of us throw away more and more food while the numbers becoming reliant on food banks are spiralling, as people struggle with the cost of living crisis. Is there not a need therefore for the Government to work with retailers, broadcasters and others to help educate consumers, rather than having an Education Secretary who stigmatises and blames food bank users while downgrading the importance of cooking in the curriculum?

[Lord De Mauley]

I was with the noble Lord until shortly before the end, which is why we place such store by the “Love Food Hate Waste” programme, which was initiated by WRAP. The good news, which the noble Lord may not know, is that “Buy one, get one free” deals represent a relatively small proportion of supermarket promotions. The majority of promotions are temporary price reductions: for example, “Was £8, now £6”. “Buy one, get one free” deals are often on non-perishable items or items with long lives, and WRAP is working with retailers to encourage alternative promotions for perishable foods.

Bees

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I am really very grateful to the noble Baroness. Farmers have not been complaining to me recently about the numbers of elephants but I shall keep my ears open.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, reports this weekend that bees and other pollinators have bred well this year are most welcome. More concerning are reports that the lead government scientist on the effect of neonicotinoids on bees is joining Syngenta, one of the leading manufacturers of the insecticide. She previously worked on a Syngenta-funded project on bees and pesticides for Fera. Given the widespread concerns among the public about bee health, what assurances can the Minister give us that this closeness between policymakers and commercial interests benefits taxpayers more than shareholders?