Traffic-related Air Pollution

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce exposure to traffic-related air pollution, given its links to a range of health risks including cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological health conditions.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, air pollution in the UK has reduced significantly since 2010, but the Government recognise that there is more to do to achieve our air quality goals. For this purpose, we have set ambitious emissions-reduction targets for key pollutants by 2030, and have provided generous funding of over £883 million to local authorities to improve air quality.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

The Royal College of Physicians wrote to the noble Lord’s ministry, Defra, requiring targets for a reduction in the amount of PM2.5, the tiny particles that cross the lung barrier and do the most harm. Can he respond to that? Can he also respond to research by the University of Surrey, the University of Warwick, the University of Reading and the Royal Horticultural Society showing that hedges can reduce pollution at breathing height? Their effectiveness has been shown in studies by a policy of planting hedges along main roads, particularly near schools. This is an evidence-based, cheap and effective way to combat serious damage to health by air pollution.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord cites absolutely correct evidence about the power of the natural world to improve our lives, including by cleaning our air, and trying to get more trees and hedgerows planted close to where people live will certainly affect that. He makes an important point about PM2.5, which is most damaging to health. Under our innovative population exposure reduction target, we will drive improvement even where concentration targets have already been achieved. As a result, people’s exposure to PM2.5 will be cut by over a third by 2040, on average, compared to 2018 levels.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak against Amendment 71. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for the thrust of her argument, with which I agree. I agree also with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—but not that she is an old boiler.

This is one of a series of amendments dealing with the export of live animals for slaughter. At the heart of Judaism is animal welfare and the very strict prohibition from causing harm to animals. The UK Jewish community has often raised the issue of animal transport, as it has serious concerns over both the length of time animals spend in transport and the conditions they are kept in during the journey. I stress that I know of no such exports from the UK for the kosher food trade, so I have no problem with Amendment 72.

In principle, I support a blanket ban on the export of live animals for slaughter. However, Amendment 71 singles out religious communities, such as Jews and Muslims, for no logical welfare reason. It suggests that only animals destined for religious slaughter should be forbidden from being exported, as if the method of slaughter makes the slightest difference to the animal’s horrendous journey. Furthermore, the standard of welfare at slaughter, with only very slight variants, is uniform across Europe as governed by EU directive 1099, which I understand will be retained in UK law post Brexit. No welfare benefits would accrue by preventing animals being transported for religious slaughter alone, travelling to France or other European countries, as regulations on religious slaughter there are identical to those here.

Amendment 71 seeks to claim that industrialised slaughter is somehow more humane than religious slaughter, and there is simply no conclusive evidence to support that. Just visit any abattoir—they are pretty horrendous. Stunning is an all-encompassing animal welfare panacea, which some hope will be unquestioningly accepted as such. We have had this argument often in this House, but in reality mechanical stunning methods, which may include asphyxiation by gas, electrocution by tongs or water or shooting with a captive bolt gun, cause pain to the animal. They also frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in even greater, prolonged distress. We have had this argument before on labelling an, came to the conclusion that we should label everything to say how it was killed. I have no problem with that.

Shechita—kosher killing—incorporates an integral and irreversible stun by severing the anterior structures of the neck with a rapid transverse incision using an instrument of surgical sharpness. I could go on at greater length about the methods but it is rather bloodthirsty, for the reasons needed to kill an animal.

Amendment 71 only seeks to stigmatise religious communities by belittling their legal method of slaughter for no logical welfare benefits. Yes, ban animals from travelling long distances. We should be against—as Amendment 72 is, quite correctly—sending animals on long horrendous journeys to be slaughtered by any method. So please look in the long term at the fact that we need to stop animals having horrendous journeys, so that what happens at the end of them is irrelevant because they are not being exported.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

I am not sure what happened there, but I am glad noble Lords can now hear me. I shall speak to Amendment 255, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which I would have signed had there been space to do so, and Amendment 263, in the name of my noble friend Lord Tyler, which I have signed, along with my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. We have already had an important debate on devolution with specific reference to devolved issues throughout the Bill, and I very much appreciate the clear and valuable case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in Amendment 267, which I have also signed.

Amendment 255 requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations for England, to consult the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations and bodies that represent the UK farming industry. The scope of these regulations is a extensive and detailed, covering every aspect of agricultural production, processing, packaging, standards and distribution. Any significant changes could be very disruptive to the UK single market if it means divergence from practices in parts of the United Kingdom outside England.

Livestock production is more prominent in the devolved areas, especially in the more prevalent and less favoured upland farms. As I have pointed out in previous contributions, England is the main market for much of the produce from farms in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It matters, therefore, to Scottish and Northern Irish producers, that any changes to established practice and procedure do not interfere with farming methods and costs for non-English producers.

It also matters to English consumers if it disrupts or increases the costs of supply for markets to England. It would be invidious to single out individual companies, but I can think of a number in my part of Scotland whose main markets are in the south. The products are high-quality and well-received; indeed, the fact that the ingredients are sourced from quality Scottish farms is a key part of the branding. I hope that English Ministers would resist any measures deliberately designed to disadvantage farmers in the devolved areas, but lack of consultation could do damage unintentionally, to the detriment of producers and consumers throughout the UK.

Turning to Amendment 263, which I was pleased to sign, there can be no doubt that the protection of traditional speciality food and drink products delivers comparative advantage, which is of huge importance to our terms of trade. There are many parts of the world where the only visible expression of UK brands is Scotch whisky—where that is all you would know about the United Kingdom. It is one of our leading exports, if not the leading one. But there are many products that are distinctly British and that benefit from GI protection; so, are the Government resisting maintaining reciprocal GI arrangements, and if so, can the Minister explain why? The suggestion that EU GIs can be replaced by a domestic regime puts exports in an invidious position. Are there products from the EU 27 that the UK Government want to deny GI to? Do we want the freedom to designate English sparkling wine as champagne?

Over the years, battles have been fought to secure GI designation. Why should we now throw it to the winds? If we refuse to recognise established EU GIs, and it creates a conflict between our brands and theirs, it will sour the entire trade relationship. I support my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and his powerful analysis of what the consequences would be. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking against Amendments 254 and 258.

What concerns me is not the labelling of meat products, as it is right that, as far as possible, purchasers should know how an animal was killed. There is an increasing number of people who are against the slaughter of animals for food. I respect these views; however, what is being addressed in these amendments is an acceptance of people eating meat, but a desire to label as to the method of slaughter. I must say, a visit to an abattoir could easily make one a vegetarian.

What concerns me is that when the supporters of labelling make their case, there is often a concentration on whether the animal was or was not pre-stunned—in other words, a preoccupation with describing meat killed by kosher or halal methods. I have no problem with this labelling as long as it describes all methods of slaughter. I draw your Lordships’ attention to FarmWell’s proposal: a method-of-slaughter label with 12 categories. Three are electrical methods and two are gas methods; then, there is halal, halal pre-stunned, the Jewish shechita method, the non-penetrative captive bolt, the penetrative captive bolt, and, of course, lastly, being shot—the animal, that is, not your Lordships.

Where the bolt method is used, it should say whether it takes more than one attempt to kill or sedate the animal. If meat is to be labelled as humane religious slaughter, why not label when it is shot? Why not label that a captive bolt gun to the skull was used for cows and sheep? Why not label where chickens were shackled by their ankles and dipped in a water bath with an electric current running through it, which your Lordships should know does not always work, depending on the size of the chicken? Should labels also say whether pigs are herded into a room and gassed? A previous speaker has told the Committee about the numbers so killed. Then there is trapping and clubbing, but that is mostly by hunters. here are reputable reports on the failure rate of mis-stunning for the penetrative captive bolt for cattle as being 6.6% to 8%. The failure rates at the first attempt for non-penetrative captive bolt stunning and electric stunning could be as high as a fantastic 31%.

Some 2 million cattle, 8 million pigs and 9 million sheep and lambs are killed each year. The Jewish community slaughters only 90,000 red meat animals. Rounded to the nearest percentage point, I get 0%. Some 750 million birds are killed. The Jewish community kills a mere 500,000—that is a lot of chickens, but still not a lot.

Previous speakers—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—spoke very eloquently about labelling. She made an important point about labelling the country of origin. I certainly subscribe to labelling the country of origin for whisky. I like to think I can tell the country of origin, but maybe it should be labelled for others who cannot. When she went on to say that the method of production should be labelled, the only production method she mentioned, as far as I am aware, was whether it was pre-stunned or not. What I am trying to make clear is that I am against Amendments 254 and 258 but I am for labelling as long as it is comprehensive or not labelled at all.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, produced what I suppose could be a red herring, but it was actually horsemeat. Labelling horsemeat as beef or lamb is fraud; it is nothing to do with whether the customer has the choice.

If we are looking at labelling to stop cruelty, I am afraid that most abattoirs are really cruel. They try their best, but the electricity method of killing animals—mainly chickens—very often fails. The bolt system fails and they have to do it again. If we are labelling, can we just bear in mind that it should be labelling not specifically with regard to stunning and pre-stunning but for all forms of slaughter?

Food: Waste

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, in his initial reply, my noble friend the Minister mentioned excessive packaging. What success has there been in reducing excessive packaging? We still have lots of wrapping around our shirts and around cucumbers, all of it unnecessary, yet at the same time we are telling local authorities to increase recycling.

[Lord De Mauley]

That also is a very important point. We have some pretty aggressive packaging recycling targets, which go up to 2017. However, particularly in respect of food, there are relatively limited opportunities for more substantial reductions without resulting in product damage due to underpackaging. The environmental impact of that would be greater than that of the packaging itself.