Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Grand Committee

I hope I have given some reassurance to your Lordships and that my noble friend Lord Forsyth will feel able to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords not to press theirs.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received three requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lords, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere and Lord Bellingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I will call them in that order.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have intervened in the Committee stage of a Bill so I hope noble Lords will forgive the solecisms and infelicities that follow. I am afraid that listening to the response to the first two blocks of amendments has left me convinced that this is a badly drafted and badly conceived Bill, so much so that I think it will be taught eventually at politics A-level as an example of what happens when you have pointless virtue-signalling legislation.

Let us recall why we are here. A tranche of EU law was being moved over. This was not part of it, so it was not included in the read across on to our own statute book. A press release then went out saying, “Ah, this means that the Conservatives have voted against animal sentience. They have said that animals are not sentient.” On the basis of this absurd press release, the Minister in another place was panicked into saying, “Oh no, no, we will legislate.” It found its way into the manifesto and here we are with this—as my noble friend Lady Fookes says—rather skeletal, emaciated, haggard, malnourished Bill that can be expanded almost at random in any direction.

I have to say that almost all the amendments in the first two blocks have been about seeking to define, circumscribe and guard against these opportunities for mission creep and unintended consequences, whether it is to do with the composition of the committee, its powers, its relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee or specific protections for religious freedoms, medical research and all the rest. If my noble friend the Minister—who I really feel for: this is his baptism in this place—means it when he says that this is only an advisory committee and is not going to be policy-making and so on, what can be the harm of accepting or replicating in the form of government amendments some of the ideas that would simply ensure that this statutory body does not exceed its remit?

I finish by echoing the point from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: we would like to see some recognition from my noble friend the Minister that we are not just expected to take all this on trust and that the legislation will be drafted in a way that does not allow for almost unlimited growth and producer capture.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his sympathy, though I wish my noble friends would stop sympathising with me. If they are confused, this is my I-am-enjoying-myself face.

I have tried to give some reassurances. I may have satisfied some noble Lords but I clearly have not satisfied him and I will have to do more to do so. I have already said that we will publish more detail before the next stage of the Bill and I am sure that he and others will take great interest in that.

I respectfully disagree with him. I think this is important to people. I hope that when it is up and running—and has tackled a few pieces of complicated government policy and nudged the tiller of those involved in the legislative process perhaps to change things in a way that reflects the impact that policy would have on animals—he will see that this is not a paper tiger, a white elephant or whatever words I am putting into his mouth, but something of value.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Before I call the next person, I gently remind noble Lords that the practice in Committee and on Report when noble Lords speak after the Minister is, first, to be succinct and, secondly, to deliver their comments in the interrogative form. With that, I call the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I have a request for clarification from the Minister. I listened carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Mansion House speech, when he made it very clear that the post-Brexit era must be dedicated to reducing bureaucracy and red tape. The Minister himself said that when he entered government, as I did, in 2010, the first thing he looked at was how he could rationalise the committees, quangos and arm’s-length bodies at Defra.

I am keen to see this committee get going quickly, but why can it not be subsumed into the Animal Welfare Committee? Why can the two not be combined? A budget has been set already. I need not remind him of the fact that my noble friend’s department will be under the most unprecedented spending pressure over the next few years. If we want this initiative to get going and get going smoothly—and, above all, quickly—to satisfy what he claims is public demand, surely the way to do it is through subsuming one into the other. I would be grateful if he could give further clarification on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I said, with what I thought was clear reasoning, which has been backed up by others, why these two committees are different. The Animal Welfare Committee advises Defra and is not a statutory body. The animal sentience committee will work across government to reflect whether sentience of animals has been considered in legislation. They have two very different functions, so we cannot subsume the two. I am with my noble friend on his desire, and that of the Chancellor, to make sure that we are living within our means. The Defra that I returned to three weeks or so ago is a very different organisation from the one that I was in during the coalition Government, when we transacted large amounts of policy that was created elsewhere. Now policy is created in this country, in this Parliament, by a Government who are elected, so it is a very different place, which I hope will be reflected in the spending review.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I would call the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but we have a problem with her—but a person put his name forward late, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with care to what my noble friend said, and I apologise to him if I did not pick up the comment he made, but did he make any comment about the LSE report? It is so relevant to the work of this committee. Has he received it and are we going to see it? What is its relevance to the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I think we are coming to that in a later group of amendments. It has been completed but not peer reviewed and I have not seen it, but it will be available to noble Lords before the next stage of the Bill.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We will make one more attempt to call the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. No, it is not working. I call the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Fookes, although slightly surprised that she was surprised that I would be surprised that she was agreeing with me. We agree on many things, and I share her concern for animal welfare. I was reflecting that the fact that the Bill excludes people means that the Minister will not be covered by it. I am beginning to feel that this Committee is a bit of a cruel and unusual practice for a new Minister. I am not absolutely convinced that he would be reading out his departmental briefs if he had known what was going to happen during the course of this afternoon. My advice to him is to take on board the pretty much unanimous desire in this Committee—there are people coming from every direction—to see a little more meat on the bones of this legislation.

I am grateful to find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the second amendment, about the composition of the committee. I was slightly surprised—I think he let the cat out of the bag—when my noble friend the Minister said that if the committee members did not perform, they would be replaced. I thought he was arguing that this would be an independent committee. Is it independent or not? It is certainly not independent if members are going to be replaced by Ministers. In his case, I would be very happy for him to replace people, but this piece of legislation will apply to all Ministers and all future Governments. He is here today but, while I hope he will not be gone tomorrow, Ministers come and go and policies change.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. I advise the Committee that if Amendment 4 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 7 or 9.

Amendment 4

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I was going to speak in favour of Amendment 10, particularly relating to the appointment of a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses. I feel there is no need for me to do so, in view of the assurances given by my noble friend the Minister that there will be no interference in the continuation of religious slaughter practices. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving these assurances.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 8. Very briefly, the reason for this, as has been said by my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who has a similar amendment, is that we need some practical experience on the committee. Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, sets out some useful ideas for the more theoretical side of animal sentience, but it is equally important to have representatives of those who do these practical jobs in everyday life. Sentience cannot be defined by a single word or sentence; it is much more complicated than that. Therefore, one needs that practical experience besides the theory. I hope my noble friend will tell us a little more of his thoughts on that.

--- Later in debate ---

Already I see some jockeying for roles on this committee, and so often the most unsuitable are the most vocal and those who come forward with their hands up to volunteer. Independence and determination to be guided by the evidence and science—not by sentimental or uninformed opinion, even if it is mass opinion—are surely the prime essentials. Those people are not going to be that easy to find.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I am sorry but I thought I had withdrawn from this group of amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

In that case I call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.

[Lord Carrington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, as set out in the register. My remarks on the Bill are as a farmer, particularly as a livestock farmer. I support Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, but my remarks apply also to other amendments to Clause 1, covering the issue of the membership of the animal sentience committee.

It is the vagary of intention, purpose and operation of the Bill that causes worry among those who deal with animals in the course of either work or play—or any number of things in between. The farming sector in particular is concerned by this lack of detail. In this situation, the best assurance that can be provided is a balanced and knowledgeable committee that can properly and impartially adjudicate on the issues before it.

To illustrate my point, the following concerns have been highlighted but not thoroughly resolved: the lack of definition of animal sentience, respect of religious and local customs, distinction between wild and tame animals, control of predators, the agenda of the animal rights lobby, the position on the welfare of foreign animal imports—dead or alive—and consideration of public interest. I could go on. Others have spoken and will speak eloquently on all those points, but the list explains why the composition of the committee is so important. Reassurance is required.

Most importantly, it should be specified, as in Amendment 10, that there should be at least one of the following: the commercial livestock farmer, the vet and someone with knowledge of slaughterhouses. I add to that a representative from the food service and retail sector. In order to ensure a representative range of expertise and insight and to enable informed policy oversight, the committee must include those with practical animal husbandry experience in the agricultural sector. Farmers are involved in the day-to-day care of livestock and have a practical understanding of their animals. It is therefore vital that a proportionate number of members of the committee has this background and expertise in order to provide a practical insight into how livestock husbandry can support improvements.

In other amendments, there are lists of potential membership qualifications, such as scientific knowledge, expertise in animal behaviour and neurophysiology, or experience in fishing, game shooting, animal welfare, ethics, law and public administration. A committee with all these will agree on nothing, particularly if it is full of scientists and lawyers, who will even argue about what is black and what is white. Add to this a failure to define “sentience”, and we end up with the ingredients of indecision and worse. The Minister needs to add some clarity on all these issues and to tell us why there is the need for a learning period—how long will this be?

These decisions affect real people and real livelihoods; they are not academic. I therefore request that the Minister clarify the membership of the committee as a matter of urgency and to ensure that it is composed of people with practical knowledge and, most of all, common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have provided some reassurance to your Lordships. I get the message that noble Lords want more clarity and I will seek to provide that. I hope my noble friend Lord Forsyth will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I must declare an interest as a farmer, with a livestock farm in Leicestershire. I do not wish to detain the Committee long or to repeat all the arguments already made, nor do I wish to further irritate my noble friend the Minister, who is making a good fist of a fairly difficult job. I have two questions for him.

Ensuring the committee has people with real knowledge—to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, “proper knowledge”—of animals, perhaps people who rely on those animals for their livelihood, is extraordinarily important. I am not talking about owning cats or dogs; I have several cats on the farm which helpfully keep down the rats—they do a rather good job—and I also own a dog, but that does not make me an expert on animal sentience. However, those who work with animals the whole time do have a lot of knowledge of animal sentience.

Slaughterhouses and abattoirs have been mentioned. Anyone who has been to an abattoir knows how awful they are; they are extremely unpleasant. But while we remain omnivores and eat meat, they will be necessary.

My noble friend said he will not construct a membership on areas of expertise, but I ask him a different question: will he ensure that nobody without knowledge is appointed to the committee? By that I mean somebody who thinks he has a lot of knowledge, such as Chris Packham, but does not actually have any knowledge of living off the work with animals. Secondly, does he consider that animal rights movement members have “appropriate expertise” or would be “dynamic” members of the committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I will move Amendment 7 briefly. I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said in response to other debates and I accept his request for flexibility, rather than having something set out prescriptively in statute. But I cannot think of another committee or Bill that has been set up without us having any indication, at all, of how long the periods of appointment will be and whether they will be renewable. Is he asking the committee to give the chairman complete carte blanche to make these appointments? I accept that he wishes to consult the chairman on them, and accept his confirmation that public appointments procedure will be followed. It would be surprising if he said anything different to that.

Clause 1(2) states that

“The members of the Committee are to be appointed by the Secretary of State”,


and no more than that. Can the Minister give an indication of the period of appointment and the reason why there is no consistency? Why is Clause 1 completely silent on whether it will be for three or five years, and whether it will be renewable?

Secondly, we should in mind that my noble friend Lord Caithness established earlier that there is no longer a rural affairs commission or committee. I do not think that was set up by statute, but was a creature appointed internally by the department. Perhaps my noble friend would be good enough to confirm that. But what is his estimate for the life of the animal sentience committee? Does he envisage that it will last for three or five years? If it is being set up by statute, will it then need to be disbanded by statute, if that is the wish of the Government? It might be a future Government down the line; it may not be this Government or the Minister in situ. What is his view of the life of the committee? Having been created by primary legislation, would we need another Bill to disband it in future?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not declaring an interest, in that I have a farm. It is just that farming seems to be so much about shuffling paper now, rather than anything to do with animals, that I forgot—but I apologise. Since putting down my name to speak on this amendment and listening to noble Lords, I have revised my opinion of the time limit applying to members of the committee, and wonder if the Minister agrees that a sunset clause on the whole Bill would be even more appropriate.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her amendments concerning term-lengths for members of the animal sentience committee. I can confirm that the Government are committed to adhere to the Governance Code for Public Appointments. The code contains a number of rules designed to ensure public confidence in the accountability and integrity of organisations such as the committee. These include mandating open recruitment, public declaration of members’ interests and the strong presumption that no individual should serve more than two terms, or serve in any one post for more than 10 years.

I take this opportunity to address a point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth on an earlier group. I entirely agree that having a conflict of interest is not a precursor to not being allowed to be on the committee. We want people who are actively involved in the issues we are talking about. That may mean that they have a business or other related issue in their lives that could be seen as a conflict. As long as there is transparency, and those matters are declared, that is a good thing. The more of the right sort of conflict, the better. That may be misinterpreted, but I think noble Lords know what I mean.

We will boost accountability by ensuring that any recruitment to the committee is conducted openly and fairly by advertising campaigns and, as the governance code requires, the Secretary of State will make the appointment based on merit. A register of members’ interests be published alongside the committee’s minutes and reports. Ministers will be accountable to Parliament through the usual channels for how the committee is appointed and run. We decided not to put detailed rules in the Bill on the appointment of the committee’s members, as we believe the governance code already provides that robust framework. Setting these details out in legislation—as I have said before, and I apologise for repeating it—may unduly constrain an approach to recruitment that best fits with the work of the committee and the normal public appointment rules.

As I previously highlighted, setting rigid terms for appointments may have unintended consequences. If, for example, a member’s term ended in the middle of producing a report to which they were critical, it would cause disruption to the committee's work. Additionally, we should allow some room for manoeuvre in exceptional circumstances. The ongoing pandemic, for example, has disrupted recruitment across government. Being able to just nudge people on for a year has been much appreciated in the work they are doing. I hope our commitment to accountability and good governance is clear and that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received two requests to speak after the Minister: from the noble Lord, Lord Marland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Marland.

[Lord Marland (Con) [V]]

I am very grateful to noble Lords for letting me speak again, as I want to press the Minister further. Having taken on board this very strong opinion from all parties that the committee should come under scrutiny and there should be a much more detailed plan as to its make-up and how it will operate, what is the timetable for the Minister and his department to explain this to us to allay our fears? We would all love to help him, of course; he might not want that, but we would all love to help him structure this properly. Has he thought of taking time out to discuss it with us as a group to make sure that it is done properly?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

An overused phrase in corporate-speak and in government is that my door is always open, but in this case it is true. I am always open to suggestions. If we can be more explicit on Report, I hope that will satisfy my noble friend and others. In saying that, I hope that it is not an invitation to be too prescriptive, because I am determined that the committee will evolve over the years to reflect issues that arise and emerging scientific evidence. Therefore, too much constraint will not receive a favourable response from me—but constructive ideas as to the sort of people who could be on the committee are definitely what we want to hear.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I think there are crossed wires. I certainly do not want to extend matters; the email that I sent to the clerk was asking to withdraw from making three further points for which I had put down my name. I have no further questions for the Minister on this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that I could improve on what my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said, but people in the animal rights movement are extremists and do not have respect for the animal kingdom. They have an agenda, but the respect for animals themselves is not included. It would be detrimental to allow people like that on to the committee, which would then devalue its work to which the Government attach importance.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Lords, Lord Hamilton, Lord Moylan and Lord Sheikh, have all withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Has she withdrawn as well?

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]]

I am still going.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I am sorry, I was told you had withdrawn. I beg your pardon. Please go ahead.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]]

Perhaps I should make clear that I emailed to withdraw from groups 7, 8 and 10. This is my last shot, noble Lords will be glad to hear.

The animal rights movement believes, as we have just been told, that animals have rights, it is wrong to kill animals and, in some cases, it is wrong to use them in any way for the benefit of humans—whether that is for food, research or, in extreme cases, sport or even pets. The animal welfare movement, to which I suspect everyone who has spoken in this debate belongs, believes in a duty, where we can, to improve the welfare of animals and not to cause unnecessary suffering to them.

Parliamentarians, not just in this House but in the other place when the Bill comes to them—they have other animal welfare Bills in front of them—should be aware that the animal rights movement seeks to gain respectability for its views under the cover of mainstream charities. Many noble Lords may be aware of a document released at the end of May by the RSPCA, of which I am a member, entitled Act Now for Animals. It contains 40 recommendations for changes to animal-related legislation and calls itself a “green paper”. It was introduced with a foreword from Mr Chris Packham and at the back are the logos of 50 organisations, among them well respected animal welfare charities such as the Horse Trust—of which I am president—the Dogs Trust, the Donkey Sanctuary and World Horse Welfare. However, also there are the logos of a number of animal rights organisations, among which are those that oppose legal trail hunting, horse racing, shooting and even catch-and-release fishing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords and to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for his Amendments 12 and 43. There is much I could say that would repeat what I said on earlier groups about the make-up of the committee, but I am grateful to him and others for highlighting an important consideration for Ministers as and when the Bill reaches the statute book. As my noble friend said, it is not just about who we put on the committee but about who we do not. I am clear that we want people who will take a collegiate view and who are not there to represent some narrow sectoral or even extreme point of view. The committee will look at issues such as the eating of meat and how we get meat from field to fork. The process of rearing stock and taking it to slaughter is something that we want to make sure we get absolutely right. If somebody’s opinion about that is clouded by an extreme view that the whole process is wrong, it will not be an effectively functioning committee with that individual in place, so I totally hear what has been said.

I could repeat all I said before about not wanting to constrain things by putting details about what sort of people we want to do this in the Bill. We want this to be an expert committee of professionals who really good people will want to work with. If they feel that the committee is being hijacked by extremists or, indeed, one sectoral view, it will not be working by the terms in which, I hope, it will be put on the statute book by Parliament.

I have already spoken about the very important points made about how the committee will work with other organisations, not least the Animal Welfare Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made an important point. There will undoubtedly be scope for a productive and mutually beneficial relationship between the two organisations and the broad principles of this will be outlined in the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference.

Indeed, the animal sentience committee may wish to draw on the expertise of other bodies and experts where it sees fit. The Bill places no limits on this. It will then be for the committees to decide where and how it would be most productive to work together within that framework. This might not always result in outputs so reassuringly concrete as the report on reports envisaged by this amendment. The freedom to co-operate and to inform each other’s thinking, where useful, is there.

I could go into more detail. We may tease out aspects of the points raised by noble Lords in subsequent questions, but I hope my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, the debate on this amendment shows the fundamental problem of what is involved when an accountable Government pass some of their responsibilities to an appointed committee. The debate on this amendment, as on the previous one, has resembled nothing so much as one of those US courtroom dramas where people argue about who should serve on a jury because they assume that the opinions will be dictated by the position of the selected juror. If we are picking people or excluding them on the basis of their professional or political affiliations, we are effectively substituting what should be a democratic decision and passing it over to people. The only difference between them and parliamentarians is that they are not really accountable to anyone.

My noble friend the Minister said, in his answer to the amendment about Members of this House serving on the committee, that politicians are not known for their strict impartiality. That is perfectly true, of course, but the idea that anyone else is strictly impartial strikes me as rather questionable. We all have our assumptions and our prejudices—indeed, experts more than anyone, if by “expert” we mean anyone who has spent their entire career in one particular field. They are the last people to be relied on to take a view in the round.

It is fine to have advice on a narrow point, but I think the concern of this Committee is that we will stray into policy-making. That is why I want to reiterate the question asked by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising about a sunset clause. I think that would reassure a lot of Members of this Committee. My noble friend the Minister did not answer it. Perhaps he thought it was offered in a frivolous spirit, but it was a policy of the coalition Government in which my noble friend served very ably as a Minister that there should be sunset clauses when new regulation is proposed. Would that not be a guarantee—a backstop, if you will—that if this committee strayed beyond giving narrow, technical advice into setting policy, there would be a way of doing something about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for the opportunity to explain the approach behind Clause 1. Before I do that, perhaps I should clarify once and for all that there is no rural-proofing committee. There never has been. There is something called the rural affairs board, which is chaired by a non-executive director of Defra and brings together senior officials, and I am the Minister responsible for rural affairs. Rural-proofing does not need a Bill; it does not need legislation. It just needs a will across government to do it.

My noble friend asked why this is being prioritised before rural-proofing. It is not. Rural-proofing is something we have yet to perfect. We have yet to get to where we want to be but, with all the vigour I can put behind my voice, I suggest that there is not a competition between rural-proofing and animal welfare. Both are important and both can be taken forward in different ways. This is a piece of legislation; rural-proofing does not need one. She asked about the trade and agriculture committee. I am afraid I do not know the details of that. It is not an area for which I have direct responsibility, but I am sure we can find out.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked why there are two committees. We have worked through this one quite thoroughly and I cannot say better than the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on that.

My noble friend Lord Moylan looks down the telescope one way and sees all these bodies roaming around Whitehall interfering with the nice tidy world of executive power. There is another direction in which to look. We get better legislation if we employ experts in a modest and proportionate way to look at things in an expert way. I suggest that that is perhaps the perspective from the end I am looking down. We may never have a meeting of minds on this, but I can keep trying.

Clause 1 requires the Government to create and maintain the animal sentience committee. As has been discussed, the committee will hold the Government to account on animal welfare, creating a proportionate accountability mechanism to support the Bill’s legal recognition of animal sentience. I understand that some noble Lords have questioned the need for the committee or have suggested that it may be constituted without legislation as part of the Animal Welfare Committee. I will try to address this.

Our approach creates a dedicated committee whose role is to support Parliament’s scrutiny of the policy decision-making process. While the committee is not there to impose decisions on Ministers, it will perform a valuable role in encouraging us to make sure that we have properly considered the effects of policy on the welfare of animals. Creating the committee and placing it on a statutory footing is the best way of ensuring that the Bill’s recognition of sentience is given meaningful but proportionate effect.

The committee must act within the legal parameters the Bill sets. At the same time, we consider the obligation on Ministers to respond to the committee’s reports fundamental to the transparency and meaningful scrutiny of government policy-making. Ministers do not have to accept the committee’s findings and recommendations, but they have an obligation under the Bill to respond to them promptly and openly. We feel that this approach strikes an appropriate balance. We would struggle to give the committee sufficient traction if it lacked a statutory basis. We want the animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee to have a constructive relationship, but it is not quite as simple as saying that we could hand over the ASC’s responsibilities to the AWC with no legal powers to back them up.

It is important to remember that the two committees have distinct roles. The Animal Welfare Committee exists to provide advice to Defra and the devolved Administrations, whereas we are establishing the animal sentience committee to scrutinise policy decision-making across the whole of government. Any relationship between the two would need to support these two distinct functions. I therefore ask my noble friend not to oppose the clause standing part.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I call the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I was just reflecting as I listened to the Minister. He said how important it was to have expert advice. I thought the whole raison d’être of this House was that it provided expert advice on legislation to government. Therefore, my question to the Minister is, having sat through nearly five hours of people questioning the efficacy of Clause 1 and giving him advice to come back with some further thoughts on the composition of the committee, and having heard all of that, will he undertake to bring government amendments back on Report to deal with the issues of composition which have been raised? I have to say to him: if he does not do that, there is no way—we are not able to vote that Clause 1 stand part—but there is no way that I would support it as it stands because it is an empty shell. Without repeating all the arguments that have been put by the Committee, it will lead the Government into great difficulties.

I listened very carefully to what he said. Does he really believe that it is necessary to have a statutory committee to achieve his declared purpose? I heard what he read out, but, putting it unkindly, what he was saying was: we are using legislation as a sort of poster board on which to say how much we care about animal sentience. It is perfectly within his powers as a Minister to set up a committee and give an undertaking that the committee’s reports will be debated within three months in Parliament. It would be great if Ministers did that for existing Select Committees of this House. I have one outstanding for nearly two years for the Economic Affairs Committee.

It feels as if this is just a bit of window dressing, a bit of virtue-signalling, which is actually going to create great problems for the Government. My question is: will the Minister now give us an undertaking that he will come back with amendments to Clause 1 which give it some substance, given the very strong views which have been expressed by everyone? Without exception everyone has said that this clause is inadequate because it does not define the composition of the committee.

The Minister said, quite rightly, that he needs flexibility, but when I was Secretary of State for Scotland, I had to make a huge number of appointments to committees. The legislation often provided, in more general terms, the composition of the committee. It might say that you must have somebody with technical expertise in this area or that, and that the balance of the committee should be X, Y and Z. The people giving him advice in his department are perfectly capable of coming up with a form of wording that would meet the requirements expressed today by the Committee and allow for flexibility.

As to the point about what would happen if someone left the committee after three years, again, in the commercial world, people are expected to do succession planning and look at the composition of the committees. One would expect Ministers to do the same. So, can we have an undertaking that the Minister will bring forward amendments on Report to save us the trouble of having to do so and having yet another extended period of debate? I do not think the clause as it stands will wash.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I ask the Minister to completely disregard anything that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said about me. I do not mind him calling me a “seasoned campaigner and activist”, but his daring to state what I am thinking and what I believe is totally wrong and deeply offensive. I ask the Deputy Chairman if it is possible to strike those remarks from Hansard because they are offensive and totally inaccurate. The only person who is qualified to say what I am thinking is me and perhaps occasionally my noble friend Lady Bennett. Quite honestly, to have the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, come out with a stream of rubbish about what I am thinking is offensive, and I need an apology from him.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness has made her point very clearly, and it is on the record.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Just to be clear, it is not within my powers to strike anything from Hansard. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who have expressed their support: my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Howard of Rising. My noble friend Lord Moylan is very brave to take on the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I call her my noble friend—and I am sure that we can all get together and make up afterwards.

I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said about there being no appetite on her Benches to support the deletion of the existing Clause 1. My noble friend Lord Forsyth pre-empted what I was going to say. It is customary to invite my noble friend the Minister to come forward with government amendments at this stage—I say so because I fear that the overwhelming mood of the Committee this afternoon is that we stand prepared to do our work of scrutiny extremely carefully, and I do not think that we take kindly to the fact that this will be delegated to a body the complexion, remit and resources of which we are as yet unaware. I urge my noble friend to meet us and come forward with appropriate amendments before we reach the next stage—but I withdraw my opposition to Clause 1 at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The Committee stands adjourned. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the room.

Committee adjourned at 7.28 pm.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 16th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill would enshrine the recognition of the sentience of vertebrate animals in domestic law. It would also establish an animal sentience committee that would report on whether government policy-making considers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain.

This is a government Bill. It was announced as part of the Queen’s Speech on 11 May 2021. It had its First Reading in your Lordships’ House on 13 May and is due to have its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House on 16 June 2021.

There is a growing consensus among scientists and policymakers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain. The Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare states:

“There is scientific evidence for sentience in all vertebrates and at least some invertebrates.”


Despite a few points of contention, calls have increased for the recognition of animal sentience in UK domestic law. In December 2017, the Government ran a consultation on its draft animal welfare Bill; 80% of respondents requested that sentience be explicitly defined in UK law.

The principle of animal sentience governing animals in the UK was previously provided for at a European level, specifically in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 13 provides that member states should pay full regard to the welfare requirement of animals when formulating policies. It is not explicitly in the treaty, but the EU has stated that animals are

“capable of feeling pleasure and pain”.

Article 13 states:

“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.


However, following our withdrawal from the EU, these provisions are no longer applicable in the UK. Charities and campaigning organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association, have raised concerns about this gap. They have called for domestic legislation that includes a definition of sentience that encapsulates an animal’s capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and which implies a level of conscious awareness.

Does the Minister agree that in the future—perhaps a long time in the future—we will ultimately all become vegetarians?

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

The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

The UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, published in 2017, highlighted the fact that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides is associated with a range of diseases, including cancer, sterility and developmental disorders. It drew attention to the fact that those who live near crop fields are particularly vulnerable to exposure to these chemicals. It seems that the current regulations and their enforcement are inadequate, so I hope the Minister will acknowledge the urgent need for the Government to review and update the effectiveness of these regulations and the associated code of practice. Otherwise, as I hope is becoming clear, this issue will not go away, and we will come back to it again and again. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.

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

The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Krebs. I will call them in that order. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I wish to speak briefly on Amendments 1, 11A, 17 and 17B. I have a question for the Minister on Amendment 1, to which the Commons has disagreed. In Committee and on Report, I stressed that it is extremely helpful to have some guidance on what the environmental objectives are going to be, particularly as I understand we only heard very late in the day what the interim arrangements will be from January 2021. This gives farmers quite short notice as to what the new objectives are going to be for claiming

“financial assistance during the plan period.”

Therefore, if my noble friend is not minded to support the amendment to which the Commons has disagreed, it would be very helpful if he would set out what benchmarks farmers are being asked to observe in the new payments scheme, which will be until such time as the new ELM scheme comes into effect.

I still have the difficulties that I rehearsed at earlier stages about Amendment 11B, and I hope my noble friend will clarify matters in summing up. My understanding is that all new and existing pesticides are very heavily regulated, but this amendment does not have regard to the fact that railways and many other transport systems rely heavily on the use of pesticides, which do not come close to being dangerous to human or public health. If adopted, this amendment would prevent them being used as they are. My noble friend referred to this in summing up the debate on the original amendment to insert after Clause 34 the new clause on pesticides. It would be very helpful to understand that.

The problem I have with Amendment 17B—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has gone to great lengths with it—is the underlying assumption, also inherent to her introductory remarks, that it is farmers who are causing the problem. I would like to have much more regard held for, and tribute paid to, farmers because they are part of the solution, not part of the problem, as I think Amendment 17B indicates.

I emphasise the role that farmers and landowners can play, in a very big way, in sinking carbon under the new financial assistance schemes by rolling out projects such as the Pickering Slowing the Flow scheme. That will, I hope, have private funding from water companies as well as farmers, landowners, the Environment Agency, Defra and other bodies. I am quite excited about these new possibilities and a little conscious that this amendment seems to blame farmers rather than recognising the positive role that they play.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 17B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. She referred to the government response to the Climate Change Committee’s latest annual report, published earlier this month. I took a close look at it this morning to understand what the Government said about reducing emissions in agriculture. It comes in two parts. In the main body of the report there is helpful reference to various strategies and plans—for example the ELMs, the clean growth strategy, the 25-year environment plan, Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy and the clean air strategy. That all looks very promising: plans are in place to tackle the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. However, I am afraid that the annexe, containing the detail of Defra’s response on agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, looks as though it was drafted by Sir Humphrey Appleby. Let me quote a few phrases. The Government are: “looking at ways”; “considering a broad range” of options; “investigating mechanisms”; and “establishing expert groups”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said she hoped that the can was not being kicked down the road. The brief example I have just quoted from the Government’s response to the Climate Change Committee’s report highlights the danger that we will always be setting up groups and considering options. As far as I can see, the response does not give a single example of a concrete thing that the Government will do right now to meet the 2050 net-zero target, including the contribution from agriculture.

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

Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak? No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. In my view, both are vital to our own safety: to the protection of our countryside, our health and our environment. As we know, pesticides are not benign. They are applied to our crops to kill insects and any other creature that might be around at the time. It is natural behaviour—if you deny the natural world its own food source. However, pesticides do not just kill the creatures that are feeding on the crops. They also damage us. Numerous studies document the associations between exposure to pesticides, increased incidence of respiratory problems, cardiovascular and renal diseases, as well as the ageing phenomenon, not to mention many cancers. If you are an ordinary member of the public who happens to live near a field, or a school kid in a playground that borders a field that is being intensively farmed, you are open to being occasionally sprayed by pesticides.

Let me give a tiny example. I used to live with my husband in a house that bordered an intensively farmed field. One day at the end of the year, when it was being sprayed to kill the cover crop, the wind changed. I kid you not: within an hour, the entire herbaceous border on to which the spray had come was lying in a muddy heap. It was completely destroyed. Any thought I had that there was anything healthy about these products vanished at that point.

Some 22,000 chemicals are registered and in use in Europe. In December 2018, high quality checks had been completed on 94 of them; half were declared unsafe. There are many large out-of-court settlements involving Bayer, the company that has taken over Monsanto. This leads many people to believe—cynically, some noble Lords might say, but I do not think so—that it is suppressing evidence of the chemical links between lymphomas and other common cancers. We have to protect the population from these serious and damaging chemicals. Without a doubt, we need strong mandatory levels for the areas in which they are sprayed.

I believe—and this takes me straight on to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that farmers have very little choice at the moment in the way that they farm. The common agricultural policy, which thankfully we are coming out of, has paid people per acre, and therefore the striving has been to produce as much as possible, probably of monocrops. The result has been, since the “green revolution” after the war, the incredible use of more and more pesticides, insecticides and fertilisers. These have had the result of weakening our soil to the point that the World Health Organization has said that, across the world, we probably only have 60 harvests left. The soils are now working only if they are given chemical additives. The amendment from the noble Baroness is therefore vital, because there are many other ways to farm. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I found when we were doing our Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and Environment, a more healthy way of farming is also a more healthy way of eating.

Climate impacts are being felt across the world—you have to be blind not to see it—and our food supplies are going to be affected. We cannot keep our heads in the sand about it. Here, we have seen soil erosion, more flooding and coastal land inundation. We have also seen extreme weather—we have had it in the last year. We really cannot afford to wait. The proposed new clause provides that, by 2030, we have to start reducing emissions from agriculture, first, through better care of the soil, lower livestock emissions and reducing fertiliser; and also, crucially, by storing carbon in the land—so we need to plant trees. Soil sequesters carbon much better than anything else if left to its own devices. We must protect it, along with peat bogs.

There is so much that farmers can do if they are given the right incentives and the direction. However, we must have a target to ensure delivery. If we are to meet our Climate Change Act target for 2050, we have to get to 50% by 2030. If we do not, it will be too much for the world to take on. That means that the policies that we need must be laid down in this Parliament and the next—but primarily in this one. This amendment will complement the existing clauses in the Bill for financial support and for climate mitigation and adaptation, and it will confirm the Government’s commitment to strong action, at a time when we will be hosting COP 26 next year.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we come to Motion B. There is a mistake in the Marshalled List, but not one that affects our proceedings. Lords Amendment 9 was not after Clause 3; it was after Clause 17. I call the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble.

Motion B

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

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

The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on bringing forward a shorter amendment—I am always in favour of shorter amendments, as they leave less scope for interpretation. The noble Lord calls for a national food strategy within 18 months. I would like to see a response to the Dimbleby report before then and want to take this opportunity to urge my noble friend to produce such a response, even if it is informal.

Part 1 of the Dimbleby report has been extremely helpful in preparing for this Bill and the Trade Bill. It would be incumbent on the Government, even if it were just two departments—the Minister’s department of Defra and the Department for International Trade—to respond to the Dimbleby report in so far as it relates to obesity and the food strategy that Henry Dimbleby and his team, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who has played a sterling role in this regard, have set out. It would be important to hear from those two departments before this Bill and the Trade Bill left this place. I wonder whether there is any opportunity for my noble friend, even by way of a letter, to respond to the helpful conclusions of Henry Dimbleby.

I am slightly confused, because the reason that the Commons gave for disagreeing with the original Lords Amendment 9 is that

“it is inappropriate to impose a duty to publish a National Food Strategy.”

I thought that, in about 2010, the incoming coalition Government published something along the lines of a national food strategy—I forget what it was called—that was extremely well received and helpful. Is it not timely to have another stab at this within 10 years of the original?

I finish with a plea: that we do not wait 18 months from the day of passing this Bill before the national food strategy is presented. I commend the work of my noble friend’s department, Defra, in this regard; I commend the work of Henry Dimbleby. We owe it to Dimbleby and his team to come out with an interim acknowledgement of and response to his proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I knew that would arouse a few barbs, but it is a very serious and important farming county where, this year, they are battling in the wake of the worst harvest in half a century. We have a duty to these people, and a duty to encourage them to produce food and not regard themselves as theme parks. If that is true of the United Kingdom as a whole, it is particularly true of Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Empey knows so much more about Northern Ireland than I will ever know, but I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place for five years and I travelled there a lot. I got to know and love that part of the United Kingdom very much, and all I can say is that everything that my noble friend said tonight about farming in Northern Ireland is, if anything, an understatement; we have to take that into account.

So I will support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, so that the Commons has a chance to think again. However, in order not to make my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have a very real regard, be too cross with me, I close by saying that I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Empey said about my noble friend Lord Gardiner. Would it not be a very good thing to have a Secretary of State, another Cabinet Minister, in this House? Would it not be particularly appropriate if the portfolio that that Minister held was for agriculture? I would like him to be, in the old way, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

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

Does any other Member in the Chamber wish to speak? If not, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a really excellent debate. I find it quite astonishing, however, at the time of a huge public health crisis—not just in our country but across the world—due to poor diet, as well as an environmental crisis, that we would ever consider importing into our country food that was of lower standards. It worries me, because I agree with all the words that have been said by the Minister—I wish he were higher up the food chain, as it were—and I also sincerely accept his words that these standards will be maintained, somehow or another, but if that is true, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, pointed out, it was part of the manifesto, what precisely is the real objection to writing such a clause into the heart of the Bill?

We have worked, in the food industry and, indeed, through outfits such as the FSA, once chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and it has taken 20 years of UK public policy just to achieve clear front-of-pack labelling, yet right now we are considering doing trade deals with a country, the USA, that says it is concerned that

“labelling food with high sugar content … is not particularly useful in changing consumer behaviour”.

Would anyone say that about the way we market cigarettes? Would anyone in this country say that sugar is not a primary cause of obesity—or, indeed, the primary cause of under-12s going into hospital to have all their teeth out?

As has been mentioned, including by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, 40% of the food we eat is eaten outside of the home. In most cases, of course, it means that we as consumers have absolutely no clue about how the food gets to us and what it is. Who remembers the horse meat scandal, which showed that the meat had travelled from some 10 destinations throughout Europe before finally ending up in burgers in well-known supermarkets? I do not see any way, unless it is written into the Bill, for us to stop this cheaper food coming here. Sadly, we know how often price affects the way people buy.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

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

Amendments 64 to 67 not moved.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 68. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Clause 32: Identification and traceability of animals

Amendment 68

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I declare my interest as a livestock producer from Scotland.

Amendment 68A in my name emphasises much the same point for much the same reason. I have considerable admiration for my noble friend the Minister, who, along with his officials, has laboured hard and finally found a formula through which it has been possible to get a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament, as well as other Administrations, for this part of the Bill.

My amendment reflects the fact that given the present political views of the devolved Administrations, the Government have realised that they must get devolved agreement. Can my noble friend the Minister give the House some idea of which functions the body that is being proposed under this power will be expected to carry out? When we found that we were going to have the chance to resume control of our own laws, many in the agricultural and rural industries hoped that there would be frameworks to ensure seamless regulation across our own UK market. The Government then found that these functions under the devolution Acts had not been reserved to Westminster, so it was possible to argue that anything which could be considered to be part of agriculture and the environment was a devolved competence. It now appears that what we have in front of us is as far as we can get by way of a framework, but any final outcome will be hard won.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, has given a considerable description of the attitude with which these powers were received in the devolved Administrations. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I see this as an issue about the identification and traceability of animals being an area where the need for a joined-up policy is truly vital. It is an area where new technology is making an enormous difference to the capabilities of the information which can be included. Inevitably, it is triggering updates to the systems in the different parts of the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just explained the situation in Wales in some detail, and I must admit that I am not familiar with how this works in Ireland. However, in England, the AHDB is now moving on to using electronic identification for all livestock. It is in the middle of setting up the livestock information service using a database supplied by a company called Shearwell Data which will hold all the English data. Quite separately, the Government in Scotland are introducing electronic identification for cattle; the system is to be called ScotEID. They already have a well-tried one for sheep which has been running for some years.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the tremendous trade in livestock within the UK, both north to south and west to east. A large quantity of cattle and sheep which have a Scottish electronic identity will land up in England and vice versa, and it will be the same for the other Administrations. The normal expectation is that their identity would remain on the database of their registration. The person buying the animals would have to know their origin and then have to input or source any relevant information from that database, perhaps at a different end of the country, as will the authorities if there is an issue with health or disease. Other areas of possible similar divergencies are in carcass classification and food standards. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has such wide experience in these fields, has to say.

Apart from all these complications, at what point do the Government hope to be able to have a comprehensive view of what is going on? Is this the final framework in this area, and what about other similar areas?

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

I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The noble Baroness is not here, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, for introducing their respective amendments. These two amendments refer back to comments that I made earlier about the status of the common framework agreements. It is very clear at this time that this is a fuzzy area and it is not quite clear what the status of the common framework agreements is—and yet, in the very specific circumstances that both noble Lords speaking to Amendments 68 and 68A referred to, time is pressing on and we need to know how the different Administrations across the United Kingdom will administer this part of the Bill.

My question to the Minister is: what is the status of the common frameworks at this time? I understand that they have been reduced to 21, but obviously the process is ongoing. It would be helpful to know whether this level of detail has been reached in the current negotiations and how circumstances referred to in Amendments 68 and 68A can be avoided if at all possible.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 68A not moved.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 69. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Clause 34: Agricultural tenancies

Amendment 69

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

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

I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is not on the call, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, I remind my noble friends of the old biblical story of the widow and the unjust judge. The unjust judge refused to deal with the widow’s just complaint so she badgered him and badgered him until he gave in, not because of the law but because he could not stand it any longer. I do not want to place the Government in the position of the unjust judge, nor do I particularly want to be the importunate widow. However, I give notice to my noble friends on the Front Bench that if we do not get some action soon, I shall take upon myself the mantle of the widow bullying the unjust judge.

[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.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad to be able to talk on this subject, and I declare my interest as a livestock rearer in Scotland.

This group is much focused on animals involved in exports, and I was thinking that many other speakers in the House today would want to comment on this. My remarks today are directed at Amendment 73—in the name of my noble friend Lady Fookes—in this group, which is, in the first instance, to do with the transport of animals within the UK. However, some comments inevitably will have a bit of a read-over to exports.

My noble friend Lady Fookes has a reputation as one of the foremost advocates of animal welfare in the UK, and this amendment brings forward a lot of proposals that would make life easier for animals and—if they had a chance of a practical outcome—might even make life easier for farmers. However, I will point out what seem to me like some practical difficulties. At the same time, it is proposing a very different world to the one that most of us see around us, and it would require a great deal of government intervention to bring it about. My noble friend Lady Hodgson is pressing the Government to do something in regard to the verbal intention they have given, but I feel it is a fairly big ask at this point.

My noble friend’s concept of requiring producers to take their animals to the nearest abattoir within 10 kilometres, unless prevented by a list of circumstances, has got problems, not least that in the last 10 years we have lost over 200 small abattoirs across this country. There has been some reduction in certain kinds of stock, but a major trigger was the regulations that were brought in from Brussels about the equipment and standards in abattoirs, and we are committed to maintaining those standards.

The end product of any of these units is a very perishable commodity, and I have no doubt that everyone is aware of that. The prices vary widely every year, both by season and availability in world markets. To limit farmers to only one buyer in a small abattoir is a recipe for commercial rip-offs. As a farmer in a mountainous area of Scotland that relies on sheep production, I say that we are only economically able to produce lambs in a limited season, and the net effect is that, at certain times of year, there is a huge flood of lambs looking for buyers, while at other times there is practically nothing that would keep the processing chain viable.

However, if my noble friend can achieve a solution to these drawbacks, there is another difficulty that is contained in her proposal. Due to a lack of small local abattoirs, farmers take their stock to livestock auction markets or collection centres, where the numbers can be combined to make the cost of haulage economic to an abattoir that has capacity for those numbers.

There is a difficulty in that all these markets and sites are regarded as agricultural holdings, and most of the stock will have come from more than 10 kilometres away, while all of it would be required to be held at these units for 24 days before undertaking a journey of up to 10 hours. This happens to be almost exactly the driving time from the two main markets of Aberdeen and Stirling to what is currently one of the main recipients of their throughput. It strikes me that the amendment as currently worded applies particularly to journeys starting in England; perhaps it is more than a coincidence that it has not described journeys starting in Scotland.

Unless there is a ready way of overcoming these major drawbacks, would we not make better use of this time to apply our minds to what would make livestock transport more bearable for the animals themselves? I would like to draw your Lordships’ attention to one of the most distant parts of the United Kingdom. On the Islands of Orkney, animals have to be driven to a ferry, but they have developed pods for the animals on the ferry, such that the journey to Aberdeen is regarded as an animal’s rest period before starting an ongoing journey. This does not read over immediately to other forms of transport, but it shows that, with a little thought, there could be other solutions. But I am afraid that, with its present wording, I would not be able to back Amendment 73.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I have had no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this very important debate. I thank the Minister for his reply and also for the time and courtesy that he has given in talking to us before today. We really do welcome his sincere input.

I am glad to hear that this is work in progress, although I am concerned that it does not get kicked into the long grass and that it is always not now. I very much hope that the consultation will come forward quickly. We are leaving those animals to a terrible fate while we still allow them to be exported for slaughter—with or without stunning. We should be aware that, in doing this, we really are not ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare, as we have heard.

That brings to mind the saying popularised by General Morrison of the Australian army:

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”


This is a standard that I would feel very uncomfortable accepting, so I hope we will move forward quickly with all this work.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in good faith that the Minister will do all he can to ensure that animals do not go on having to be exported for slaughter and fattening. I hope this comes into place as soon as possible and we live up to our election manifesto.

Amendment 72 and 73 not moved.

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

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 74. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may only speak once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 74

Moved by

Agriculture Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool)]

It may help the House to understand what is going on if I clarify that the debate is now on Amendment 28. We will continue with the speakers’ list, as written down, for this group. At the end, after the Minister has spoken, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to respond to Amendment 28.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support everything that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has said in moving Amendment 18, so I shall be brief. I added my name to this amendment for reasons I outlined at Second Reading. It is irregular for a Bill—even for a framework enabling Bill—to be sent to Parliament without any sort of formal impact assessment. It is yet more irregular for a Bill of this consequence not to be accompanied by a primary stage impact assessment at the very least.

For well over a decade, successive Governments of different political hues, have for good reason seen the requirement for departments to produce impact assessments alongside proposals for new legislation as central to their commitment to better regulation. Accompanying impact assessments enable parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of proposed new legislation to be better informed. Parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny further benefits from impact assessments because of the role of the RPC, which my noble friend mentioned. The RPC is the government-appointed Regulatory Policy Committee which independently assesses the quality of a departmental impact assessment of the costs, benefits, risks and opportunities of a proposed new measure. It then publishes an opinion, which is available to Parliament and others, on whether the evidence and analysis contained in the impact assessment are sufficient to support whatever is being proposed. As my noble friend said, it is an essential and valuable discipline. It helps Parliament, Ministers and the departments themselves.

I am glad to say that it is rare nowadays for a department to produce legislation without an accompanying impact assessment, but it has happened in the case of the Agriculture Bill. This omission is especially regrettable, given the varying impacts of the wide-ranging measures that this Bill proposes to enable. That is why I have put my name to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn from this group of amendments. I call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 18, also in the names of my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. My noble friend is a great supporter of impact assessments and she is right. In framing the new financial assistance schemes, it is important for the Secretary of State to understand the likely effect of any new ways of remunerating farmers for their farming activities and for their stewardship of the countryside. Many farmers are presently bemused by the measures contained in this clause and would much appreciate greater clarity from the Government. The publication of impact assessments would improve their understanding and help them to plan for the future.

I do not think I can support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her Amendment 28, because she wishes the Government to publish more information than is appropriate. Farmers should be entitled to rather more privacy than the noble Baroness would allow.

In Amendment 32, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Dundee seek to shorten the period of the first plan to five years. However, payments under the new ELM schemes are not expected to commence until 2024, and I think the full seven years—which would mean only three years after those schemes start—would be the minimum time necessary for the Government to prepare their plan for the second period, based on their review of the use and effectiveness of the schemes during the initial period.

On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his Amendment 33, seeks to extend the length of each plan from five to seven years. However, as I said in Committee, I do not think the noble Earl’s reason is valid. Even if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is not quickly repealed, as I hope it will be, the noble Earl is surely aware that general elections have not taken place regularly every five years.

I think the noble Earl is being a little modest in seeking to ensure that plans are published at least two months before they come into effect, and I am delighted that, in Amendment 35, the Minister proposes that subsequent plans should be published at least 12 months before they come into effect. That is in line with what several noble Lords recommended in Committee.

I am not sure whether Amendments 47 and 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are helpful. The best thing the Government can do for British farmers is to ensure that unnecessary, unjustified red tape is removed, so that they can compete successfully at home and abroad. During our membership of the EU, as noble Lords should be aware, British farmers have not enjoyed a level playing field with their competitors: French livestock producers receive €1 billion a year of voluntary coupled support, as opposed to a mere €39 million available to Scottish crofters.

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

My Lords, since the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Rooker and Lord Addington, have withdrawn from this group, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this interesting debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his amendment. I declare my farming interests, as set out in the register.

Part 6 of the Bill allows regulations to be made to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. I should say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that Defra and the Defra Secretary of State will be responsible for the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. To be clear, the Agreement on Agriculture is an international treaty that sets out a number of general rules and commitments on agriculture trade practices, as agreed by WTO members. These measures fall under three pillars, the domestic support pillar being the focus of Part 6. The regulations will set out procedures and arrangements to ensure that the UK as a whole complies with existing obligations under this international treaty.

We have a bilateral agreement in place with the Welsh Government on the making and operation of regulations under Part 6, and we have offered to extend this agreement to the Scottish Government and DAERA Ministers in Northern Ireland. In practice, we are already working very closely with officials from all Administrations on drafting regulations under these powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised it, I can report that good progress has been made and that officials from all four Administrations are working together to finalise a draft of the regulations. A concordat will shortly set out the detail of administrative arrangements and other routine matters, in order for these regulations to be in place for the end of the year.

Furthermore, my honourable friend the Farming Minister, Victoria Prentis, placed on record in the other place a commitment to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of the regulations under Part 6. We have therefore already given strong assurances of our commitment to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under these powers.

In reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I reiterate that the Government fully recognise the devolved status of agriculture. That is why Clause 40(1) makes it clear that regulations can be made only for the narrow purpose of ensuring WTO compliance, a function that is reserved to the UK Parliament. Consultation with the devolved Administrations in cases such as this is a matter of good practice, and is done regularly on many matters. While it is usual practice to place commitments to consult on the record, as we have done in this case, we certainly do not wish to signal that consultation with the devolved Administrations will be carried out only where there is a legislative requirement. Indeed—and I hope noble Lords will understand this and will have seen this—Defra has a strong record of consulting the devolved Administrations where appropriate.

Amendment 265 seeks to remove the part of the clause which will allow functions to be conferred or delegated by the Secretary of State, or provide for a person to exercise discretion in dealing with matters relating to Part 6. Again, this was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State delegating routine matters, such as the collection and collation of information related to support schemes for agriculture. It is quite proper that routine matters such as data gathering can be delegated to independent bodies. For example, certain data on farm subsidy payments is currently collected for all four Administrations by the UK Co-ordinating Body—an arrangement that works well for all parties. The intention of Clause 40(3) is to mirror existing arrangements as far as possible, to ensure a smooth and efficient process for all Administrations.

In our debate on these amendments on Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about the policy framework for limits on the regulations. I can confirm that discussions have been held with the devolved Administrations outlining our intention to put in place limits which will enable them to maintain existing levels of agricultural support spending, if they wish to do so. Any impact on the design and implementation of schemes will therefore be limited to measures to ensure that schemes do not breach WTO obligations. The opening subsection makes it clear that the power can be used only for ensuring compliance with WTO rules.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked about the future classification of agricultural support. As an independent WTO member, the UK will continue to have the same rights and obligations as the EU under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, and will retain the same avenues for challenging disputes raised by other WTO members. It is of course important that we get classifications right to avoid any risk of challenge. That is why Clause 42(3) allows for provision to be made for a process for the appropriate authorities to decide how different types of domestic support should be classified.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked about the status of the LCM in the Scottish Parliament. In May, the Scottish Government recommended legislative consent for all provisions that apply to Scotland and that those we maintain are in scope of the Sewel convention, except subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 42, which have now been removed by Amendment 268, in my name. Defra Ministers have written to their counterparts to inform them of the changes. We await the view of the Scottish Parliament, which is currently in recess.

On Amendments 266 and 269, and in response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, during Thursday’s consideration, Part 6 deals exclusively with ensuring UK compliance with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, as laid out in Clause 40(1). None of the areas cited in Amendments 266 and 269, or raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed—including animal welfare, food labelling, animal health, hygiene standards, plant health standards, food safety and traceability for agricultural products, and environmental standards—are within scope of the Agreement on Agriculture. As such, it would not be possible for regulations on these amendments to be made under Part 6. In reply to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, my understanding is that the amendments are compatible with WTO matters. However, I hope that the pragmatic points I have raised on the amendments in this group assure her that the Government seek to ensure the very important compliance with the WTO rules.

I hope that, with the reassurances I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s fulsome response, which is characteristic of him, as well as for the good news that the talks are progressing well. No doubt we will have an opportunity during the remaining stages of the Bill after the Recess to see how well they have gone.

I wanted to come back after the Minister. I hear what he said and we have heard, not only on this piece of legislation but previously on the Trade Bill—which we will come back to—Ministers saying from the Dispatch Box that they have good intentions of consultation with devolved Ministers. However, we have seen that they have had to apologise for not carrying out consultation, including on the continuity agreement on the Faroe Islands, which was so obviously an issue which linked with Scottish Ministers, and which was not carried out. That is why this House is right to continue to press this case.

I have two questions, which arise from the Minister’s full response. The first relates to the fact that the determination for these regulations will still be made by a UK department, which means, in effect, an English department. Are the Government closed to there being a distinct process, separate from a UK government department, which would look at WTO and state aid compliance? The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was correct to say that these issues are linked with state aid issues. I know there is an ongoing question as to whether this should be dealt with by a UK government department or a separate body that looks at compliance. Is the Government’s mind closed on that?

The second question relates to the WTO. As Clause 40(5) states, this is about compliance with

“’the Agreement on Agriculture’ … (as modified from time to time).”

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, indicated that there are live discussions at the moment, especially with those developing countries that seek both changes to the Agreement on Agriculture and potentially a new agriculture agreement. With regard to the Trade and Agriculture Commission which is launching today, can the Minister indicate whether, as part of its remit to report to the Government, it will consider the ongoing discussions at the WTO about either a successor to the Agreement on Agriculture part of the WTO agreement or significant modifications to it? If there are modifications to it, there will have to be a new set of regulations to ensure that the UK is also compliant.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 42, as amended, agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 270. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 270

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 271 to 274 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 275. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 275

Moved by

Agriculture Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which goes to the heart of the rural economy and how rural communities play their essential part in it. I turn to Amendments 155, 156 and 157. Clause 16 provides for the continued payment of long-lasting Rural Development Programme for England agreements where they will extend well beyond the end of the current programme in 2020. This is needed because agri-environment and forestry agreements can last for many years. Some will still be active in the 2030s. The Bill does not deal with socioeconomic schemes, because these are short agreements and all payments will have been made by the time the EU rural development funding has been exhausted. Under the withdrawal agreement, Defra will continue to deliver the RDPE under the terms of the EU regulations. It therefore remains the case that all projects agreed under the RDPE will be fully funded for their lifetime. For multiyear agri-environment and forestry agreements, domestic funding will be used to honour commitments once EU funding ceases after programme closure.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and all noble Lords. The Government absolutely recognise the invaluable contribution that rural areas make to our national life, economically, socially and culturally, and are committed to supporting rural communities through post-EU exit funding and wider government initiatives. It is essential that future generations see a future in the countryside, in agriculture or in a wide range of other elements and components of the rural economy. I am minded of what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale said. I have experienced my first Zoom meetings with an agronomist and an arable contractor and so forth. Things that I never thought would happen are happening regularly, so I understand all these things.

A lot of the matters raised in this debate are dealt with separately from the Bill, and I will expand on that. As set out in our manifesto, the Government intend to introduce the UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU structural funds. As the Rural Affairs Minister, I do not identify with the commentary on rural-proofing from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who was helpful to us in revising the rural-proofing guidance. We have officials working to ensure that rural-proofing is entrenched in every department. We have been working extremely closely with the MHCLG, which leads on the development of the UK shared prosperity fund, to ensure that its design takes account of the dynamics of rural economies and the particular challenges faced by rural communities. Both departments have been engaging with rural stakeholders to support development of the evidence base around what rural communities and businesses need for the fund. Final decisions about the quantum and design of the fund will take place following the spending review.

My noble friend Lord Dundee spoke about relationships with supermarkets. Some noble Lords are keen on berating the supermarkets. When I spend time going around them, I look at the British produce and the relationship there often is with local farms. That important development of relationships with local produce is strong, whether in large retail outlets or small ones. Clause 1(2) could support productivity measures which could, for example, aid local food chains. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the consultation requirement, this clause will only amend existing schemes, not create new ones. We have already consulted on the changes to existing schemes, as part of the Health and Harmony consultation.

Beyond the scope of the Bill, the Government are already taking steps to ensure that our rural communities can prosper. In response to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, through the outside-in approach, as part of the future telecoms infrastructure review, we are supporting the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to the least commercially viable UK premises. We are already connecting some of the hardest-to-reach places in the country, including through the superfast broadband programme and the £20 million rural gigabit connectivity programme. We have announced £5 billion of public funding to close the digital divide and ensure that rural areas are not left behind. The Government are also working with mobile network operators to deliver mobile connectivity improvements through a shared rural network. I also highlight the Digital Skills Partnership, launched by DCMS in 2017, to bring together organisations from across the public, private and charity sectors to work together to close the digital skills gap at local level.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about 5G rollout in rural areas. The 5G Rural Connected Communities programme is looking at potential 5G test cases in rural areas. Through the Rural Connected Communities competition, the Government are funding up to 10 5G research and development projects to run over two years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about discussions between devolved Administrations and rural development. As all noble Lords know, rural development is devolved, but Defra officials meet counterparts in devolved Administrations to discuss rural policy and share experience.

Returning to digital, although the current rural development programme allows for support for broadband and digital skills, wider government initiatives are the main funding mechanisms for broadband connectivity and digital skills. These are delivered through DCMS, rather than Defra. The role played by me, as Minister for Rural Affairs, and the rural team at Defra, is to work closely with DCMS and, at ministerial level, make sure that there is a complete understanding of the fact that rural communities need to play their part in a modern economy, and of the need to improve that.

Clause 16 gives the power to continue making payments where agri-environment and forestry agreements have already been signed, using Exchequer funds once the EU rural development funding contribution has been exhausted. Without subsections (1), (2) and (5) of this clause, the Secretary of State will not have the powers required to continue making annual payments specified in existing agri-environment and forestry agreements, and farmers and land managers will not be compensated for the valuable benefits that they are delivering. Furthermore, without this clause it would be more difficult for agreement holders to move from a CAP scheme to new domestic schemes under the Bill. For example, subsection (3)(a) will allow agreement holders to terminate their agreements early if they successfully secure a place in an ELM scheme. The Government want to ensure that the environmental benefits delivered through these agreements are retained and built on as we move from the CAP to a new system of ELM, designed with farmers and land managers in mind.

The powers in subsection (3) of this clause facilitate the transfer of existing agri-environment and forestry agreement holders into new schemes operating under Clause 1, such as ELM or the simplified Countryside Stewardship scheme. For example, subsection (3)(c) could allow an existing environmental stewardship agreement holder who is managing a priority habitat to convert their agreement into a new domestic Countryside Stewardship agreement. Without subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Clause 16, we will be unable to pay farmers and land managers for the work they are undertaking, and we risk complicating the transition to ELM for land managers who are already participating in agri-environment schemes. We intend to offer domestic countryside stewardship agreements until 2024, at which point we want to ensure a smooth transition from both domestic Countryside Stewardship and EU agri-environment schemes into ELM.

I do understand and take on board all the points that have been made and our mutual desire to work to ensure that the UK shared prosperity fund is up and running and successful. From a rural-proofing point of view it is imperative that the needs of rural interests, communities and business are taken into account. However, I do hope that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am afraid that I cannot give a precise date other than what I said in my remarks, that the quantum and design of the fund will take place following the spending review; I cannot give any further detail. However, I can say that the efforts and the work of Defra with MHCLG are to ensure that there is a very strong rural component so that rural businesses are an intrinsic part of this fund.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I have received one further request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response to my Amendment 157. He referred to the £5 billion which was set in principle as a response from the Government to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. Can he tell the House what the pathway is for that in-principle commitment to be rolled out and an on-the-ground practical reality?

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 16 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 158. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 158

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 222 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for putting his name to it.

The community infrastructure levy, known as the CIL, was introduced in 2010—[Inaudible.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Baroness’s connection is very bad. If she does not mind, we will leave her for a moment to try to get the connection back up and I will call her later. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 174. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 174 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 175.

Clause 18: Declaration relating to exceptional market conditions

Amendment 174

Moved by

Agriculture Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be in this debate and to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for supporting my amendment. I agree with pretty much all the amendments proposed, and agree entirely with the provision and principle of ELMS, but I want to make a few points.

Of course, we must support the environmental goods that our farming can do, but if we do that without including the need to grow healthy food, we have in a sense lost the primary reason why we farm and have given it back to the market. By that, I mean the overwhelming power of the big retail producers, which has meant that so much land has been given over to grow grains which feed animals, or grains which are highly refined and end up in un-nutritious products such as cheap white bread and that so little of our land ends up producing the nutritious fruit and vegetables that we need.

I shall give a few facts and figures. The volume of home production decreased by 1.8% in 2019 to the lowest level that we have had for 20 years, despite its value having gone up. Imports have increased as well. Home production of vegetables contributes only about 54% of the total UK food supply. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others have talked about our food security but it is bigger than that: it is about trying to support farmers to do the right thing to support our health. Some 31,000 premature deaths in the UK could be averted every year if we ate enough fruit and veg, yet according to the Food Foundation, of which I am a trustee, UK adults currently eat an average of just 2.5 portions of veg a day.

When the previous Agriculture Bill went through its Second Reading in the Commons, Michael Gove, then Secretary of State for Defra, said:

“Every measure in the Bill is designed to ensure that our farmers receive the support that they deserve to give us … healthy food.”


When challenged on why this was not in its Clause 1, he said that

“food production in this country is critical to the improvement of public health … we put the importance of improving public health at the heart of everything that we do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/18; cols. 150-51.]

In answer to another question about whether that Bill would support the production of fruit and veg, he said that it was a critical issue. I therefore consider this Bill worryingly silent when it comes to healthy food production. It has to be a matter of strategic national interest and social justice that we ensure that our country is better able to feed itself with healthy, nutritious food and to protect itself from volatility.

Sustainable production must be central to this Bill—it cannot be seen as something to be left to the market—and that, I am afraid, takes money. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about the need for allotments and more growing spaces. When I ran the London Food Board, we had a project called Capital Growth and created 2,500 new community projects. It is tremendously successful and we are trying to roll it out across the country. However, at the end of the day, it accounts for a tiny amount of vegetables. The point is that, if we are to grow more, farmers need money. At the moment, a very small amount of our land is devoted to this. We have to understand that financial help is needed, first, to make the transition and, secondly, to get this produce to the market. All the other things that I have talked about in our debates on amendments—local food networks, local abattoirs and so on—are part of the same thing.

We know that we have terrible problems with obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. These are the results of a food system which is not working for us and our citizens. We have had a policy based on food corporations. We now have a unique opportunity to take this system back into public ownership and public concern.

Healthy food is a public good just as much as our NHS, and if we had better diets we would save that amazing institution about £2 billion a year. If we ate more local and seasonal fruit and vegetables, and if we bought from local producers, we could also reduce our carbon footprint, at the same time as improving our health, our land, our mental health and the mental health of our communities, which, as every noble Lord will have seen in the last few weeks, is an issue of such importance to our country.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has indicated that he will not speak on this group, I call the next speaker on the list, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, first, I thank those responsible for the speakers’ lists for heeding my words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The present speakers’ list is in a much better shape and leads to better debate than was the case previously.

I have put my name to Amendment 70. I think that the words “have regard to” in Clause 1(4) weaken the importance of producing good, healthy food. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that they should be deleted, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh on sponsoring this amendment. I was happy to sign up to it.

All noble Lords have been speaking about food security. I hope that every single one of your Lordships participating in today’s debate has read the recently published report of the Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee entitled Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. The report goes into the subject in some depth, covering many of the points raised in this evening’s debate.

I would like to make one point about growing healthy food. It sounds as though our farmers do not grow healthy food at the moment. I think that, in the present circumstances of the CAP, our farmers grow very healthy food but it is the food industry that turns it into ultra-processed food, and that is the poison that contaminates our diets. Rather than just concentrating on farmers, the food industry has to be looked at as a whole.

We make a number of recommendations in our report Hungry for Change, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them in due course. Food security covers a vast number of departments. We talked to three different ministries during our deliberations, which were somewhat hampered by the Covid pandemic, but it is clear that this is a whole-government rather than just a Defra problem.

Given what everybody else has said, I can now terminate my remarks, but I hope that my noble friend will agree to Amendment 70.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 35, which was so comprehensively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I did so for one simple reason: it explicitly recognises that a key part of the output of farming must be its effect on human health. It is somewhat strange that Clause 1, which lists all the ways in which public money can be spent to support the output of farming—the improvement of land, water, woodlands, the environment, natural heritage, the countering of environmental threats, the welfare of livestock, the health of plants, plant and livestock conservation and so on—contains no mention of human beings.

The biggest impact of farming, both in its production methods and in what it produces, is on human beings. I was provoked, to some extent, to add my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because I received advice on pesticides when I was tabling a different amendment that comes much later on in this Bill. Some of the issues relating to this have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in the earlier debate today. However, I asked that this amendment be headed “human health”, and I was told that this was beyond the scope of the Bill. It must not be. I have amended that amendment to conform, obviously, but human health is central to this Bill.

It is not just the potentially negative effects of some farming processes; it is much more positively the effect of the produce of farming on the balance of our diets and nutrition, and the way it gets to the public. Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others, I was a member of the Select Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which produced its report very recently. That report spells out that farming has to be seen as part of the totality of the food chain, and one of its principal impacts is its being directly or indirectly responsible for the health and nutrition of our population.

As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just said, much of the responsibility here lies with the big processors, the wholesalers and the retailers, which both specify and advertise food that is quite often not so healthy. However, the responsibility also lies on farmers and government policy towards farming. The Krebs report makes quite a wide range of recommendations that relate to this, and the Bill does not fully reflect that priority because the availability, quality, pricing, convenience and affordability of nutritious food is vital to turning around the declining quality of our diets, which is causing such things as our obesity being the worst in Europe and examples of malnutrition and so forth in our population—mostly, but by no means exclusively, among the least well-off families.

Good food is a public good. This Bill needs to reflect that. A more plant-based diet is a health benefit. More domestic production of fresh fruit and veg is a key part of any strategy for healthier food. Hence I—and I think the whole of the Krebs committee—would wish to see, in Clause 1, a reference to health and diet as a public good derived from the output and methods of farming, and therefore worthy of our support. Therefore, I support Amendment 35, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which refers explicitly to healthy food.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has withdrawn from the list, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I want to speak to the whole group of amendments as I find the interrelationship between the various amendments on this occasion particularly interesting. My noble friend Lord Whitty has been talking about food security. This group focuses on food security not only in the context in which he mentioned it—although that is vital—but in the context of the most unstable period in world affairs that we can remember. It is very important to think of food security in that context as well.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 101 seeks to improve the Bill’s current definition of a producer. It broadens that definition, so that instead it reads

“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.

This would make clearer which relevant parties stand to benefit from financial assistance.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I now call the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. There is a problem with connecting to the noble Lord. We move on to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I think we have all been slightly caught out there. For all the amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as in the register.

I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Lucas. While I am in complete agreement about the need to improve agricultural technology, robotics and genetics, I just do not think his amendment is necessary, since my reading of subsection (2) is that it does just that. It says that the Secretary of State may give financial assistance to

“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.

To me, that seems to cover what my noble friend has suggested in his amendment.

I agree entirely with him that we need a huge leap forward in technology, especially in the horticultural sector. I have read that one side-effect of President Trump’s curtailment of cheap Mexican and Latin American labour has been a big increase in robotics and technology in the United States to plant and harvest crops. We need to do exactly the same here. Exciting robotic machines are now being developed in the UK. In swotting up for this amendment, I looked at a recent video showing a machine operating in a vegetable-growing area; it had what I would call very fine fingers or tines knocking out the weeds between the plants but leaving the lettuces completely intact. Technology is the solution, not cheap eastern European temporary workers.

I also look forward to changes in the rules when we leave the EU so that we can do gene editing—not genetic modification, just gene editing. It is terribly important that we move to do that as quickly as we can when we leave the EU. We do not need anything in this Bill to give us the powers to do so.

I cannot support Amendments 43 and 54. These small local community farms do a good job, and they may currently qualify for support under ELMS, but they cannot feed the nation. I do not accept that they can supply up to 80% of the food this country needs. Huge changes are coming to mainstream farm production. I want all Defra’s efforts to be concentrated on the big picture of delivering ELMS and not diverted on to something nice but at the moment irrelevant to feeding the nation. It is quite possible that many of these local enterprises may qualify under the ELM schemes when they are fully developed. We should leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to join the House for the discussions on Tuesday. There was an IT hitch and I was virtually silenced. Like so many of your Lordships, I do so hate virtual. However, it has been a pleasure to follow the debate and to listen to so many expert ideas and views. I was particularly struck by the debate that was just recently led by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, that my old hometown of Bridport is flourishing.

This is a terrifyingly long list of amendments to get through, so I shall try to be brief. I remind noble Lords that the devil lies in the details of many of these amendments, of course but also in their sheer weight. When the list of amendments is almost as long as the Bill itself, I fear there is a real danger of ending up with a piece of legislation so cumbersome that it simply gets bogged down in the mud.

In that spirit, I am happy to speak in favour of Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and others. Replacing “or” with “and” seems such a small change—I am not sure I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, although we have to consider very carefully the points that he has just made—and I thought my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury spoke very clearly and eloquently.

The amendment helps emphasise that health and welfare, if not exactly the same, are certainly two sides of the same coin, which leads to better outcomes for not only livestock but consumers. Without repeating any Second Reading discussions, consumers are the key to so many of the issues raised by so many of the amendments. Consumers want better food and wider choice at affordable prices. They have no interest in a race to the bottom. That is why I suspect most of us would be delighted to see more livestock raised outdoors, as the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee suggests. I appreciated the wise and learned comments of the noble—and newly restored—Lord, Lord Rooker.

However, I feel much less sanguine, I am afraid, about some of the other amendments, such as Amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. The experience of the cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Australia notwithstanding, these amendments would add all sorts of unnecessary chains and handcuffs to the legislation and perhaps make it worse. Amendment 68 and other amendments like it—Amendment 77, for instance—would change the tone of the Bill and add to its complexity and would help make British farmers less competitive.

There has to be some consistency in all this. If we worry about imports of substandard chickens, for instance, it is counterproductive to make chicken less competitive, placing even more reliance on imported chicken by raising barriers for British chicken farmers. If all we are doing is to permit or enable imports of more chickens from the other side of the world, we are simply shifting the problem elsewhere. We must try to find a balance if we are to provide effective legislation.

So much in Amendments 77 and 125 is very worthy and I have no objection to the principles and values, but we have to concentrate on one prime objective, which is delivering a piece of legislation which is practicable and workable and enables British farming to flourish. In my view, the last three amendments I have mentioned are likely to undermine that objective of balance and practicability so, despite their fine objectives, I hope that they will not be pursued.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, to complete what she was unable to finish earlier.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger [V]]

I hope that the technology is working better now. I am not sure how much your Lordships heard before, but I am speaking to Amendment 26 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury.

Many points have been put forward powerfully already and I do not wish to repeat them. However, I do think that health and welfare are intrinsically linked. Sometimes health needs to be protected because there are farming systems that are less welfare-friendly and may cause health issues and thus need more health interventions. I am thinking particularly of indoor intensively farmed poultry and pigs.

I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, had to say. I have enormous respect for him and I know that he has vastly more experience than I do. But bad welfare, although it does not always cause immediate health issues, causes animals stress. To be anthropomorphic, in people that would be called mental health issues. That can lead to health issues in the long term. I just make that point.

I hope that we can replace “or” with “and” to ensure the highest welfare for poultry and livestock.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 29. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 29

Moved by

Children’s Health: Vehicle Emissions

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as ever it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for initiating this debate. As a regular cyclist and a resident of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, I declare an interest as somebody directly affected by vehicle emissions from London’s increasingly anarchic and intractable traffic jams. I live very close to Putney High Street, which exceeds its NO₂ annual limit at the end of the first week in January each year. For 51 out of the 52 weeks in every year, it exceeds the legal limit. That is a great beginning.

The sudden emergency closure of Hammersmith Bridge by the local council has created a spider’s web of traffic jams, as drivers trying to cross the Thames attempt unsuccessfully to outwit one another, switching vainly from one navigation app to another. There is a stand-off between TfL and the council as to which body should pay the £40 million for emergency repairs. Should it be the council, which owns the bridge and is responsible for its upkeep, or should it be TfL, whose buses are held to be largely responsible for the parlous state of the bridge? However this is ultimately settled, the problem is likely to recur again and again: the new generation of best-in-class, zero-emission, Chinese, electric double-decker buses each weighs 19 tonnes, compared to the 12.5 tonnes of today’s hybrid double-deckers in London, which have caused the damage.

How are the Government responding to the dangers in the air which we all breathe? If effectiveness could be measured by the volume and weight of government reports and initiatives and much-trumpeted money to get these off the ground, there appears to be a high level of activity. However, if one measures the effectiveness by what is happening to our children’s health and well-being, one is perhaps less impressed.

The Government’s Clean Air Strategy 2019 admitted that:

“Road transport is responsible for some 80% of NOx concentrations at the roadside”.


What will they do about this? They aim to achieve zero emissions from vehicles by 2040, but admit that they will delegate much of the responsibility for this because:

“We expect this transition to be industry and consumer led”.


Perhaps the Minister would like to explain this to grass-roots organisations of concerned parents, such as the London-based, rather wonderfully named, Mums for Lungs. It is fighting to establish “school street” zones around primary schools to reduce pollution and its effects on children’s respiratory systems, and to reduce traffic flows and stop engine idling, all of which militate against feeling comfortable about walking or cycling with one’s children to and from school, let alone the worry of what is entering their respiratory and neural systems in the playground and the classroom.

Many noble Lords have mentioned the Channel 4 documentary, and the Minister might wish to consult some of the younger members of his family to find it on the Channel 4 on-demand app, All 4. I also commend today’s Times newspaper to him; if he reads page 12, he will find two somewhat disturbing articles directly related to the quality of our air due to vehicle emissions.

Why on earth should it be left to organisations such as Mums for Lungs to approach drivers sitting in vehicles outside their children’s schools with engines idling, and to knock on the window and politely point out that what they are doing is illegal and wastes fuel and money; that vehicle pollution causes around 40,000 early deaths per year; and that air pollution is actually between nine and 12 times worse inside your car than outside it? Is this what Her Majesty’s Government call a consumer-led approach? I salute and admire those mothers who have stepped bravely into what appears to be a leadership and compliance vacuum and who are shaming the powers that be, which they feel strongly are not doing enough to protect their children, to take action. They have helped establish no fewer than 38 “school street” schemes in London, and similar approaches are under way in Solihull and Edinburgh.

This is not, and should never be, a party-political issue; one might expect that from a Cross-Bencher. It is a human rights and human health issue which affects a significant number of innocent and vulnerable children. Delivering his February 2018 judgment in the case of ClientEarth v the Secretary of State for Defra, Mr Justice Garnham did not mince his words. He said there has been,

“a continuing failure by the Government to meet its obligation to reduce air pollution. It is eight years since compliance with the 2008 directive should have been achieved and the 2017 air quality plan is the third unsuccessful attempt at delivering a plan. All the while the health of those living in towns and cities is at real risk”.

So the buck is conveniently and predictably passed between central government, different departments and agencies, and local authorities.

While this is going on—indeed, while we are speaking in this debate—a child experiencing an asthma attack is being admitted to hospital every 20 minutes. Mike Penrose of UNICEF, who worked with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health on a survey, concluded that the UK is home to more children suffering from respiratory conditions than anywhere else in Europe. That is not a comfortable verdict.

To stop the buck-passing and equivocation we need long-term, cross-party, cross-government, national, devolved and local concerted and co-ordinated action which prioritises the health and well-being of our most precious responsibility and future resource: our children and our grandchildren.

Lilian Greenwood, the Labour MP for Nottingham South and chair of the Commons Transport Committee, summed up the situation with painful clarity in a debate on 28 June last year. She said that,

“action is too fragmented, lacks clear leadership, and is not properly costed or resourced. There are no fiscal measures that support long-term behaviour change in a meaningful way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/18; col. 1091.]

If I ruled the world, every day would not be the first day of spring, but it would be a world in which government Ministers, of whichever Government happened to be in office at that time, would approach such grave issues as the hugely harmful effect on children of vehicle emissions with an urgency which is devoid of party politics; demonstrates a continuum of concern, commitment and action across all areas of government; and transcends changes in Minister, changes in Government and idiotic sideshows such as our current impasse over Brexit—it is causing us much harm by acting as a brake on much-needed government focus and momentum—because billions of nanoparticles are being released into the lungs of our children by the stopping, starting and constant braking which are a feature of our signal failure to tackle vehicle emissions.