Agriculture Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

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

[Lord Trees (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on proposed new subsection (b) in Amendment 75, which refers to reducing the use of antibiotics in livestock and related veterinary products. I fully agree with the aim of reducing the use of antibiotics on livestock as far as possible while retaining their use to treat sick animals to ensure their good welfare. Indeed, in the UK, we have been incredibly successful in reducing the use of all antibiotics on all livestock by more than 50% since 2014. Currently, in fact, usage is well below the target set in the 2016 report from the commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill.

With regard to so-called critically important antibiotics for human use, there is absolutely minimal use on livestock today. This has been achieved by management improvements, husbandry improvements and, of course, the use of vaccines, which are a major tool in controlling and preventing infectious disease. They are thus terribly important in reducing drug use for therapeutic purposes, so it is important that their use is not discouraged.

I seek greater clarification on what is meant in this amendment by “related veterinary product use”. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, commented on this to some extent in her earlier speech; I think she said words to the effect that she did not envisage the inclusion of vaccines in this amendment. I hope that that is so; it would indeed be counterproductive.

She also commented on anthelmintic use and its effect on dung beetles. As a parasitologist, I want to comment briefly on that. I assure her that that is not an issue in the UK. Some years ago, this was looked at carefully; various anthelmintics, which of course are for worms and which also have powers of activity against insects, were introduced. Poor research students were sat out in the open having to observe the degradation of cowpats in fields, some of which were grazed by cattle with anthelmintics and some of which were grazed by cattle without them. I assure the noble Baroness that there was absolutely no difference as a result of the anthelmintic treatment.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat the declaration of my interests that I made last Tuesday.

Amendments 35 and 36 seek to add to the list of purposes for which financial assistance may be given. Amendment 36 is already covered by existing purposes, as is Amendment 35, up to a point. This amendment, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, also seeks to establish food security as a purpose. It is hard to see how these amendments would have much of an effect on the proportion of our food that we import—or, indeed, the proportion of our food produce that we export. British farm produce, including arable, dairy and livestock, is produced to very high international standards and, I believe, can hold its own in both domestic and overseas markets.

I cannot see that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has any place in an Agriculture Bill that seeks to reduce farmers’ dependence on the state. It would threaten to increase the cost and reduce the choice of meals provided by public bodies by introducing distortions to the market, reflecting particular views on environmental or animal welfare standards that go further than required by law.

In the same way, I would resist Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because I do not believe that the Secretary of State should be involved in trying to persuade people to change their diet to a vegetarian one. I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, with regard to her amendment. I have nothing against vegetarians—indeed, I have a daughter-in-law who does not eat meat—but it should be a matter of personal taste.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook, who is most knowledgeable in this area, has eloquently spoken in support of his Amendment 60, which seeks to ensure a sufficient level of food security. I do not think my noble friend is suggesting we need go back to a time when foreign food was virtually unknown to most people in this country. Of course we need to maximise our domestic food production, but it is also important that our new trading relationships continue to offer British consumers more choice at reasonable prices.

My noble friend also wishes to require the Secretary of State to support the production of food in England through his Amendment 69. On this, I prefer his drafting and the effect of the change he wishes to make. I also prefer his wording to that of my noble friend Lady McIntosh in Amendment 70, although her amendment is also an improvement on the current somewhat ambiguous wording.

I am afraid that I do not understand the purpose of Amendment 71, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, as I do not want the Secretary of State to become a sort of food policeman. I do not understand what the noble Earl means by suggesting that his amendment

“avoids the Secretary of State having regard to the production of unhealthy food.”

I am not sure that public health concerns, as mentioned in Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, should be in an agriculture Bill, however desirable the improvement of public health obviously is.

Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, defines “environmentally sustainable way”. I do not think that it needs to be specifically defined and I question whether avoiding the “depletion of natural resources”, desirable though that is, is clearly contained within the meaning of the phrase.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

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

[Lord Trees (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak on this amendment. I very much welcome the inclusion in the Bill of the recognition that animal health and welfare is important and worthy of support. I want to speak particularly to Amendment 26. I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.

I have huge sympathy for the amendment, but I have a reservation about the word change that I hope to be able to explain satisfactorily. There is of course no question that health and welfare are frequently interrelated. Disease and ill health almost always have a welfare consequence. However, there may be situations and indeed desirable welfare objectives where health is not immediately involved, and I think the current wording reflects that. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who spoke just before me, articulated that point pretty well.

I interpret the current wording not as an either/or situation but rather that the protection or improvement of both health and welfare are included as eligible for financial assistance. Another way of looking at this is to conceive of a Venn diagram, with health as one circle and welfare as another. While the two overlap hugely, there may be elements of welfare in particular that do not have an immediate health relevance. For example, enabling animals to be able to better express normal behaviour may not have an immediate health issue. Were “or” to be replaced by “and” in this paragraph, thinking of the Venn diagram, one might argue semantically that only where both health and welfare interact would support be given and, ironically, I think that would be more restrictive than as currently conceived and, indeed, than the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and his fellow movers would want.

I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that my interpretation of this paragraph is indeed what the Government intend, in which case I am content with the current wording—with apologies to the noble Earls, Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, who I know are extremely committed to animal welfare, as indeed am I.

[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.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this Bill is of colossal importance. It will involve a revolution in our countryside and affect our food supply, the environment, the rural economy and the lives of many thousands of people. I have never before had so many emails from the public about amending a Bill. Thus, it is regrettable that we are given such little time to scrutinise it in the House.

That said, there is much to welcome in the Bill, but it also raises major questions. I will focus on those pertaining to animal health and welfare and the sustainability of livestock farming, notably of cattle and sheep.

The Bill proposes support for

“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”.

As a vet, I welcome this. While it is intrinsically the ethical thing to do, it also addresses other key goals in the Bill, notably increasing productivity, safeguarding food security and mitigating climate change. Proper control of enteric worms in sheep, for example, can reduce greenhouse gases by 10% per unit of production. It would however be helpful to know more about how this support will be delivered, what the baseline is, and how improvement will be measured. I ask the Minister to answer those questions, if need be in writing.

Cattle and sheep farming are a pillar of the rural economy, particularly in our upland areas, and help maintain the countryside we love. But there are more than just aesthetic or sentimental reasons to value this activity. Cattle and sheep turn grass into products that we can eat, and which provide wholesome, nutritious food, contributing to our food security. Cattle and sheep are maintained at high standards of welfare and husbandry, from birth to slaughter. The use of antibiotics is minimal, and only for disease control. In the UK, across all animals, antibiotic use has fallen by 53% in recent years, and is well below the O’Neill commission target. What about greenhouse gases? Data from the FAO shows that UK cattle emit 75% less CO₂ and methane per kilogram of meat than the global average. Finally, grazing animals put back into the soil nutrients and essential fibre.

Our grazing livestock enterprises are not only important for our rural economy and the maintenance of our countryside but are incomparably good for animal welfare, compatible with afforestation and initiatives to improve biodiversity, which I welcome, and produce food in a much more environmentally friendly way than many other global systems—think of cattle reared on cleared rainforest. Yet this aspect of our farming is most vulnerable to the reduction in direct payments. If we allow the importation of livestock products without requiring the same high level of animal welfare, environmental standards and food safety that we demand of our own farmers, we risk destroying our indigenous system. This would be to export poor welfare and poor environmental standards, and would be deleterious to climate change mitigation globally. It would be a classic example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government will respond to calls either to enshrine legal minimum standards in the Bill, or to establish a trade, food and farming commission, to which a former Secretary of State was committed, and what powers it might have.

Trade Deals: Animal Welfare

Lord Trees Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Trees]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will safeguard animal welfare and environmental standards in negotiating trade deals with respect to livestock products.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Department for International Development (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, as set out in our manifesto, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards in our trade negotiations. The Government’s Agriculture Bill sets out our plans to reward farmers for enhancing our natural environment and for safeguarding the nation’s high welfare standards. We will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure that any future trade deals uphold the standards that farmers and consumers across the UK expect.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer and I welcome him to the Front Bench. I do not doubt the sincerity of Her Majesty’s Government’s assurances, but there is widespread—and, I would suggest, justifiable—concern that our own livestock industry could be out-competed by imports of cheap livestock products from animals reared to poorer welfare and environmental standards. This might mean cheaper food, but it would be at a global cost to animal welfare and the environment and at some risk to our own indigenous livestock enterprise. Will the Government enshrine in UK law their manifesto commitment to require that imports of livestock products meet our high animal welfare and environmental standards?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The UK, as the noble Lord points out, has world-leading environmental and animal welfare standards, and that will not change. They are backed up in legislation and, even more importantly, are backed by both producers and consumers right across the land. There is no value to anyone in imposing high standards here on our own producers if we then allow low-standard imports of those same products. We would merely be undermining our farmers while exporting cruelty elsewhere.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Trees Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the cull is taking place in the high-risk areas, which is precisely on the advice and with the consent of the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Veterinary Officer. No one takes these matters lightly. This is about a disease that is prevalent in certain areas, and no other country has achieved TB-free status without undertaking something that may not be desirable but is necessary.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, leaving the EU will allow us to use a wider range of options and tools for the control of bovine TB which are not currently permitted in the EU. Will Her Majesty’s Government exploit these new-found options to control this terrible disease and, if so, to what extent might their use have an impact on our ability to export beef and dairy products, particularly to the EU?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The annual Defra budget for TB eradication in England is £100 million a year. We are investing in TB R&D because we know that we do not know enough at the moment. For instance, we have already found out that the oral badger vaccine has not been successful. We are continuing work on a cattle TB vaccine and associated test development and have spent more than £35 million on that programme already. He is right that we need to look at research. If there are any new ways in which we can deal with this damaging disease, I am sure that we will want to look at them.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I will explain briefly the reasoning behind this amendment. During earlier stages, some concern was expressed about the meaning of certain points in the Bill, notably “travelling circus”. It was not included on the basis that this was a widely understood, everyday term, but concern was certainly expressed that it might be interpreted in an unexpected way that might widen it unattractively.

I would have preferred to have this on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I am ultra-sensitive, but as a former member of the Delegated Powers Committee, and its chairman until I stood down owing to serious illness, I am particularly sensitive about anything which is not dealt with in a proper parliamentary fashion. My noble friend the Minister was willing to offer guidance about this after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is very welcome, but I am still concerned that this guidance is what I would call untethered: it is not attached to any proper delegated legislation. I have tabled this amendment to offer the guidance in a proper, regulatory, reformed manner. I am aware that we are anxious to get the Bill through, but I would welcome my noble friend’s telling us considerably more about his intentions to give this guidance. I hope he will be able to give a substantial slice of the loaf, rather than a few measly crumbs. I beg to move.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in seeking assurance from the Minister that appropriate guidance will be issued in a timely fashion to clarify some of the definitions in this short Bill, notably “travelling circus”, and to help ensure that the Bill does not set a precedent of restricting further activities involving animals for which there is scant evidence of harm. With the indulgence of the House, I would like to make a few brief but important points.

We live in a liberal democracy in which activities are allowed unless there is evidence of harm to persons, property, animals or the environment which justifies their abolition. On that definition, this Bill fails. As the Minister knows, I am a passionate advocate for animal welfare, but there is no evidence of a case to answer on animal welfare grounds in this instance, despite this activity having been under close inspection as a condition of its licence.

Even if there were, and even if, as in this case, the justification for this legislation is ethical, this Bill fails on any test of proportionality. There are 19 animals involved. The various and multiple conditions to which these animals are exposed are not, I would submit, significantly different from those to which millions of other animals are exposed in all manner of activities with which I—and, I suggest, many in this Chamber and most of the public—acquiesce. Members of the circus community have suggested that this legislation is discriminatory against them, because it singles out circus people and circus animals, and regrettably I feel they have a point.

This Bill will go through, and I do not mean to oppose it. The three main political parties support it. However, I make a plea to this and succeeding Governments that they base their evaluations and decisions involving animal activities on sound evidence of harm, estimates of the severity of that harm and objective measures of the quantum of that harm—how many animals are involved. Otherwise, I fear that we are moving—and indeed this Bill takes the first steps—from animal welfare legislation to animal rights legislation. I do not doubt that this is not the intention of Her Majesty’s Government or the Minister. I continue to commend them, as I have in the past, for their previous excellent measures to improve animal welfare, but I fear that others may interpret the passing of this Bill differently.

Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her contribution. I sympathise with her on two points; I especially want to come back to her point about rehoming pets. I intend to speak only about puppies because I know about dogs; I have always had them. If I may say so, I have never bought them from a pet shop; I have always got them either through rehoming or direct from local farms.

I take the view that pets are not a fashion statement. Pets, especially dogs, are there for what they give to humans. They give us so much in terms of loyalty, comfort and affection. I must say, I welcome both the Government’s strategy on animal welfare and the regulations. I agree entirely with the BVA that they must be seen not as an isolated example but as part of a developing holistic approach. I was encouraged by the Minister’s point that this is the next step in the process. We will not be satisfied with that; we look forward to the step after it. We very much welcome the regulations and I take the Minister’s statement in the spirit in which it was made.

Of course, we live in a changing world. There are roughly 9 million dogs in this country—an increase of 400,000 since last year alone. I am afraid that the increase is partly due to fashion. We cannot affect it; people can do what they want and buy what they want with their money. However, importantly—the Government are aware of this—much more public communication is needed to get across to people what keeping a dog means and from where they can be bought. Again, I agree with the Government and am encouraged by the Minister talking about a comprehensive communication strategy. That is precisely what is needed because when most people, or at least a lot of them, acquire a dog, they are doing so for the first time and do not know what they are getting or what they want. On many occasions, they waste a lot of money through getting the wrong breed of dog. Of course, the regulations are here because unscrupulous people take advantage of that fact. It is very important that we try, gently, to educate the general public.

Coming back to rescuing and rehoming, the Government were encouraging, although they did not say a great deal about it. I have had rescue and rehomed dogs, and I have always been impressed by them. Now, the overwhelming majority of rescue establishments, whether they deal with specialised breeds such as collies or Labradors or are general establishments, maintain very high standards. That is what the regulations are partly about: high health standards. Most establishments have the animals microchipped and all of them allow the public to see the conditions in which the animals are kept. That is very important. It is not always available at a pet shop; you cannot see the conditions in which the dogs are kept 24 hours a day—that is probably a slight exaggeration, but basically all the time.

The noble Baroness raised a point about these rescue establishments; most of them are charities. Can the Minister clarify the position? As I understand it, these charities are exempt under the parent Act, if I can call it that. If that is the case, it is important that we monitor the charities as well—I am sure they would support that—because we must be sure that no unscrupulous dealers see this as a loophole in the system.

The online sale of animals is a bigger challenge than I can comprehend, and with social media it is a real challenge—not only for the Government handling it at the centre but for the local authorities, which in a sense ensure that the regulations are enforced.

In conclusion, I really support these regulations and the Government’s intent. I am encouraged by, and very much welcome, the Minister’s approach, but it will need careful monitoring.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome the Minister’s introduction of this statutory instrument, and I declare my interests as set out in the register. This is a welcome step in the right direction. As the Minister has outlined, it extends measures in the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 so that puppies and kittens cannot be sold at less than six months old except by the licensed breeder and seller. Presumably they would need a licence as a breeder and as a seller. Does that require two licences, or will they be combined?

This measure is well justified on sound welfare grounds that have been described in detail and for some time by various animal welfare charities, the BVA, the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, as elucidated by the Minister, so I will not reiterate them. However, while most welcome, this measure in itself will address only partly the major issues of poor animal welfare and the illegal activities associated with the gross mismatch in the UK between demand for and supply of puppies in particular.

First, this measure will affect some 63 pet shops selling puppies and 129 licence-holders selling kittens. Their annual trade has been estimated at about 80,000 puppies per year. This compares with an estimated demand—this is Defra’s own figure—of 700,000 dogs per year. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others alluded to, not defining and regulating rescue and rehoming centres creates a loophole for the unscrupulous to exploit as third-party sellers. What plans do the Government have to regulate such centres? Thirdly, this measure does not address the vast scale of online sales—it is undoubtedly happening—of animals either illegally imported into or bred in the UK. Again, what measures are Her Majesty’s Government planning to tackle this serious problem?

This measure also removes the prohibition on purchasing animals whose sale is prohibited under these regulations. Given the profound problems of enforcement in this whole trade in live animals, is it not a severe hindrance to remove a legal obligation on the purchaser to verify the legitimacy of the seller and the animal being sold? Following the acceptance of these regulations, a buyer will now presumably be able to purchase an animal knowing it is illegal without fear. Why should they report such a seller to the authorities? I may be mistakenly interpreting the regulations but perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a veterinary surgeon and a long-time member of the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which I was president. I am currently co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I originally thought the Bill was a simple proposition—in short, a good thing, a no-brainer. But in preparing for this debate, reading and thinking about the issues, I have come to realise that it raises some profound and even far-reaching implications.

I will first consider the welfare aspects. Public opinion supports a ban, presumably because of concern for animal welfare. A report commissioned by the Welsh Government in 2016, The Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses, concluded that,

“the evidence would … support a ban on using wild animals in travelling circuses … on animal welfare grounds”.

So far, so good.

The Bill refers to wild animals and defines them as animals “not commonly domesticated” in the UK. Yet, as we have heard, of the 19 animals currently in the two circuses, six are reindeer and four are camels—both species commonly domesticated in many other places. There is a further animal, a zebu, an African cow that has been domesticated for 10,000 to 30,000 years.

The animals in question in travelling circuses are now subject to licensing and to inspection by Defra-appointed veterinary inspectors. There do not appear to have been any concerns over their care in recent years. While it might be argued that their ability to express some of the five welfare freedoms is compromised—such as freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, pain, injury or disease, freedom from fear and distress, and freedom to express normal behaviour—I contend that that could be said about many not only wild but domesticated animals kept by humans, especially the freedom to express normal behaviour. I am sure that many in this Chamber keep a dog. The dog is a social animal—it lives in packs—but how many people own more than one dog?

Furthermore, a report in 2007 to Defra by a leading animal welfare lawyer, Dr Mike Radford at the University of Aberdeen, concluded that, within the terms of reference of his inquiry:

“There appears to be little evidence to demonstrate that the welfare of animals kept in travelling circuses is any better or worse than that of animals kept in other captive environments”.


Finally, Her Majesty’s Government have not introduced the Bill as a result of welfare concerns. It is introduced on the basis of ethics; it is an ethical decision. In that context, I submit that this leads us on to very contentious ground. I have been impressed by one of the briefings many of us may have received from Professor Ron Beadle, a professor of organisation and business ethics at Northumbria University. He argues that it is difficult on ethical grounds to single out animals in travelling circuses from animals involved in almost any other relationship with humans—such as, among others, zoos, displays of birds of prey and horseracing, through to eating meat and even keeping pets.

At Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State concluded, with respect to wild animals in circuses, that,

“it is an outdated practice ... and it is demeaning to the wild animals involved”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/19; col. 502.]

He spoke for many people and I understand that position. Indeed, it is one with which I may concur, but by using the term “demeaning” we are attributing anthropomorphic feelings to animals. What is really meant is that we are not comfortable with this and we do not like it. The fundamental question is whether that is the basis on which to ban something. If we are thinking about banning things on ethical terms, as Professor Beadle argues, consistency of position necessitates that many human activities involving animals should also be called into question. I hasten to add that that is not a position I would accept and I dare say that many would not welcome it.

I shall give two important examples of demeaning animals. The French bulldog is the most popular breed of dog in Britain today. Thousands are bought and bred by people. It is a brachycephalic dog—it has a squashed nose. Many of these dogs suffer respiratory problems because of obstructive airway disease that necessitates surgery to allow them to breathe normally. In most cases their pelvic canal is too small to allow normal birth. More than 80% of French bulldogs have to be delivered by C-section. We have bred these dogs and we buy them because they are cute. That is demeaning to animals.

My second example is the Scottish Fold cat. It has a genetic deficit of cartilage formation. Its ears hang down. It looks sweet. I am sure noble Lords know what cartilage does. It is the soft stuff at the end of all our bones that prevents them grinding together. It is the stuff I am short of in my right knee. It is the lack of that stuff that gives many of us in the Chamber osteoarthritis. We breed these cats deliberately and sell them because they look cute. That is demeaning to animals.

The point of this polemic is that when we start making judgments about such matters, it is important to do it on the basis of evidence, rationality and proportionality. I therefore have some difficulty coming to a conclusion on the Bill because I sympathise with much of it. I recognise that there is very strong public opinion on this issue, and that the Government must pay heed to that and to changing societal views, but to what extent should we in Parliament take heed of public opinion when the evidence is at best equivocal? In this case, I suspect public opinion is still thinking of the days when lions, tigers, elephants and chimpanzees were displayed in circuses, but the irony is that society’s views have led to those practices ceasing without legislation. I dare say that if we did nothing, in a few years’ time we would be unlikely to see any wild animals in a traditional circus.

In conclusion, I recognise that this is a measure on which public opinion has a clear point of view and which the Commons has passed. I also recognise and sincerely commend the positive measures to improve animal welfare brought forward by the Government in the past year or so. Indeed, it is fair to say that the cause of animal welfare has been advanced more in the past two years than in the previous 10, since the excellent Animal Welfare Act 2006, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.

I also recognise that, while there are many far more important concerns regarding animals than the current Bill addresses in my opinion, we must not do nothing because we cannot do everything—or, in the cliché of the day, we do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Where have I heard that before?

I will support the Bill, but I am concerned that unintended consequences could flow from it. At the very least, I ask the Minister that a definition of the term “travelling circus” be incorporated into the guidance notes, as the RSPCA has called for. If it is not defined, I fear there is a danger that more extreme animal rights groups and clever lawyers will challenge various other activities under the umbrella term “travelling circus”. Many of these other activities contribute to and enhance people’s knowledge and understanding of, and concern for, animals, with a very positive impact on their conservation and welfare. Introducing our increasingly urban population, potentially divorced from nature, to the wonders of the animal kingdom—subject to the welfare needs of animals always being met—is an important and positive outcome that needs to be considered when debating the ethical pros and cons of keeping animals.

Brexit: Plant and Animal Biosecurity

Lord Trees Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee for their excellent report, and I draw the attention of the House to my interests as declared in the register.

We are in a period of human history of an unprecedented degree and pace of change. Many of these changes have undeniable benefits—the emergence of digital technologies being one such example—but we are just beginning to understand the downsides of digital technology and the societal costs which we will have to bear. Another seismic change is globalisation. The scale and speed with which people, animals, plants and their products can move around the world is unprecedented. Although globalisation undoubtedly brings great public good, driving economic growth and political co-operation, there is a cost to it. That cost is reduced biosecurity.

On this island of ours, we have rather taken biosecurity for granted, but we do that at our peril. Although the fruits of globalisation may be measured in billions of pounds in wealth, breaches in biosecurity can be measured in billions of pounds in cost. A recent paper estimated that the cost of dealing with ash dieback, mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will be £15 billion. This cost follows the importation of ash saplings: an indigenous species to the UK which grows like a weed in my Scottish garden. We need seriously to consider the cost/benefits of such trade. I shall return to that later.

Focusing specifically on the consequences of Brexit for biosecurity—although, understandably, I am concerned with the health of trees, I shall focus mainly on animal-related matters—there are challenges and risks and, conversely, opportunities to strengthen our biosecurity. I point out that the ash saplings which may have introduced ash dieback into the UK are thought to have come from the Netherlands.

The increased risks have been raised by many of your Lordships tonight and previously. I must acknowledge that in many cases, the response from Defra has been extremely positive. For example, an internal UK system to replace TRACES, referred to by several noble Lords, the Import of Products, Animals and Food and Feed System—IPAFFS—is, I understand, nearing operational capability. I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and ask the Minister for an update on the situation. What current plans are there to continue our participation in the EU animal disease notification system, or develop our own capabilities?

With respect to food safety, there are a number of important issues. I shall say much less than I planned to because it was most ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I will just reiterate his final, main point and question, because it is so important. Can the Minister assure the House that, in addition to risk assessment, the responsibility for risk management will lie with the FSA, independent of ministerial interference?

The potential shortage of veterinary staff has again been mentioned by several noble Lords. It has been the subject of Defra’s veterinary capabilities and capacity project. Has this project reported to the Government? If not, when might that report be available?

The potential opportunities to enhance biosecurity post Brexit are several and significant. There are real and present animal health risks in continental Europe, and we now have an opportunity to introduce a uniform and tailor-made biosecurity system for the UK. I join the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, in mentioning African swine fever, which can affect not only domestic pigs but, significantly, wild boar, and which has been spreading westwards in wild boar in Europe as far as Belgium, with associated outbreaks in domestic swine. Denmark is currently building a fence across its land border with Germany to control the movement of wild boar. The incursion of African swine fever into the UK would be a devastation for our UK pig industry, and it would be extremely difficult to eradicate because of the potential wild animal reservoir of infection.

Regarding the movement of pet dogs, the pet travel scheme—PETS—has led to a huge increase in the movement of dogs into the UK from continental Europe: from 11,000 in 2000 to nearly 300,000 in 2017. Most disturbingly, criminals have exploited the system to illegally import large numbers of dogs for sale, contrary to the original concept of PETS. An unknown number of these animals may not have received proper rabies vaccination or medication to prevent tapeworm—both measures to safeguard public health. Through its investigations, the Dogs Trust has revealed the inadequate inspection and enforcement capabilities at our ports of entry. What plans do the Government have to tighten biosecurity and public health safeguards for the importation of dogs into the UK?

In conclusion, such is the magnitude of the economic damage that deficient biosecurity can inflict that there are strong arguments for adopting a “white list” of what is permitted in the way of importing living things and their products, in contrast to the “black list” of what is excluded. Whatever legal systems we have, it is essential that we strengthen enforcement at our borders. Finally, will the Government consider an in-depth report analysing the cost/benefit of different levels of biosecurity implementation, given the colossal cost of breaches in biosecurity?

REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, much of what I intended to say has already been said, and said very well. Nevertheless, I will add further testimony that reaffirms the comments of my committee colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

The experience of serving on the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee has highlighted a crisis in government that affects both politics and administration. Modern government is highly complex. Mundane matters of daily life and of trade are surrounded, as they must be, by regulations and legislation, and it can take a great intellectual effort to understand all the circumstances. Minor incremental changes to legislation can usually accommodated. If a small mistake is recognised, the matter can be amended. The changes proposed by the Brexit agenda are of a very different order. In this connection, Ministers and their civil servants have often had only a tenuous grasp of the matters at hand, and they have sometimes demonstrated before our committee an astonishing oversight.

The EU REACH regulations have proved to be a case in point. Here, we face some of the perplexities and absurdities of the Brexit agenda. It has been unclear whether under any circumstances the UK could continue after Brexit to remain a member of the REACH organisation, albeit that this has never been clear until recently.

The initial proposal put to our committee by the Minister in charge, who was flanked by a Civil Service adviser, was that the establishment of a UK REACH system—or a “BREACH” system, as we have heard it called—could be achieved easily by cutting and pasting the contents of the REACH database, which is owned by the European Chemicals Agency, into our own national database. It was pointed out to them that this was not generally possible. The information in the REACH database is also owned by commercial enterprises that have contributed to it. Some of it is subject to commercial secrecy. The data would have to be acquired via negotiations. Moreover, given that the data is often subject to joint ownership, such negotiations would be difficult and protracted.

In effect, the ambition of the Brexit agenda has been to acquire the fruits of a co-operative enterprise without having to co-operate with others. It has become clear that, in order to remain in business, UK companies will have to transfer their registrations to European Union-based companies, or parties, at least. They will have to bear the cost of registering with both the UK and the European Union. Moreover, unless they already have a presence in the European Union—other than in the UK—they will be depending for such registrations on the good will of rival enterprises. This is hardly a case of regaining national control.

The preponderance of the output of our chemical industry is exported. Some 61% of our chemical exports went to the European Union in 2017, and 73% of our chemical imports came from the European Union. If the Brexit agenda is fulfilled, we shall be looking at the likely demise of a significant British industry.

The chairman of our committee wrote to the Minister expressing our anxiety at the lack of preparation for these eventualities. In reply, the Minister told us that there has recently been a flurry of activity aimed at alerting industry to the need to prepare for Brexit. It is difficult to measure the extent of these activities, but it is clear that Defra has had other things on its mind.

This brings us back to a point that has already been made. The Conservative Party is in favour of small government and light-touch regulation, yet it has proposed changes far beyond the capacity of politicians and civil servants to accommodate. Its maladministration of the nation’s affairs amounts to an utter dereliction of duty.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and will address the issue of animal testing, which has already been referred to by several noble Lords.

The amendment calls on Her Majesty’s Government to seek continued participation in REACH as a priority in negotiations with the EU. This is particularly important with respect to the use of animals for the safety assessment of chemicals. As was referred to earlier, animal welfare is of great concern to the public, but I believe that the vast majority understand the need, under strict regulation, to use some animals to ensure human safety.

However, all interested parties—the public, the scientists involved and the welfare organisations—expect observance of what are called the three Rs in experimentation. That is, to refine, to replace and to reduce the number of animals used. That concept has been pioneered in the United Kingdom. The REACH guidelines explicitly require minimal use of animals, and permit it only after all other alternatives are exhausted. Most importantly, having a single registration and regulatory portal for the EU avoids any repetition of animal testing.

The instrument under debate today will require an independent UK chemical regulatory process centred on the HSE and the Environment Agency. Notwithstanding the terrific logistical challenges that that presents, which have been well articulated by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Fox, this is essential in the event of no deal, and indeed in the event that the EU will not accept the UK’s continued participation in REACH. I should point out that, to date, no third-party membership has been admitted to the REACH system.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, will he reassure us that the UK systems replacing REACH will harmonise with it as much as possible and will take all measures to avoid the need to generate separate data for registration? The Minister has told us that current registrations will continue to be accepted, but that all UK registrants will have to resubmit their registration dossier to the UK competent authorities within two years. So will the current animal safety testing data be accepted at that time without the need for further testing? Conversely, for UK firms importing products from the EEA that are currently registered by an EU member state, will the existing data for animal testing suffice when they are required to register within two years of Brexit?

Bearing in mind the problems of intellectual property, what assessment has Defra made of the problem of intellectual property and the ownership of data in the context of its transferability? Finally on future registrations of new products, will Her Majesty’s Government negotiate with the EU the mutual recognition of animal testing data so as to avoid the need to duplicate animal testing, whether for EU registrants to export to the UK or for UK registrants to export to the EU?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for setting out in such detail the issues around the statutory instrument. I also thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials for the briefing that we had at the beginning of the month.

I have read the Explanatory Memorandum three times and each time I have become more concerned. I have dealt with a number of SIs during this exit process, but the EM on REACH is the longest I have dealt with. It is an extremely complex subject. The stated purpose of the SI is to correct deficiencies in retained EU law. I remain unconvinced that this will happen.