Circuses: Wild Animals

Lord Trees Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, there is of course legislation, and under the requirements of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act the primary focus is public safety, but clearly, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 absolutely applies. We are absolutely clear that it is not appropriate at all for primates to be kept as pets.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I was going to ask about primates myself. Both the BVA and well-respected animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA all agree that primates are totally unsuitable to be kept as pets; they are highly social, highly intelligent animals and many welfare problems arise when they are kept in captivity as pets. Will the Government consider taking stronger action to remedy this serious welfare issue?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I will certainly take back what your Lordships have said, but it is absolutely clear that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. This is backed up by a code of practice, and no one should keep a primate in solitary conditions, as the noble Lord has said, keep it in a small cage or feed it with an inappropriate diet. In other words, I repeat: primates should not be kept as pets.

Brexit: Fisheries (EUC Report)

Lord Trees Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent chairmanship of our committee and this report. I echo the thanks of several noble Lords to our clerk and policy analysts for a fantastic job in pulling together a huge amount of evidence, analysing it and writing it up in a very digestible form. They are at the minute doing something like a PhD thesis every three or four weeks and are to be much commended for their efforts.

In 1833, William Forster Lloyd, an economist, wrote an essay in which he used the example of the unregulated grazing of common land to describe a situation where individuals acting out of self-interest in exploiting a common resource will tend to deplete that resource contrary to the common good. This “tragedy of the commons” has been mentioned by several noble Lords already, though it was more than a century later, in 1968, that the concept became widely known following a much-cited publication by the ecologist, Garrett Hardin.

Apart from economic situations, the concept applies to many biological, environmental and ecological situations and is especially relevant to fisheries. Indeed, it is even more complex for fisheries than Lloyd’s example of a piece of grazing land that is geographically fixed. In the seas, fish are not only a resource potentially accessible to many but they move around and migrate, spawning in one area and perhaps growing and feeding in another. Although post-Brexit we will have control of our exclusive economic zone, fish do not and will not respect such boundaries.

Others in the debate have already discussed this issue and many like it that must be considered in negotiating with the EU 27. However, the tragedy of the commons also applies to how, within the UK, we will manage our EEZ among the devolved nations. A coherent plan of how, post-Brexit, we want to manage our fisheries within UK waters is an essential prerequisite to how we approach our external negotiations. The fishing industry has particular and significant social and economic importance for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in different ways and in different parts of each of those countries. The economic importance of fishing to rural and coastal communities in particular is much greater than its overall contribution to UK GDP suggests. The particular needs and concerns of the devolved Administrations are important.

Several of our witnesses emphasised that Brexit provides an opportunity to design a UK-based fisheries policy better suited to UK needs. As Fishing for Leave argued, the UK could,

“implement a decent, fit for purpose management policy for the benefit of the whole UK industry ... and the coastal communities that depend upon it”.

This is a great opportunity, but equally our evidence indicated the variable priorities of the devolved nations. The importance of resolving and agreeing within and between ourselves what in toto best suits the component parts of the UK was accepted by our witnesses. Mr Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation told us that the size of the UK EEZ,

“creates a critical mass that gives ... a very powerful negotiating position, which we would wish to retain and not have diluted by any—what you might call arm wrestling north and south”.

It is thus regrettable that, quite recently, following the latest quota negotiations in Brussels, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which represents fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has been publically critical of our Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, for what they regard as an unfair quota concession in favour of Scotland, to the disadvantage of the Humberside-based Fish Producers’ Organisation.

I am not competent, nor is it my role, to comment on the rights or wrongs of that particular issue, but I suggest that washing our proverbial dirty domestic linen in front of the EU is not likely to be to our collective advantage. As John Donne famously said, “no man is an island”. Ironically we are an island kingdom, but in the forthcoming negotiations we will still need to recognise the relationships with neighbouring states both within and outwith the EU, and with the adjacent parts of the UK. One hopes that before negotiations get serious, we will have worked out an optimal plan among all parts of the UK for how we are sustainably to manage the fisheries within our UK EEZ for the collective and long-term benefit of all the UK. Finally, what mechanisms have been set up to ensure that all the devolved nations have adequate input into formulating a UK negotiating position, a position that, by inclusivity, they can all support?

Animal Welfare: Penalties

Lord Trees Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, obviously I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness. Some of the examples of animal cruelty cases are, frankly, beyond belief, and that is why I am very pleased that the independent Sentencing Council aims to ensure that the most serious cases of animal cruelty could receive longer sentences within the maximum six months’ imprisonment. The council is currently considering the consultation responses, and will draft the definitive guideline with publication due later this year.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, while it is important that we increase sanctions for animal welfare offences, sanctions are but nothing without enforcement. At the minute, there is no statutory requirement for local authorities or the police to enforce animal welfare legislation. Have the Government any plans to introduce such a statutory requirement?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, there are no current plans, but imprisonment is not the only penalty, and I think that is important. The increase to an unlimited fine, community service orders and orders disqualifying people from ownership of dogs and animals for life are among the range of penalties, which I think are also very important if we are to address this matter.

Equine Welfare Standards

Lord Trees Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for bringing forward this debate. Animal welfare is of great concern to the British people and it is very appropriate that we give it due regard in this House. In considering this topic, I begin with a general observation; the longer I am in this House, the more I realise that, for many issues—not all, of course—the problems relate not so much to a lack of legislation but rather to a failure to communicate, apply and above all enforce existing legislation. This is particularly pertinent to this topic, which is why I begin by making the point, and why I will reiterate it later.

Time prevents me going into great detail on specific welfare issues, and these have been prioritised in a commendable recent report by the University of Bristol veterinary school. Suffice it to say that there are in-life issues and there are end-of-life issues. Many in-life welfare problems arise because of the inadequate management of horses. Some of these can be addressed by more education and information, but many, particularly those which arise because of inattention to care and which may partly reflect the relatively low cash value of horses, to which there has been reference already, require detection, intervention and the enforcement of current laws such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is an excellent piece of legislation.

There are also issues concerning end of life and humane slaughter. While horses in the UK are not regarded as food animals, thousands are slaughtered each year to provide meat exported for human consumption. The ability of horses to enter this trade enhances their value at the end of life. Sadly, however, covert videos have shown how brutally some horses may be treated at slaughter. This could be addressed by mandatory CCTV in all equine slaughterhouses—and access to that recorded material by independent authorities. Confidence on the part of owners that their horses will be humanely slaughtered, and access to what is an affordable means of euthanasia, would do much to improve equine welfare.

At all life-cycle stages, accurate horse identification is key to enabling adequate monitoring of welfare. Although the microchipping of horses has been a legal requirement since 2009, there is still no single national database for microchipped horses here in the UK, although a new European regulation was introduced at the beginning of last year which requires that. We urgently need legislation implementing the EU requirements.

In summary, will the Government consider making CCTV mandatory in equine slaughterhouses? With respect to microchipping, when will a single database be in place and will the Government consider requiring the microchipping of all horses, including those born before 2009? Finally, will the Government consider making it a statutory responsibility of local authorities and the police to enforce the existing Animal Welfare Act 2006 and provide the resources to enable this? These are all modest and achievable aims, which are the least we should provide to safeguard the welfare of one of Britain’s most cherished animals.

Agricultural Sector (EUC Report)

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate led by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I would like to acknowledge her leadership of the committee, on which I have been privileged to serve, and her leadership of this inquiry. As a new boy coming to this House, it was my first committee and she has certainly taught me how to chair a committee.

Farming is and always has been a challenging business, but the industry has been under particular pressure in recent times. This debate is not about Brexit—noble Lords may be grateful for that—and it is probably true to say that, while Brexit may focus and accelerate changes in farming, a major evolution of the industry is inevitable and would have to happen anyway.

In the EU Committee report, in which I participated, the challenges of agricultural economics divide into two issues: what I think of as macro issues, which are beyond the control of individual farmers, and micro issues, over which farmers have some control. With respect to the former, our report highlighted a number of major issues. These include, among others, politically motivated policies such as the recent sanctions against Russia, which impact international markets and adversely affect market opportunities; adverse weather events; and changes in international demand, for example the reduced demand in China for milk and milk powder. In these instances there are good reasons for Governments to intervene and introduce mitigation measures. Immediate aid may be occasionally justified—for instance, the recent EU package of €1 billion in two tranches in 2015-16, particularly for the dairy sector, which was very welcome. But, as our report recommends, they are justified only in certain situations.

There are, however, more structural measures that can be introduced to aid farmers to cope with price volatility. Tax averaging, which was announced in the 2015 Budget, is a welcome means of smoothing the adverse year-on-year fluctuations in the profitability of farming enterprises. Another measure, not yet available but which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and which was highlighted in the committee’s report, is the creation of public investment deposit schemes. This is a financial measure to allow farmers to bank profits in good years, earn interest and then withdraw funds in bad years to top up income. This seems a very fair and reasonable mechanism and has, for example, been introduced in New Zealand as the income equalisation scheme and in Australia as farm management deposits. Have Her Majesty’s Government seriously considered the possibility of introducing this type of scheme here?

Certainly the biggest cushion against price volatility are the direct farm payments paid under CAP. In England, the Farm Business Survey indicated that in 2014-15, 56% of farm income was derived from direct payments under CAP. Let me make it clear that I have huge respect and admiration for the hard work and commitment of our farmers, but, as has already been said, this degree of subsidy and the reasons for which it is given are increasingly difficult to justify. It is likely that the scale and nature of this support will change post-2020 and that other solutions for coping with price volatility will be essential.

Turning to the micro issues over which farmers have some control, it was clear from our inquiries that the economic efficiency of farms in the UK is highly variable. We also heard evidence that price volatility is no bigger a problem now than it was historically; rather, the major problem recently has been sustained low prices, as the noble Baroness said. The costs of production vary substantially between enterprises, which means that the more competitive can withstand lower prices while others struggle. It was even suggested to us that the levels of subsidy have not been helpful in incentivising innovation and increases in efficiency. One notes, for example, that total factor productivity in agriculture in the United Kingdom has risen markedly more slowly over the past 20 years than in other comparable countries, including some within and others outwith the EU.

Key measures to enable greater efficiency have already been mentioned by other noble Lords. They include increased advice and information with respect to both the technical and business aspects of farming, greater communication of exemplars of best practice and the benchmarking of key parameters such as costs of production. Some of these can be achieved by farmers operating co-operatively, although we heard that on occasion there was some reluctance to share commercial data—which may be understandable but is self-defeating. Some of this knowledge transfer is achieved through national systems and consultancy services, but, where farmers have to pay for services, their uptake may be less than optimum. The example of Menter a Busnes in Wales is impressive and I note that generally the organisation does not charge farmers for its advice; it is funded by winning competitive tenders from the Welsh Government or the EU.

Notwithstanding measures to increase competitiveness, it is a sad reality that some enterprises will cease to be viable, as indeed has already happened. The chill wind of economic pressure will surely blow even harder in the coming years, but it is incumbent on us to mitigate the social consequences of that while moving to a more sustainable industry. In that respect, what are the Government doing to enable those farmers who wish to leave farming to do so with dignity and with appropriate support which recognises their profound historical contribution to our country?

Farming support from the taxpayer will increasingly move to support the important provision of other public goods, as has been referred to by several noble Lords. This will justifiably recognise and reward the crucial role of farming in the stewardship of our countryside as well as buttressing the rural economy. But we also should not lose sight of the critical role of farming in producing food of quality to high environmental and animal welfare standards. Research and the application of research into such things as GMO, improved animal health and precision farming, among other things, offer great opportunities to maintain or increase food production while freeing up land for other public good purposes.

Our food is incredibly cheap and we need to recognise that and value it more. We waste obscene amounts of food in the home—as an earlier speaker mentioned—with a report by WRAP estimating that by weight some 70% of UK post-farm gate food waste is produced by households. In the pursuit of even cheaper food it is tempting to rely increasingly on imports, but in doing that there is a risk of simply exporting poor environmental care, bad animal welfare and exploitative wages, as well as increasing political vulnerability. While we will never be self-sufficient in food, I maintain that it is strategically and economically important that we produce as much of the food we need as possible in a sustainable way, balancing the competing needs for land. That is not only good for food security but enables us to control all aspects of how our food is produced. To this end we need a dynamic, innovative and above all competitive farming industry. I am sure that we have the farmers who can deliver that and meet the challenges ahead.

Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015

Lord Trees Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I have some general points to make and also some rather specific ones. I make it clear from the beginning as a veterinary surgeon that I very much welcome this legislation. It is a very progressive step and one that we have needed for a long time. I think I can say unreservedly that the entire veterinary world supports the proposals. As the Minister said, it will benefit animal welfare and assuage public concern by aiding the identification of strays and reuniting them with their owners. It will contribute to addressing the problem of dangerous dogs, provided that their owners have had the dogs microchipped. In addition, reducing the problem of strays will save a lot of money for local authorities and charities.

Having made those positive comments, it is important to stress that this measure of itself will not at a stroke solve all the issues that occasionally surround dogs. Alone, it will not prevent dangerous dogs attacking people or the exploitation of breeding bitches, because the breeding history of bitches, for example, is not required to be recorded on the database of the microchip. I referred to that in an earlier debate in Grand Committee on the Deregulation Bill in November. Nor will it solve all the problems associated with the illegal importation of dogs. It is an extremely valuable tool in addressing these problems but it is not the definitive solution. Key to making it part of that solution is enforcement of these regulations. I urge the Government to consider very carefully and thoroughly all means to facilitate and enable their enforcement.

I have a number of technical and specific points, which I will go through quickly in the interests of time. I would appreciate a response to some of the more important ones but I am happy to receive a response in writing if that is appropriate.

First, the term “authorised person” is used in two different contexts in the regulations and I think that they should perhaps be differentiated. In Regulation 11 it is used in the context of those enforcing the regulations, whereas in Regulation 6 it is used in reference to persons reading the microchips and interrogating the database, which could include vets and others. Do these latter groups need to be authorised by a local authority or the Secretary of State? This seems unnecessary. Moreover—this is a very important point that concerns the veterinary profession—veterinary surgeons do not want to be put in the position of being enforcers of these regulations. Not only would this make client relations very difficult but it would have a negative consequence for animal welfare if people were reluctant to take their animals to veterinary surgeons.

Secondly, in Regulations 4, 16 and 17—this is a small technical point—the term “transponder” is used in a way which clearly refers to the microchip reader. I understand that the reader is technically a transceiver, whereas the transponder is part of the microchip. Perhaps those regulations need to be reworded to be clear.

Thirdly, and this is of some significance, the site of implantation is not referred to in the regulations. However, microchip readers have a relatively small sensitivity range of a few centimetres. There are ISO-defined standard sites of implantation that are internationally recognised, and in the UK we all use as convention a single site of implantation on the dog in the midline of the back between the scapulae—the shoulder blades—so perhaps the site of implantation should be defined in regulations.

Fourthly, with respect to Regulation 5, “Details to be recorded”, should there be provision to add the details of the dam which would ultimately help enforce the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999?

Fifthly, regarding Regulation 8, “Change of keeper”, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, I was a bit puzzled. While Regulation 8(1) refers to the fact that,

“the new keeper must, unless the previous keeper has already done so”,

change the record and so on. Not to do so is not an offence. The offence is committed by the former keeper if they have not had a microchip inserted. Perhaps there needs to be more clarity here as there will be confusion in the minds of the public in dog areas about who is responsible and what penalties might follow if they do or do not do certain things.

Sixthly, regarding Regulation 9, “Implanting of microchips”, the term “veterinary nurse” is used alongside “veterinary surgeon”. “Veterinary surgeon” is a legally and professionally protected term while “veterinary nurse” is not. It is used here in a context suggesting that these are both specifically professionally protected terms. However, given that a new charter is to be granted to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, probably in February, which will place all professionally accredited veterinary nurses on the register of veterinary nurses and the term “registered veterinary nurse” is a protected title, perhaps the word “registered” should be prefixed to “veterinary nurse” in this context.

Seventhly, Regulation 9(1)(c) and (d) deal with qualified persons other than veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses implanting microchips. There is no objection in principle to such other suitably qualified people implanting microchips. Problems with incorrect implantation appear to be rare, although to be honest we have not had formal reporting systems in place for a few years. However, cases are recorded of serious effects from incorrect implantation leading to, for example, paraplegia. The requirement in Regulation 9(1)(c) for training on a course approved by the Secretary of State appears to be a very prudent and sensible measure which I welcome.

Regulation 10, “Adverse reactions”, includes a requirement in paragraph (2)(b) to notify the Secretary of State of migration of a microchip from the site of implantation. We are constantly in this House quite rightly concerned not to overburden people with regulation. I wonder if this regulation is necessary. Migration of microchips happens on occasion. It does not reflect incorrect implantation, nor is it likely to be of any health consequence to the animal. It is implied in the regulations that the chip has been found and read, so why should it be a requirement? It is an offence punishable by a fine not to report that to the Secretary of State?

Finally, there are a number of questions around databases, which have been in part referred to by the noble Baroness opposite and were brought to the attention of the Minister by the Microchipping Alliance and others. One important point that might bear repetition is that, given the number of databases that exist, the tracing of an animal would be facilitated if there were a single portal of entry for inquiries that could then be distributed to the relevant databases. In conclusion, I warmly welcome these regulations and strongly support them, but ask that the Minister and the department consider some of the points I have raised.

Milk Production

Lord Trees Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there is a strong case for extensive farming. We see it in this country and some farmers are practising it very profitably. It depends to a large extent on the part of the country—on the rainfall, the quality of the grass and so forth. As I have said before, we think that there is a place for various different types of farming.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the voluntary codes by Tesco and so forth referred to earlier, which are to be commended, they apply only to a minority of dairy farmers. Is there not a case for extending the Groceries Code to primary producers of such vital products as milk? Most dairy farms are not protected under the code because they do not directly supply retailers; they supply processors.

[Lord De Mauley]

I have considered that point carefully, my Lords. The scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is based on a report from the Competition Commission, which found that the most significant problems in the area were experienced by direct suppliers to the UK’s 10 largest supermarkets. As a result, the Competition Commission recommended the creation of the GCA and limited its jurisdiction to the relationships between those 10 largest supermarkets and their direct suppliers. Any change to that would require primary legislation. It is a little premature to take the next step, because there is a mechanism in place for conducting a review and the first one of those is set for 31 March 2016.

EU: Counting the Cost of Food Waste (EUC Report)

Lord Trees Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. I am a member of the committee now, but I was not at the time the report was produced. I feel very strongly about the subject. As someone who had a Yorkshire father and a Scottish mother, the idea of using precious resources sensibly, which we used to call thrift, is in my genes. The fact that I was not a member of the committee when it produced the report also allows me to praise it as a valuable and timely analysis of an important subject.

With a rapidly expanding global population and evolving demands for a more varied diet, we cannot afford the profligacy of waste at the scale emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her introduction. To reduce waste by, say, 10% is equivalent to increasing the production of food by 10%. I suggest that it would be a lot easier to do that. Reducing waste is, to use an appropriate metaphor, “the low hanging fruit” that will help to address the global food supply issues that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned earlier.

As the introduction to our EU report says, in the EU, some 89 million tonnes of all food produced each year never reaches the human stomach. It is not surprising that other responsible bodies have also been concerned with this. I acknowledge the report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, entitled Global Food, Waste not, Want not, published in 2013. It identified three broad types of emerging societies: fully developed, post-industrial societies with stable or declining populations, such as in Europe; late-stage developing societies currently industrialising rapidly, such as China; and newly developing nations, at an early stage in industrialisation and high population growth, such as a number of states in Africa. The report also observed, interestingly, that there is a relationship between the socioeconomic status of a country and the proportion of food waste which occurs in different stages of the food supply chain. In short, as countries develop and better control losses in the primary production stages, a higher proportion of waste occurs further along the progress of food from farm to fork. Thus, in Europe, the highest proportion of food waste—as highlighted in our report—occurs in the household. Some 42% of all food waste occurs in the household. Not surprisingly, if we look at UK statistics, the proportion is, by coincidence, exactly the same—42%.

This is a shocking statistic and I want to concentrate on this aspect—waste in the home. What is particularly worrying, as has been alluded to earlier, is that the waste involves not just the tonnage of food discarded—some 7 million tonnes of food and drink in the UK each year. It is axiomatic that, because the food is wasted at the end of the supply chain, not only is the food per se wasted, but all the resources that went into processing, transporting, packaging, distributing and retailing are also wasted.

To look at it in another way, in the UK, where there is huge competition for land use in the finite space of these isles, if we eliminated the current level of all food waste, we could have available as much as another 2 million hectares of land for other vital purposes. This is 11.6% of the total utilised agricultural area currently in the UK. Incidentally, this is an area equivalent to—I have not made this up—the area of Wales.

So what can be done about this? The great opportunity about household waste is that fairly simple and cheap measures can help hugely. We do not need laws or regulation. Information, education and a few technical aids could help enormously, together with publicising the real economic benefits to the consumer. Collectively, these initiatives could provide the incentive for a modification in behaviour.

On the economics of this issue, in 2012 the average household with children could save almost £60 a month—equivalent to £700 a year—through efficient use of the food available in our shops and supermarkets. I appreciate that modern life is hectic and that families tend to eat together less and in a less planned way, but a key to avoiding food wastage in the household, I suggest, is planning meals and menu planning. There are other benefits in promoting family eating—for health and social cohesion as well as reducing waste.

I enjoy cooking and I do quite a lot of our household cooking when I am at home, although I do not think that I will be doing any tonight when I get home at about 11.30. It is quite relaxing, but the really irksome bit—as I am sure those of your Lordships who are responsible for putting food on the table agree—is the menu planning. The question is always, “What are we going to eat next week?”. So often, we buy food in the shops that we fancy and then we try to provide meals throughout the week with what is in the fridge. However, we all know that that can lead to a lot of waste.

I am not a techie but what I would love is an app that carries a database to which I can add all my favourite menus and all the attendant recipes. I could use it to choose menus for a week ahead. However, what I would really like the app to do is, at the press of a button, combine all the recipes and give me the shopping list of everything that I need for that week: the potatoes, the fresh cream and so on. In fact, I have discovered that the UK Waste and Resources Action Programme, or WRAP, which has been referred to a great deal during the debate, has developed just such an app called Love Food Hate Waste. I have only just learnt that through studying our report and preparing for this speech. It is a great and underused tool which, I suggest, deserves to be publicised and promoted widely.

In concluding, I should like to ask the Minister what other measures by way of public information, education and encouragement the Government have in progress to promote menu planning in our society. Such measures could provide a low-cost, easily deliverable means of achieving a substantial reduction in the appalling level of household food waste. Let us do all we can to help people to eat better, and to save time, save money and save waste.

Rural Economy

Lord Trees Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for initiating this debate. I suggest that the rural economy is not just important but crucial to the well-being of the nation. A vibrant rural economy sustains our countryside, which in turn nourishes us spiritually—as an outdoorsman, a mountaineer and naturalist I value that hugely—and nourishes us literally. It is food, livestock production in particular, that I want to concentrate on today. After all, the production value of the livestock industry in the UK in 2013 was more than £12 billion.

We take food too much for granted. That is hardly surprising when one walks into a supermarket and sees the shelves groaning under the weight of food. But it was not, of course, always thus. Like many in this Chamber, I grew up, for the first few years of my life, with food rationing. Yet by the 1990s, the political view was that feeding the nation was not an issue. We lived in a settled world with global free trade and in a wealthy country, so we could buy whatever we wanted. If Polish milk could be bought cheaper than British milk, so be it. That was a complacent view then and is certainly a complacent view now. Thankfully, there has been a welcome political change and it was perhaps Hilary Benn who first signalled this at the Oxford Farming Conference in 2009, when he said:

“I want British agriculture to produce as much food as possible. No ifs. No buts”.

The current Secretary of State has said similar things.

What has happened to cause this change? Globally, we realise that this is not quite such a settled and peaceful world. Currently, when we think of Ukraine and Russia, we think of gas, but we should also think of wheat. If Ukraine implodes and Russia restricts wheat exports, as indeed it did in 2010, we will still be able to get wheat but the price will rise considerably. Political unrest means shortages, price increases and the potential for food to be used as a weapon.

Globally, more land is being used to produce biofuels. In fact, more than half the sugar cane in Brazil is now grown to produce ethanol. Climate change affects our global ability to produce food and rightly causes us to question the carbon costs of international freight. On top of all these factors looms the sword of Damocles of population growth—set to reach more than 9 billion by 2050. That is compounded by the rapid and dramatic change in the dietary habits of the fastest-growing populations, namely those in Asia. In 2000, the World Bank estimated that world demand for meat would rise by 85% by 2030.

All these factors amount to increasing competition for food resources, so food security has become an important issue. It is not the same as self-sufficiency, but a reasonable degree of self-sufficiency provides political and economic security, control over our animal welfare standards and a measure of biosecurity in that the less we import the less likely it is that we will import something undesirable. However, what has happened in the UK in the past two decades is that self-sufficiency—meaning food products that we can produce here—has declined from approximately 87% in 1995 to around 76% now. I suggest that this is dropping to an undesirable level. With increasing competition for land use in the UK, we need to maximise our food production at the same time as minimising pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. That in turn requires investment in farming technology and livestock health. The recent government agri-tech strategy is a welcome initiative but the first-round bids amounted to more than six times the funding on offer.

Investment in livestock health can not only increase productivity but also markedly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, one particular condition of dairy cows causes up to a 24% increase in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of milk produced. The greenhouse gas emissions produced by lambs growing to market weight can be reduced by 10% if gastroenteric worms are properly controlled. As well as primary research, we need translational research to deliver to farmers the benefits of more basic research.

Finally, as others have said, these measures need to be supported by investment in rural communications, both digital and physical. Coupled with this, we need to ensure investment in the rural provision of veterinary services and surveillance. Rural veterinary practices face a challenging economic environment. They are significant rural SMEs and deliver vital healthcare to improve livestock productivity, ensure animal welfare and provide front-line surveillance for highly infectious and perhaps exotic disease. The government veterinary surveillance system is currently undergoing major restructuring and serious concerns about this have been raised with respect to animal and public health by the Royal College of Pathologists among others. It is essential that any changes ensure that we maintain and strengthen our disease surveillance capacity.

I remain optimistic, however. We have a resilient farming community and a dynamic and entrepreneurial veterinary profession. However, the ability to continue to contribute substantially to the provision of nutritious and affordable—that is an important word—food to the nation will crucially depend on a recognition of the importance of this national industry with concomitant private and public investment and, I suggest, some co-ordinated, long-term and strategic planning of land use.

Badgers: Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Trees Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for bringing this subject forward for debate. I want to try to look at the problem rather holistically, which is a challenge in under 10 minutes, but I will try. Let us be under no illusions: bovine tuberculosis is a major threat to the health of domestic animals and wildlife in Britain today. This is a disease that was almost eradicated from Britain 40 to 50 years ago by means, directed at cattle, that were essentially the same as those we use now—TB testing of cattle and the removal of reactors, although a good many other measures have been put in place that mean that the controls on cattle are even tighter than they were then. A key factor that has changed in the past few decades is the emergence of badgers as a major wildlife reservoir of this infection. There is epidemiological evidence that something like 50% of outbreaks in cattle are related to badger infections.

We are faced now with a problem of infection in badgers and in cattle on a substantial and increasing scale. If I could show the Committee maps of the spread of the infection, noble Lords would see that there has been a relentless spread in the geographical distribution of bovine infection from the original hotspot in the south-west of England, when it was nearly eradicated, to the current situation where bovine TB is threatening the dense cattle populations of Cheshire and Lancashire.

Although there is an understandable focus on the adverse impact on cattle and badger health and welfare, we should not forget that there is another victim of this disease—the cattle farmer who suffers huge stress and distress every time their herd is tested and animals are removed from the herds that they have built up over many years. We do not concern ourselves enough with the human toll that this disease is having. It is a fact that the suicide rate in farmers is the highest of any professional group. Although one certainly cannot claim that this is all due to TB, the fact is that an already vulnerable group of people is being subjected to excessive anxiety and uncertainty. That is the situation that we are facing. When the average city dweller pours their milk over their cornflakes each morning, they may not understand the hard work, worry and commitment that go into producing that daily milk.

What are the options to deal with this disease? Ideally, an effective vaccine for cattle is the solution but for various reasons, which have been made clear most recently by a letter from the EU Commissioner Tonio Borg, it is likely to be some 10 years before a vaccine is accepted and licensed in the EU to be deployed in the UK. Experience shows that in the absence of a vaccine for the target domestic species—in this case, cattle—and where there is a wildlife reservoir of infection, control measures need to address the wildlife reservoir as well as the domestic animal. In the case of bovine TB, there is a wildlife host, the badger, that is present in very high numbers—10 to 15 setts on a farm is not unusual—is in close direct and indirect contact with cattle on grazing areas, in forage crops such as maize and indeed in farm buildings, has no natural predators and is excreting substantial amounts of Mycobacterium bovis into the environment. In this situation, and in the absence of a cattle vaccine, measures directed at the wildlife host, as noble Lords who spoke earlier accepted, are essential as well as stringent measures directed towards cattle.

What are the options vis-à-vis badgers? As your Lordships are aware and as has been mentioned, a vaccine for badgers is licensed for use by injection. It has various limitations, including the fact that a high coverage of the population is necessary to reduce infection and transmission. Something over 40% has been suggested, which is feasible but difficult in a wild animal population compared with a controlled domestic animal population. Animals that are already infected will not be stopped by vaccination from excreting bacteria, and susceptible young animals are constantly being born into the population. Moreover, the animals have to be cage-trapped and restrained to allow injection—itself a stressful procedure for a wild animal. This is one rational approach, and it was advocated by noble Lords who spoke earlier, but it has to be said that the effect on bovine TB incidence is unproven. It is also a very costly measure, as things stand. The current vaccination trial in Wales, which has completed two years, shows that it costs more than £600 to vaccinate each badger. With a population of probably 250,000 to 300,000 badgers in Britain, you need only do the mathematics to determine the cost of vaccinating at least even a proportion of that population.

Still, if interested parties could work together effectively and economically to deliver a vaccine, that would be hugely helpful and doubtless the cost could be reduced. It would require a co-ordinated approach by many different groups, including those working in conservation. In that context, the Welsh Government have offered grant support to private groups to subsidise the cost of vaccination by 50%, and certain conservation groups are seriously considering that option. It is regrettable, however, that so far neither the RSPCA nor the Badger Trust has taken up the invitation to commit funds to achieve badger vaccination.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he help the Committee by telling us at what age young badgers catch TB and at what age they can be vaccinated?

[Lord Trees]

I am not sure whether the data are available but they may be. I am sorry that I cannot answer the question; I would hate to do so without preparation.

The dynamics of infectious disease in general show that reducing the density of the population will reduce infection transmission. This does not require the complete elimination of a population—far from it. However, if the population density is lowered so that the rate at which a primary infection creates secondary infections falls below 1, the so-called parameter R₀—the reproductive rate—the infection will subside. We know that in a number of areas the R₀ for bovine TB is only fractionally greater than 1; in fact, estimates range between 1 and 1.2. Reducing that to less than 1 may be achievable with modest reductions in the badger population.

The use of contraception is a possibility to reduce badger-population density and would be a humane way of doing so, but research is at an early stage. I am told that it will be some years before we might have a deployable contraceptive method. As well as contributing to the control of bovine TB, a reduction in the badger population would benefit other species that appear to be adversely affected by predation by badgers, such as hedgehogs, ground-nesting birds and some rare species of bumblebee.

That brings me to culling. This has been used to reduce many wild animal populations, including badgers, in various circumstances. We currently cull deer, foxes, grey squirrels, seals, magpies and rodents, among others. No one likes killing animals—I certainly do not—but the majority of us accept that culling animals in certain circumstances is justified, provided always that it is done humanely. Members of this House are complicit in the extermination of rodents within these very walls.

If the culling of badgers can be done humanely and with a sound scientific basis, ruling it out at this stage as one of the tools in the control of bovine TB is premature. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has said, we need to see the report of the independent expert panel on the current trials to evaluate their humaneness and safety, and to understand why the culling rate was less than intended and what factors were responsible for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, a key meeting of experts in 2011 accepted that a reduction in TB incidence of around 16% could be achieved by culling badgers under certain circumstances, and that included allowing for the perturbation effect. One may think that 16% may not sound a huge amount, but if the infection rates from badger to badger, badgers to cattle and cattle to cattle can be reduced by just a relatively small amount so that the infection parameter R₀ can be tipped below 1, the disease will be driven to extinction, which is a goal that we all seek.