Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This is a potentially useful Bill, but my concern is that it does not specify exactly what is going to be done. In introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) referred repeatedly to the plight of Asian elephants. When the Government introduced their action plan for animal welfare in May 2021, they said:

“We will legislate to ban the advertising and offering for sale here of specific, unacceptable practices abroad.”

With the exception of the reference to Asian elephants, we do not know what those “specific, unacceptable practices abroad” are, the advertising of which will be banned under the Bill. There should be a lot more specificity on the face of the Bill.

At the moment, the Bill could cover any matter that is already illegal under UK legislation or legislation in the devolved Administrations. For example, on the basis of its current wording, it could outlaw the advertising or promotion of hunting wild animals abroad, essentially trying to give extraterritorial application to our hunting legislation. If that is the intention of the Bill, then that should be spelled out openly, instead of being hidden away in the Bill’s regulation-making powers.

My main point concerns an omission. The Bill is based on the Government’s commitment to improving animal welfare—who could be against that? However, there remains a gap in that programme: the prevalence of the use of non-stun slaughter for animals in this country. I declare an interest as my daughter is a vet. The British Veterinary Association and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, of which I think you are a patron, Mr Deputy Speaker, are at the forefront of trying to ensure that the non-stun method of slaughtering livestock is removed, or certainly mitigated, so that it is done only when there is strict evidence that it is necessary for religious purposes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Whatever private sympathies I may have with what the hon. Gentleman says, he has been in the House almost as long as I have, which is long enough to know that he has to talk about what is in the Bill and not what is not in it. He is stretching a point, if I may say so.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are both looking forward to celebrating, in June, the 40th anniversary of our first being elected to this House. Unlike me, you have been here continuously since then. Obviously, those missing years have impacted on my failure to follow the procedures today.

On Second Reading, one is entitled to look at things that are not included in the Bill. What I seek to find out from my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford is how this Bill will apply to what we know is already going on within our own country, where the non-stunned slaughter of animals can take place. It does not take place in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, but it does take place in England. Could this Bill create a situation where we would be able to outlaw the advertising of hunting trips abroad but we would not be able to take action if in Northern Ireland or Wales an attempt was made to ensure that the same rules for the slaughter of animals through not being stunned in advance were applied?

There is a potentially a big gap in this Bill and I hope that for that reason when it gets into Committee we will have a chance to look at these issues in more detail. I hope we will be able to find out a bit more about why the Government have said that they were going to act in relation to the non-stunned animals being slaughtered, and the fact that a large proportion of all halal meat is actually already pre-stunned but a lot of the non-stunned meat is going to places that are not part of the religious community. I look forward to being able to discuss those issues in Committee or on Report if this Bill gets its Second Reading, as I hope it does.

Crustacean Mortality in North-east England: Independent Expert Assessment

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I can honestly say that, sometimes, I find the response from the Opposition staggering. The hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a complete and utter misunderstanding of how science works, and from the Member who represents Cambridge, that is absolutely outrageous—he is trying to play politics with this disaster. It is a disaster. There is a shared desire across the House to find out what caused the die-off. It has been catastrophic to the industry.

We have had the best scientists in the world looking at it. We are blessed with some of the best expertise in the world in aqua science. Unfortunately, because of how science works, it is sometimes difficult to identify exactly what is the cause. It is possible to rule out what it is not, and that is what the expert panel has done. The independent panel concluded that pyridine or another toxic pollutant was “very unlikely” as a cause, as was any link to dredging in the freeport. Labour Members may want to play politics with that, but that does not do fishermen in the north-east any good. Rather than trying to score cheap political points, they should support those scientists and the work that they are doing to establish the facts.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The Labour party is perfectly entitled to its own opinions, but it is not entitled to its own facts, particularly scientific facts. Will the Minister thank the expert panel, who have pretty much ruled out dredging, and particularly capital dredging, which had not taken place for nine months before the mortality event occurred? Will he assure me that CEFAS will be the first agency to be mobilised should we see recurrences and that, if it can find crabs—perhaps there are some in the freezer from when it happened—more can be done to try to identify the pathogen, which obviously needs to be tracked down?

Agricultural Transition Plan

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, in addition to the written ministerial statement tabled today, I would like to make a statement updating the House on the next steps that we are taking to shake off the damaging legacy of the bureaucratic EU common agricultural policy for good.

We will learn from the past, and help farmers to build and maintain profitable and resilient businesses by spending public money in a way that helps us to secure the public good, so that they can continue to produce the food we need and help to improve the state of nature. That is the right and smart thing to do with public money, as we also develop the markets that will draw on finance from all sources. Today we are publishing detailed information about what we will pay for in our environmental land management schemes, and how farmers can get involved this year and beyond.

Having kicked off our sustainable farming incentive last summer starting with soil health, today we are adding six more ways that farmers can be paid to take action in 2023, from protecting and enhancing the hedgerows that make up a vital network of habitats across our farmed landscapes, to making sure that we tackle pests, protect crops and support wildlife, so that more farms of all shapes and sizes can make doing their bit for the environment part of their business plan. Each year, we will add offers to the SFI, with the full set in place by 2025, so that farmers can choose more options for their businesses. That is vital for producing food, tackling the causes and impacts of climate change, and helping nature to recover.

We are making it straightforward and simple to get involved. We know that farmers need to plan for the months and years ahead as early as possible, so today we are publishing information on the work we will be rewarding by 2025 through the sustainable farming incentive and countryside stewardship, and sharing information on the next round of landscape recovery projects. We remain as ambitious as ever, as we move ahead through our transition and work with farmers to design a much better way of doing things.

All that will help us to build the resilience of our communities and to meet our environmental targets on air, water and waste, as well as nature, land and sea, guided by our commitments to reach net zero by 2050 and halt the loss of species in our country by 2030. We are also tackling the polluters who stubbornly refuse to help and threaten to undermine everyone else’s hard work. Our aim is to back the frontrunners who can have the greatest impact and inspire others, as well as helping everyone to bring up their baseline and improve it year on year, harnessing the power of innovation and technology to help our farmers give nature a helping hand so that we focus on bringing their businesses into the future.

All the evidence we have, as well as plain common sense, tells us that making the shift towards a more sustainable, resilient food system is critical to feeding our growing population and meeting our commitments to halt the decline of nature by 2030 and reach net zero. That will fundamentally improve the lives of people across our country and around the world, and make sure that every generation has a better future. The UK will continue to lead the way. I am sure that the whole House will join me in recognising the vital importance of the solutions our fantastic farmers bring to the table. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, Daniel Zeichner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

We should be clear that we set out our plan to reduce basic payments over a seven-year period and we are trying to ensure that, as those basic payments come down, we increase the environmental payments at the same rate, so that we maintain the same budget. The hon. Lady is fair in her criticism that some of the schemes appeared to be too complex. We have listened to that, and the schemes we are announcing today are much more simplistic in their approach and much more flexible in their delivery. I encourage farmers in her constituency in Shropshire to take a new look. This is a new approach, which builds in flexibility, particularly for tenant farmers, to step in and out of the SFI, and I sincerely hope that her farmers will be able to benefit from the new schemes announced today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

As a farmer myself, I thank the Minister, following the taster that we had at the Oxford farming conference, for his further clarification of the way that agricultural transition will be delivered. We are now able to capitalise fully on the freedoms we have outside the European Union to tailor our agricultural policy not only to the needs and objectives of farmers, but to the objectives of taxpayers.

English agriculture is very diverse in land type, topography, altitude and size, with many smaller farms relying on the support they get from the taxpayer. Can the Minister reassure me that this support system will not only help those farmers who need to change the way they farm to make it more sustainable and ecologically diverse, but support those upland farmers in places such as the North Yorkshire moors who have been delivering for generations exactly the public good that we want them to deliver?

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point on behalf of her Ynys Môn constituents. I want to touch very briefly on each of these overarching areas.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Mr Hollobone, I have explained to you that unfortunately, I have to leave early; I wish I did not have to. Before my hon. Friend moves on, a few moments ago he said “including, but not exclusively”. On behalf of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which wholeheartedly supports the legislation, may I make it absolutely plain on the record that we do not see the Bill as a Christmas tree? There is no question of Conservative Members trying to amend it to include things that the Government do not want, so if that is a block to the Bill, it no longer needs to be.

[Elliot Colburn]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that the Minister has heard that representation loud and clear: if that is a block, I hope my right hon. Friend’s remarks have made clear that it should not be.

First, let me delve into live animal exports in a bit more detail. Live animals are exported to EU countries from the UK for breeding, fattening and slaughter. The concern from many is that during that process, animals undergo dehydration, starving and exhaustion and often end up as the victims of very cruel actions that are already illegal in the UK. Our departure from the European Union makes it possible to ban live animal exports. I am aware that there are mixed feelings about the proposals in the farming community, and I am sure that that has added to the delay. Concerns about the impacts that the ban could have on trade and business are, of course, valid, but I hope the Minister will be able to share some of the work his Department has done to address those concerns, and some of the mitigation measures that could be introduced to ensure we improve animal welfare while protecting businesses.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier); I reciprocate her kind remarks and endorse her comments about Chris and Lorraine Platt, Eduardo Gonçalves, Lynn Santer in Australia and many others who have espoused this cause. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on promoting this Bill, which chimes completely with the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring an end to imports from trophy hunting. It is a very good thing that it has Government support.

I will be brief. I find myself in the slightly peculiar situation of having to talk hypothetically, but were any Member on these Benches to seek to talk out the Bill, they would deserve all the public opprobrium that they received.

Let me address a couple of myths. It is a myth propagated by Safari Club International and its acolytes and subsidiaries that the proceeds of trophy hunting in some way play a part in conservation. They do not. The large sums of money—this is big business—goes into the pockets of corrupt people. Very little, if any, of the funds find their way into the pockets of the ordinary people of Africa, or indeed of any other country. We are talking about gratification of the most revolting kind, which I would compare with paedophilia. If someone is rich enough, they can go anywhere in the world and buy anything they want, and this is just another form of vile gratification.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said, the Bill does not seek to ban trophy hunting, because we have no power to do that. That is a matter for others to decide. We have to decide what it is appropriate to allow into the United Kingdom as the product of trophy hunting. That is all the Bill does.

We might hear arguments about the fact that herds of elephants in some parts of Africa are out of control, rampaging through villages, eating crops and killing babies. Elephants have to be managed in Africa, largely because man has destroyed their predators and their natural habitat. However, it would be a perverse argument, would it not, for anybody in the Chamber to suggest that there is some kind of equivalent between game management, properly conducted, and the vile so-called sport of trophy hunting?

In conclusion, I will cite again the instance of Ian Seretse Khama, who, as the President of Botswana, introduced a ban on trophy hunting. As a result, over a 10-year period, the wildlife population grew, conservation was enhanced, the net worth to his country of photo tourism expanded, and it was a win-win. After the fall of that Administration, the new President of Botswana reversed the ban—in the interests of what? Far be it from me to suggest that there is a strong relationship between the President of Botswana and Safari Club International, but that suggestion has been made. We now find a decline. The equation is absolutely straightforward.

Finally, I challenge anybody in this Chamber to seek to justify the unjustifiable by saying that there is any rhyme or reason for what has become known, revoltingly, as “canned” hunting. We are talking about the breeding in captivity of wild, magnificent animals purely for the purpose of being shot so that their body parts can be displayed on somebody’s floor or wall. That is what this Bill is seeking to prevent in the United Kingdom. The Bill has my full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that under the regime of Seretse Khama in Botswana, poaching was effectively eliminated because of the robust attitude he took towards it, and that in countries where trophy hunting is now permitted, a blind eye is effectively turned to poaching as well?

[Nickie Aiken]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes good points, which I will absolutely take on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Minister. I wish she had explained why, under the current legislation, these animal parts were allowed to be imported in the first place, because a licence is required to bring them in; the legislation is already in place.

I recognise that this is an emotionally weighted subject. I have had plenty of emails from well-meaning people with kind hearts who want to defend and protect animals from being hunted; we have heard that from Members this morning. To them, it seems an unfair and unnecessary contest that we can do without. Sadly, it is not quite as simple as they hope, and that is why this legislation is not as necessary as has been made out.

The fundamental problem for wildlife is people, and as we reach 8 billion people, I hope that is a fact on which we can agree. Keeping wildlife habitats safe and protected from people is far more complicated and more important. We need a pragmatic approach to this divisive issue. We use land ownership and money to manage habitats. We have seen land disputes, and wildlife competing with domestic crops and livestock, sadly, to the detriment of the wildlife.

We need to appreciate what it is like to live with large and dangerous or endangered species. We cannot expect people in rural Africa to have the same views on this subject as the voters in, say, Crawley. That is why telling Africans—however we choose to cushion the message—how to manage their wildlife is fundamentally wrong, post-colonial and possibly racist, and I cannot stand by and allow this to go uncriticised.

In fairness to my hon. Friends, my unhappiness with the racist elements in this message are not a reflection on their views or the views of any colleagues, but we must stand up to racism in whatever form it takes. Before anyone emails me about trophy hunting, they should consider that it is this racist issue that is the real problem for me. Racism is illegal, and I accept that they may disagree with me, but while we are on the subject of legality, we must be clear about the distinction between illegal and legal hunting. There is a great deal of misinformation, but where hunting programmes are well-regulated and legal, only carefully selected animals are hunted. Rather than diminishing endangered species, these programmes instead protect habitat and work to support conservation.

Here in the UK, we do not have to co-exist with big or dangerous animals, such as those that African people have to contend with. Before we condemn other countries for their wildlife management, we ought first to consider what the people who live there actually think. I was sent a survey by the Humane Society that claimed that polling in South Africa showed that people were against hunting, and I have heard colleagues mention that. It did not mention the wording of the questions, but I noticed that there was no data on what people thought about allowing the UK to determine South African wildlife policy. Contrary to what was stated in the email I got from Jane Goodall, I have had no contact with any Americans or Russians. By and large, I have had contact with African community leaders and conservationists who do not support the UK Bill to ban UK imports of hunting trophies.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will my hon. Friend indicate whether he took the trouble to research whether a number of his African contacts had direct contact and relationships with Safari Club International?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I do not really care whether the people who have put their names to the emails have had contact with Safari Club International. They have written to me, and Safari Club International has not. When my constituents write to me, I do not find out who they have been in contact with; I deal with their emails. I will read one to my right hon. Friend in a moment, because I think it will be quite helpful. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend intervened on me, and I am trying to respond to his intervention. If he does not want to know, he probably should not have intervened. When people write to me, I take on board their words, not who they may have been in contact with, and I think it would be peculiar for there to be some sort of sinister agenda behind every email. Let me help my right hon. Friend with this one.

“My name is Maxi Louis, and I’m the Director of the Namibian Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations…With the second reading of the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill coming up this Friday, I wanted to reach out to emphasise the importance of what happens with this Bill. People like myself who work on the front lines of this issue in communities that look after wildlife know the importance of licensed and regulated hunting to sustainable conservation.

While the Bill would regulate UK activity in regard to international hunting, African people would be directly impacted. Our voices are loud and clear demanding the UK adopt an evidence-led solution: a ‘smart ban’ on the importation of trophies from unlicensed, unregulated hunting.

There is overwhelming evidence from international academics and conservationists that a smart ban would underpin the funding model for local conservation projects and local economies. A total ban would take away important benefits from communities I work with. Please see below my signature for a graphic with key facts on the issue.”

Here are some of those key facts:

“53,400 jobs in Eastern and Southern Africa are supported by trophy hunting”

—my right hon. Friend may not care whether that is true or not, but I suspect that the 53,400 people concerned do—and

“60% of all cash fees received by Namibian conservancies came from licensed hunting… 100% of game fees go to local communities in Namibia”.

In Tanzania the figure is 55%, and in Zambia it is 50%.

These are the people who are writing to me. Their links to Safari Club International may or may not be there, but those figures are very verifiable, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will check them. I think it is important for us to listen to the people whom we will affect, rather than saying that we do not care about what they say, the reason being that wildlife conservation is vital to their economies. They rightly argue that it is not for us in the west to decide how they should manage their wildlife, and that is why I cannot endorse this Bill. It would remove financial incentives for habitat and wildlife protection in these countries, threaten African people’s livelihoods, and interfere with the decision making of African democratic Governments.

The President of South Africa was here on Tuesday, and I was delighted to hear him speak in the Royal Gallery. He never mentioned that he was hoping that we would remove the licensing regime for South African trophies. He did talk about sustainability and the future of the planet, but I do not think he was aware of this Bill. He is very important, given that he has a game farm and achieved a record price for his buffalo, which were being bred for the size of their horns, as that is what a trophy requires. Yes, this is the President of South Africa, who was here this week—the President of the G20 country responsible for the largest big game and trophy hunting sector. Its President has a game farm called Phala Phala. Members can see why I have real doubts about the validity of the claim that most Africans want us to introduce the Bill. These are supposed to be South Africans with votes, and I am sure that they are more than capable of deciding how they want to manage their wildlife without our intervention.

There is a key distinction between licensed hunting that contributes to conservation initiatives and illegal poaching of wildlife. We have repeatedly seen—and have heard this morning about—the evocative image of Cecil the lion, which is used by those advocating a ban on trophy hunting as a mascot to stir up support for their campaigns. What was not acknowledged today, and what they always fail to acknowledge, is that the hunters involved, Walter Palmer and Theo Bronkhorst, were taken to court for illegally killing Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe in 2015. Campaigns to ban trophy hunting have repeatedly extrapolated from that emotive case to all hunting, in order to fuel emotions.

While a briefing by the International Union for Conservation of Nature—I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) expects that that is something to do with America—from 2016 condones illegal hunting, it maintains that,

“legal, well regulated trophy hunting programmes can—and do—play an important role in delivering benefits for both wildlife conservation and for the livelihoods and wellbeing of indigenous and local communities”.

By introducing the Bill, we would be undermining support for licensed hunters who operate professionally and contribute to conservation efforts in Africa. That would result in a great deal more poachers, who disregard the law and cruelly kill animals for their illegal trade. In its open letter to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 2009, the World Wildlife Fund recognised the value of limited, managed hunting of black rhinos in Namibia, stating that it can

“strongly contribute to the enhancement of the survival of the species”.

In Namibia, hunting is permitted between February and November, under tight regulation.

While proponents of the ban argue that elephants are endangered—obviously, we all care about that—Namibia alone claimed to have more than 24,000 elephants in March this year. That is the most it has had in over 100 years. According to Africa Geographic, elephant numbers in Namibia

“already exceed what many would consider desirable for the available habitats”.

That is clearly a welcome endorsement of post-colonial wildlife management by Africans, for Africans, in Africa, but it also poses a threat to other rare and vulnerable species, not to mention human lives. In 2013, 5,000 problem- causing animal incidents were reported in Namibia, some of which resulted in the loss of human life. To prevent lethal encounters with humans, the Namibian Government argued for round-ups of elephants to help to control numbers and fund their conservation efforts.

When big game hunting was banned in Botswana, local farmers lived in fear, due to the rapidly increasing population of elephants, for not just their crops and livelihoods but their lives. Prior to the lifting of the ban, elephants were so populous in Botswana that 36 people were killed by them in 2018, with many more suffering injuries. In 2019, Botswana reversed its ban on hunting, recognising its important role for conservation purposes. Botswana is not alone: Pohamba Shifeta, Namibia’s Environment and Tourism Minister, also remarked that foreigners curtailing prize hunting would be “the end of conservation” in Namibia.

South Africa boasts 90% of the world’s population of the southern white rhino, yet it permits hunting, whereas in Kenya, where hunting is banned, white rhino numbers fell significantly due to poaching, to the point that it had to buy its white rhinos from South Africa. That surely demonstrates the necessity of supporting those countries in promoting the conservation of wildlife.

People supporting the ban are rightly concerned about the killing of endangered species. That is why CITES is so important, and why we need to strengthen it, rather than overrule it with the proposed ban. By supporting the wildlife management industry economically, we ensure better regulation of hunting, and more training for professional hunters and trackers to ensure safety. As recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, instead of banning trophy hunting, we should encourage better regulation of hunting—known as a smart ban—and support responsible national agencies to improve on-the-ground management.

Professor Keith Somerville, a fellow of the Zoological Society of London who specialises in conservation in Africa, has highlighted that hunting safari operators police their shooting areas in order to prevent poaching. For example, in Botswana the hunting ban led to an increase in the number of poachers because of the soaring population of elephants and the lack of game reserve patrols. Instead of channelling our efforts into eradicating trophy hunting, we should instead support better regulation of big game hunting to help reduce poaching, which is a cruel, anti-conservationist practice.

The biggest threat to wildlife in Africa is the human incursion it faces, which will only get worse with an ever-increasing human population. In order to incentivise local communities to protect animal habitats, they need to be rewarded for their efforts. When wildlife has a value, people treat it better. It may be easy for campaigners to raise emotional stories of animals being cruelly killed to justify the Bill, but in using compelling and upsetting stories of humans brutally killing animals to campaign for the ban on hunting, they fail to recognise the importance of the industry for the human livelihoods and the wellbeing of the people who live in those countries.

By introducing the Bill, we are fighting for an issue that will have virtually no impact on our daily lives. While it may make us feel virtuous to introduce a ban on trophy hunting imports in the UK, in doing so we will be undermining a vital source of income for African people. No matter what people feel, they are sending out a message that white people, like me, know better and care less about black people in Africa, who are more successful at wildlife management than white people were when we ruled those countries.

In their open letter to DEFRA in 2020, African stakeholders argued that a UK ban on the trophies of animals hunted in Africa would have

“devastating consequences for conservation and livelihoods.”

In their letter they pleaded that we uphold their

“basic human right to sustainably use the natural resources on which our communities’ livelihoods depend”.

They continued

“without markets for high-value low-impact hunting, we will not be able to sustain conservation or feed our children.”

Not only would a ban on imports of trophies to the UK have devastating effects on the livelihoods of individuals in Africa, it would also have financial repercussions for the wider economies in these countries. Hunting has grown to be one of the most important industries in Namibia in terms of GDP and rural uplift contribution. Africa Geographic estimates that 40 million Namibian dollars is generated per year across 79 conservancies in Namibia.

Hon. Members may say that there are alternative sources of income for African communities, but it is worth considering the viability of the proposed alternatives. If there were to be a total ban on hunting in these countries, local people would likely use the land for farming instead. Ironically, that would result in far fewer wild animals, as they would be viewed as a threat to livelihoods rather than an asset.

As we have heard today, some UK conservationists have proposed that photographic tourism might be used to support local economies in place of hunting, but in some areas photo tourism is just not viable and the only source of revenue is hunting. The former chief executive of the WWF in South Africa, Dr John Hanks, acknowledges that certain areas are better suited to photographic safaris than to hunting, but he argues that in areas where wildlife is more sporadic and the landscape more mundane, hunting may be the only profitable use of the land.

Danene van der Westhuyzen, a professional hunter who grew up in Namibia, highlighted that big game tourism attracts far fewer people but much higher profits, estimating that one trophy hunter brings the same revenue into Namibia as 2,000 tourists. Indeed, one hunter might pay as much as £45,000 to shoot just one animal. Therefore, so many more tourists would be required to visit those areas to produce equivalent profits. That makes eco-tourism far less environmentally friendly than big game tourism, because a larger number of people visiting game reserves has an impact on local flora and fauna and disrupts habitats for wildlife. There are those who suggest that agriculture would be a much better use of the land than hunting, but in certain areas hunting is a far better land use option than domestic livestock and crops, because it protects biodiversity and incentivises local people to protect these large animals. Ironically, banning hunting and instead endorsing the use of the land for farming would mean that there were fewer wild animals, because they are a threat.

Finally, let me come to the issue that we should not be deciding on. African people manage the conservation of wildlife that is some 6,000 miles away from us here in the UK. A ban on trophy imports as a means of banning hunting seems to me to be colonialist behaviour. Animal rights lobbies are lobbying hard to see this Bill pass, but Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi—the current President, not one from the past—has asked why western conservationists should be intervening. The President of Botswana is asking why we are deciding what happens to their elephants. Many African people have rightly taken offence at western conservationists’ attempting to puppeteer their wildlife management despite it having no bearing on our daily lives here in the UK. In an open letter to Ricky Gervais, Joanna Lumley, Peter Egan, Ed Sheeran, Dame Judi Dench and Piers Morgan in 2020, more than 50 African community leaders urged British celebrities to stop exerting their influence to jeopardise wildlife conservation efforts. They stated:

“Imposing worldviews and value systems from far away places, amplified through your powerful, influential voices, results in disastrous policies that undermine our rights and conservation success.”

The Ban Trophy Hunting website uses anecdotes from 300 years ago to convince readers that hunting is some kind of colonialist sport, and yet African stakeholders in their open letter to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs likened the behaviour of these western conservationists to that of European colonists, who removed the rights of local people to manage their own land and animals. They highlighted that post-independence Governments have restored their rights to sustainably manage their wildlife by providing socio-economic incentives for doing so. An estimated 50% to 90% of these economic incentives derive from regulated, sustainable and humane hunting, which has resulted in wildlife population and habitat expansion.

On the surface, this Bill may appear to change only our import laws here in the UK, but it is no secret that, ultimately, a vote for this Bill is a vote to instruct African democratic Governments on how to behave. That is why I cannot endorse it. It should not be up to us to stop hunting in these countries. It should be for their own Governments to manage their wildlife and conservation, because we are not affected; they are the ones who will be affected. Of course no one wants to encourage illegal hunting, but by withdrawing our support for legal and well-regulated hunting in these countries, we are, in effect, removing the financial incentives that encourage African people to protect their local wildlife and habitats. That is why I support the current licensing system for CITES-listed species to protect vulnerable species and regulate imports to the UK.

I wish the Minister had used her comments to explain why she was not using that licensing regime to stop the imports of the various trophies that people object to, because that is what it is there for. If people use the CITES website on the gov.uk system, they will find it is extremely helpful. If they type in the type of animal they want to ask about, it will tell them that they need a licence. It lists animals in their taxonomic order, by their Latin names and by their English names. It is an extremely good website. I am fairly faint in my praise for Government websites generally, but this one is good. People can tell if they are allowed to bring species in or not; if not, they must have a licence. All the animals that the Bill will protect are already licensed imports.

I stood on a manifesto to protect our borders, and we have the legislation in place to do so. The Bill gilds the lily. It is extra, it is not necessary and it is deeply wrong, because it is up to African people to decide how they manage their rich natural resources, which are in their backyard, not ours.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I will speak to amendment 12; I hope to be commendably brief. A fundamental principle of veterinary science is that procedures should be carried out in the interests of the animal and animal welfare. Many of the proposals brought forward will, I believe, be in the interests of animal welfare, and I have no problem with them whatever. I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that, if it becomes apparent that a change that is to be made would have an adverse effect on animal welfare, no licence for the change would be granted. That is all I ask for.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to follow the important speech by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), with which I agreed. As I said on Second Reading, this is a flawed Bill; it is unclear and it is not robust, and legal experts have said that it is staggeringly imprecise. Nothing that has happened since Second Reading has caused me to change my mind, so I have tabled a number of amendments, and welcome the opportunity to speak to them, starting with amendments 1 and 2, which would remove animals from the Bill’s scope and title. For the record, it is my intention to press amendment 1 to a vote.

As I say, amendment 1 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill, but the intention is not, as the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested, to kick the can down the road; I genuinely believe that we need more time to look more carefully at what kind of regulatory framework we need, so that we can make the most of potential benefits, but also safeguard ourselves against risk. I acknowledge that there may well be potential benefits to the legislation, but I hope that others will acknowledge that there may well be serious risks, and I do not think that the work has been done to get the balance right in the Bill. We need more safeguards that are commensurate with the risks. That is why—for the moment, at least—we should remove animals from its scope. If the Government wish to legislate on gene editing of animals, they need to give much more thought to defining the circumstances in which that is acceptable, and to provide much more detail on how it will be regulated.

I recognise that clauses 10 to 15 are an attempt to prevent the significant risks that are associated with precision breeding, but I do not think that those measures are sufficient. When we debated the animal sentience legislation, the Government were prepared to accept that there should be a mechanism, via the animal welfare hub, through which the impact of animal sentience legislation could be properly considered by independent experts with the relevant skills. There is an urgent need for something similar that allows us to judge whether genetic engineering will be harmful to animals, how it can be better regulated, and how that can be done transparently. The model in clause 11, however, gives the person applying for authorisation and the Secretary of State far too much authority and responsibility, and the proposed animal welfare advisory body is given only a weak, secondary, advisory role. I worry that that suggests that welfare considerations will carry very limited weight in decision making.

It is also of concern that, under the Bill, the full regulatory system is supposed to be set through secondary legislation. That vastly reduces the scope for vital parliamentary scrutiny on issues of animal welfare and gene editing.

The claims made for gene editing mainly focus on increasing productivity and disease resistance. The Government argue that gene editing is simply an extension of traditional breeding, such as selective breeding, but is more precise and efficient. I assume that is intended to be reassuring, but over the last 50 years selective breeding has itself caused substantial health and welfare problems in most of the main farmed species. We have already heard about the concerns about broiler chickens who have been bred to grow so quickly that many suffer from leg disorders, while others succumb to heart disease. Hens have been bred to lay over 300 eggs a year. They have to draw on their own bone calcium to produce egg shells. This results in osteoporosis, leaving them susceptible to bone fracture. A cow producing milk for her calf would normally produce just over 1,000 litres in her 10-month lactation. Many of today’s dairy cows have been bred to produce 10,000, or even 11,000 or 12,000 litres of milk a year. That contributes, unsurprisingly, to many suffering from lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders, and the animals live with those welfare problems for a substantial part of their lives.

Gene editing for even faster growth and higher yields would exacerbate the suffering caused by selective breeding. I believe it would be unethical to permit it for increased productivity, and it simply should not be necessary for disease resistance. The proper way to reduce diseases that are generated by keeping animals in poor conditions is to move instead to health-oriented farming systems, in which good health is inherent in the farming methods. Indeed, gene editing could lead to animals being kept in even more crowded and stressful conditions, as they would be resistant to the disease risks that are inherent in those conditions.

I cannot be the only Member who has been lobbied hard to remove animals from the Bill’s scope. I urge the Government to listen to the public and look again at this. They should return the legislation on this subject only once they have given much more detailed consideration to the issues that I have raised. Another of those issues is that nobody involved in drafting this legislation could, I imagine, have honestly envisaged it applying to, for example, domestic cats and dogs. Yet, without clarification, that is exactly what the current drafting could result in.

Our constituents want to be confident that there is consistency in the Government’s ambition for improving animal welfare. They want to know that gene editing cannot be used as some kind of techno-fix and that it will not entrench intensive farming, with its inherent environmental and animal welfare shortcomings. If my amendments are a step too far, I would urge Ministers, as a form of compromise, to bring forward an amendment of their own in the other place that will at the very least limit the scope much more explicitly to farmed animals. In the meantime, my amendments 1 and 2 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill.

Let me move on briefly to a few other amendments in my name. New clause 7 is about informing consumers about what they are buying. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the labelling of this new class of GMO and to do so in consultation with key named stakeholders. Clear labelling is something that we know consumers want. The Food Standards Agency found that:

“Consumers wanted transparent labelling…if genome edited foods reach the UK market.”

My new clause does not prescribe what form that labelling should take; the groups and organisations that it lists for consultation are much better placed to determine that. They include the FSA, food producers, retailers, consumers and anyone else the Government think appropriate. In other words, it would allow for co-operative, sensible, well-informed approaches. I hope Members will back new clause 7 on that basis. Finally, labelling—in either the form set out in my clause or some other form—could represent a step towards resolving the differences with the devolved Governments, which we have already heard about, for whom, for example, alignment with EU standards is a major priority and a current source of disagreement with Westminster.

Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are a group designed to ensure that regulation is sufficiently robust when it comes to authorising activities involving so-called precision-bred organisms. They seek to convert the powers afforded to the Secretary of State into requirements. In addition, amendment 8, alongside amendment 7, would require obligations relating to supply chain traceability. Without amendment 7, the Bill fails to mandate any such traceability for the new category of precision-bred organisms.

That would be inconsistent with the current long-standing requirement for mandatory traceability for GMOs and would create significant trade barriers for organic businesses in the UK wanting to export products to, for example, the EU or Northern Ireland. The UK organic sector is worth £3 billion, so it makes no economic sense not to amend the Bill and ensure mandatory supply chain traceability. Traceability of genetically engineered organisms is also essential to support recall in the event that novel allergens or toxins, or other safety issues emerge after release.

I believe the Bill is badly conceived and badly drafted. My amendments are all designed with one of two things in mind: to bring either clarity or robustness to the regulatory framework for precision-bred organisms. It is with that intention that I lent my name to a number of other amendments, on behalf of the official Opposition in particular. I hope that they might support mine in the same spirit.

Support for Local Food Infrastructure

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate and I congratulate the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), on his appointment. It is one of those rare beast occasions when we have a round peg in a round hole. I am sure that he will be a Minister for agriculture.

In Thanet, we have Thanet Earth, which is probably the prime example of sustainable crop production in the United Kingdom. It is the largest greenhouse complex in Europe—at present, it is the size of about seven football pitches—and grows a variety of tomatoes under glass. It is highly successful and I think that it is blazing a trail, but—this is the “but”—most of the agriculture in the “Garden of England” and most of the agriculture in Thanet is still out in the open fields, or what is left of the open fields. That is my problem and the point that I will discuss.

We have two issues. One is the spread of solar farms on agricultural land, which is unsustainable and in my view unforgivable. There are acres of rooftop, acres of carparks and acres of public space on which solar farms can and should be put. They should not be put on agricultural land and I hope that practice will stop forthwith under the new Administration.

The second issue is agricultural policy. Our desire to be sustainable in food production is simply not compatible with our housing policy. I raised with the previous Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time some months ago the need for a moratorium on house building on agricultural land. In Thanet, we have grade one and grade two alluvial soil. It is some of the finest land in the country, but we are smothering it with houses.

The issue of water supply has also been raised today. The more we smother our agricultural land with housing, the more our aquifers, such as the Thanet aquifer, will dry up. Actually, that might not matter very much, because if we do not have any land to grow crops on, crops will not need watering.

All I want to say, and this really is all I want to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister today, is this: please can we get back to the days when the Ministry for Agriculture, as it then was, had a veto over change of use on agricultural land, and can we have a moratorium on building on agricultural land, so that we can grow the food that this country needs?

Farmed Animals: Cages

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

I will come on to that issue, but I think there are better alternatives that will still support the safety of piglets.

Farrowing cages rightly seek to prevent the death of piglets by crushing. More than 50% of UK sows are placed in farrowing crates a few days before giving birth. They are kept there during farrowing and until the piglets are weaned at three to four weeks of age. That means that every year in the UK, over 200,000 sows are confined in those systems for some nine to 10 weeks of the year—in some cases longer—despite the fact that scientific evidence has shown that sow welfare is severely compromised in farrowing crates. The crates result in sows being forced to give birth in a tiny space and then to nurse their young through bars. The space in the crate is so restricted that sows cannot even turn around: all they can do is stand up or lie down until their piglets are weaned, usually at around four weeks of age. Confined in those crates, sows bite and chew the bars and scrape at the floor in frustration. Many endure painful wounds and sores on their legs, feet and shoulders caused by slipping or lying on the hard slatted floors.

Some 40% of the UK’s sows are reared in outdoor free farrowing systems. Calculations based on figures from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board show that total piglet mortalities—stillbirths and pre-weaning mortalities combined—have been lower in outdoor systems than indoor ones in 19 out of the past 20 years. A large-scale study by E. M. Baxter looked at the role of farrowing crates and found that designed free farrowing pens had the lowest pig mortality rate, at just 16.6%. That was followed by outdoor systems, at 17%, and farrowing crates, at 18.3%. Indoor group multi-suckling systems had the highest piglet mortality, at 23.7%. Farrowing crates clearly appear to be worse for piglet mortality than free farrowing pens.

Now is the time to work with the industry to find a way forward that protects both piglets and sows, supports our farmers during the transition, and ensures that those farmers remain competitive. I know our great British farmers want the best for their animals—in fact, there is no one better qualified or driven than a farmer to look after our animals. Their expertise, care, and commitment to the welfare of animals is second to none. Anything done in this space must be done with farmers, not to farmers. The Government must use their new-found Brexit freedom to support our farmers in transitioning from the cage age, ensuring that they are not undercut by those who continue to use cages.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

When we banned veal crates in the United Kingdom, we thought we had solved the problem. In fact, all we did was deny British farmers an advantage, because those veal crates were used on the continent and we then imported the product. The difference now is that post Brexit, we can prevent those imports, so does my hon. Friend agree that there is now no excuse for not banning crates?

[Matt Vickers]

That is an incredibly valuable point, and one that I am sure the Minister will respond to. We can now determine the future of those crates ourselves, which I think is wonderful.

It is up to the Government to work with the sector to ensure that an informed and achievable transition plan is put in place, and to support farmers financially through the subsidy scheme to meet transition and capital costs. Both the Minister and the Prime Minister have outlined an ambition to ban the use of farrowing crates for sows. In May 2021, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published an action plan for animal welfare that committed to examine the use of crates for pigs and cages for laying hens, and in March 2022, a response to a written parliamentary question confirmed that the Government plan to consult on the issue. I hope the Minister can confirm when that consultation will begin.

I am proud of the steps that the Government have already taken to ensure that our animal welfare standards are the best in the world, and I am delighted that great British farmers strive to reach—and, in fact, maintain—very high standards for animal husbandry. I hope this debate can help to progress that cause and result in happy chickens, happy pigs and happy farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am quite concerned about what is going on here today. I do not think anybody wants to defend sow stalls or enriched cages, but we need considerably more detail and honesty. The 16 million “animals” that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) referred to are all chickens—well, there are 200,000 pigs—so realistically, this is not exactly about “animals”; the petitioners could have put “birds”.

We saw one of the most infuriating attacks on poultry during the avian influenza outbreak: all free-range chickens were put inside, and no free-range eggs were available in our shops. There was not one campaign about that appalling treatment of poultry. It is entirely understandable why the Government insisted on locking up our chickens, but there was a real welfare issue and we heard not a squeak.

The same applies to all the other things we are dealing with here. My hon. Friend made a lovely speech, but 180,000 extra piglets will die if those crates are not used. That may be acceptable, but it is part of the story. The real problem is that unless the farmer can make a decent living—unless agriculture is profitable—he cannot undergo those kinds of losses, yet that is what we want.

We need to be much more honest about this issue. When we go to Tesco and see bacon from Brookfield Farm, it is coming from Denmark; it is not British-produced. When we get a letter about game birds, we should be aware that most of the game birds released in this country are bred in France. Because of the avian influenza over there, there has been a massive shortage of eggs and chicks. That is because the French reacted differently.

A lot of this animal welfare debate needs to be focused on truth and accuracy, and on the points my hon. Friends made earlier about what we import. We cannot expect to have better animal welfare if we do not honestly and accurately tell the truth about it to each other.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I have listened with wry amusement to my hon. Friend, who I think I am right in saying is a Brexiteer. One of the advantages—some might argue the only advantage—of leaving the European Union was that we were going to be able to exercise control over what came into the United Kingdom. I argued vociferously for a long time that we should not disadvantage our own farming community by putting up costs in a way that prevented them from making a living in competition with, for example, Denmark on pigs. Now that we have left the European Union, we have the power to say that we will not allow into the United Kingdom a product that has been produced under circumstances that we would not permit here. That is what we are asking for. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

How could I not understand? My right hon. Friend was crystal clear. However, I am not sure it is quite as straightforward as we would like. He will be aware that people in dinghies are coming into his constituency. We have not quite got the hang of border control yet, but I hope that we will in due course.

In respect of this debate, there are wider problems. The biggest problem for pig farmers is the foot and mouth outbreak we suffered in 2001. The best thing to do with pigs is feed them waste food. Until we can get back to doing that, it will always be difficult for our pig farmers to make a margin, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be wonderful if we could stop other people doing horrible things to animals. Unfortunately, he also supports the ban on foxhunting, which led to the complete eradication of my chickens. There are balances to be had in the countryside, and we need honesty in this debate.

The more accurate we can be, the better. For example, 55% of UK egg production is free range. It is only 9.1% in Spain and 4.9% in Italy, so we are actually doing an extremely good job in this country. We should be supporting our farmers rather than criticising them, particularly for things that are going on abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to follow excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I thank all those who have taken the time to sign the petition.

I am here today to make the case for a managed transition away from the use of cages in farming. We have heard about the harm caused by the kind of intensive farming that deploy those methods. I am worried about enriched cages in which laying hens may have little more space than a A4 sheet of paper. As RSPCA research shows, such systems restrict natural behaviour such as wing flapping, running and dust bathing. Constraints on the ability to move around compromise welfare and can contribute to bone weakness and osteoporosis. With all UK supermarkets either having stopped selling eggs from caged hens or committed to do so, now is the time to set the timetable for an end to enriched cages.

I appreciate we have to take that forward in a viable and sustainable way for the farming sector. I hear the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South on getting the facts clear. At a time of inflation we must take care not to do anything to cause pressure on food prices. The Government have now started delivery of their new farm support system. When the Minister responded to the previous debate on this issue, she emphasised that improved animal health and welfare were an important goal for environmental land management. This debate demonstrates that we need an ELM scheme that is focused on higher welfare standards in the poultry sector. That is one of the ways we can smooth the way for the ban on cages that so many of our constituents want to see happen. Many major companies are backing the campaign, including Nestlé and Greggs. Over 75% of the restaurant sector have committed to going cage free in the eggs that they buy.

The fact that countries such as Switzerland and Germany have banned enriched cages shows that there are economically viable ways to do that. The Government promised to look at the issue in their 2021 action plan on animal welfare, so let us see the consultation published to take us closer to the day when we ban cages for laying hens.

We must also see the same urgency given to the replacement of farrowing crates, as called for by the late Sir David Amess in Westminster Hall in 2020. I accept that there are delicate factors to balance if we are to safeguard both the sow and her young, but there are commercially available free-farrowing systems that give the sow room to move while protecting her piglets.

How do we make such systems financially viable for our producers? The Government have stated their ambition to end the use of farrowing crates. They have done so several times, with even the Prime Minister stating it. Again, I ask for a clear plan from the Government, working with farmers, to reach the goal that they have set themselves.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Does my right hon. Friend endorse entirely the view that that has to be done in a managed way, so that the impact is not catastrophic overnight? Does she agree that, in tandem with that, if we are to go down this road, we must ensure that we start to control the import of products produced in conditions that we would not allow in this country?

[Theresa Villiers]

Indeed. I have been clear that I do not believe that we should allow our own producers to be driven out of business by competition from lower-welfare imports. That should be a much bigger priority in our trade policy than it is at the moment. I urge the Minister to raise these matters with the International Trade Secretary.

In fact, I was about to come on to that point. Whether it is cages or crates, we have to ensure that the rules we impose domestically are reflected in our international trade rules. It is important to ensure that our farmers can compete on a level playing field and that they are not driven out of business by low-welfare competition from overseas.

The Government have a strong record on animal welfare. Our animal-welfare commitments are more wide-ranging than those in any winning manifesto of any party. We have introduced measures such as CCTV in slaughterhouses; we have banned third-party sales of puppies; we have increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty; we are delivering compulsory microchipping for pet cats; we have introduced one of the toughest ivory bans in the world; and soon, I hope, we will become the first European country to ban the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening. Let us strengthen that record still further by listening to the petitioners today, who want to see an end of the cage age.

Sustainable Food Supply and Cultured Meat

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

I will call Sir Roger Gale to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as that is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sustainable food supply and cultured meat.

Thank you, Dame Maria. I apologise for subjecting you to myself twice in one morning. I thank the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) for being here during an incredibly busy week for her. I know how hard she has been working, and I am deeply grateful for her presence. I would also like to thank the Good Food Institute, the Nature Friendly Farming Network, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and Ivy Farm Technologies for opening my eyes and stimulating this debate.

It is a fact of parliamentary life that we go to a lot of receptions. Outside this place, people think they are a waste of time, but if we look and listen, we learn from them. The Ivy Farm presentation stimulated my interest in a subject that, frankly, I knew very little about until I was briefed. I am not starting from a conclusion; I am hoping to open an ongoing debate.

I will first place on record some quotes from the Government’s food strategy, which was published this week. The primary objective is:

“A prosperous agri-food and seafood sector that ensures a secure food supply in an unpredictable world and contributes to the levelling-up agenda through good quality jobs around the country.”

The second objective is:

“A sustainable nature positive, affordable food system that provides choice and access to high quality products that support healthier and home-grown diets for all.”

The next point follows on from what we were talking about this morning and relates to Ukraine.

“The conflict in Ukraine has shown us that domestic food production is a vital contributor to national resilience and food security. Domestic food production can reduce the offshoring of food production to countries that do not meet our high environmental and animal welfare standards.”

In the foreword to the document, the Secretary of State writes:

“Technological solutions are developing at pace. Our future farming policy will support innovative solutions to the environmental challenges we face.”

The final quote leads directly into what I want to briefly discuss this morning.

“Innovation will be a key component to sustainably boost production and profitability across the supply chain. We have committed to spend over £270 million through our Farming Innovation Programme and are supporting £120 million investment in research across the food system in partnership with UK Research and Innovation, in addition to other funding packages.”

That is the key and why I am standing here this morning. The potential, as I understand it, for cultivated meat is huge. Cultivated meat, scientifically, is meat processed and produced from tissue. It is not, and never will be, a replacement for fillet steak, a pork chop or a leg of lamb. What it can do is augment and supplement meat production in a way that reduces carbon dioxide emissions and the number of animals required for slaughter, which is an objective that most of us would like to see followed through.

I was astonished to learn that 18% of CO₂ emissions—more than all CO₂ emissions from transport globally—are caused by animals. As I understand it, the cultivation of meat can obviate a significant portion of those CO₂ emissions, and I believe that to be a desirable objective.

I wish to comment on one by-product of this issue. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister launched a “grow for Britain” plan in Cornwall; I simply say to the Minister, and through her to Downing Street, that it is an admirable objective, but if we are to grow for Britain, we need the farmland to grow crops on, which means not sacrificing our prime agricultural land to development in the way that “Builder Boris” is seeking to do at the moment. It has got to stop.

Let me come back to the issue of cultivated meat, on which I can be brief. Ivy Farm briefed me to indicate that, frankly, research in this whole area is lamentably underfunded in the United Kingdom and is therefore slow. Singapore approved the consumption of cultivated meat in 2020. In 2021, the United States approved a major research programme into the development of cultivated meat. China has put cultivated meat on its development road map this year. Canada and Israel are investing heavily indeed in this area.

My plea to the Minister is quite simple. As I said, I do not start from a conclusion, and I do not know what contribution cultivated meat can make in totality to our demand, consumption and sustainability, but I believe the potential is very significant indeed. If that is so, it seems to me that if we in the United Kingdom are to get ahead of the game—sadly, we too often remain behind the curve—we have to examine carefully our investment in research and development, and make sure that our regulation does not get in the way of the introduction into the market of cultivated meat.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. I sense that he may be drawing his remarks to a conclusion and waiting for the Minister to respond. Before he does so, could he perhaps also comment on the importance of a proper public sector food procurement strategy that backs British-produced food, be that cultivated meat or meat and other agricultural products that are farmed in this country? That is something we have not seen to date, and there is every opportunity, now that we left the EU, for the Government to take this issue forward.

[Sir Roger Gale]

That is slightly wider than the scope of this debate, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that we need a co-ordinated initiative to ensure we deliver sustainable foods across the board. I know that the Minister will tell us we are largely sustainable and self-reliant with regard to meats and grains, and that there is a shortage in vegetables and fruit. I think we can go further. I know, because I happened to discuss this issue with the Minister only last night—I am sure she will answer my hon. Friend—that the Government have an initiative that may not be entirely Conservative but is certainly valid. It does not try to direct farmers on what they should grow but seeks to ensure properly that the right needs are met in the right places and at the right time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Ivy Farm had a reception here that I visited with some apprehension, to be fair, but I understood the issues and I understand what the right hon. Gentleman suggests and the necessity of it. He referred to the Nature Friendly Farming Network, which is going to have a reception today. One of my constituents, Stephen Alexander, will be there. He is involved with Dexter cattle, and he is showing great initiative to bring about a better product for use across the whole of Northern Ireland. As well as the Ivy Farm example that the right hon. Gentleman referred to, we should encourage the Nature Friendly Farming Network that Stephen Alexander is part of.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I believe nature-friendly farming is completely compatible with the other objectives—a point that was made to me by the network. They are not mutually exclusive. The Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, to which I also referred, is not vegan or vegetarian but it is about animal welfare. The more we can do to utilise science and technology to improve animal welfare standards and minimise the number of animals we actually use, while maintaining our self-sufficiency, the better.

What I want from the Minister is simple. It is a commitment to endeavour to invest in research and development. As I said, I am not committed to this idea, but I do not believe we are talking about frankenfoods or putting livestock farmers out of business. I think the development of cultivated meat is completely compatible with the maintenance of a live animal sector. They should be complimentary to each other. I am not seeking to foist yet another job on the Minister, but if it is not too big an ask, it does seem to me that what we really need in this field is a designated champion to take this project forward and to put us in the vanguard of development, rather than the tail end of the train.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The Bill defines this quite tightly and lists what classes of animals are to be included. On some of these very specific technical issues, I am sure that hon. Members who have read clauses 1 and 2 will see that there are quite a lot of different processes, which we will all have to make sure that we learn a lot more about as the Bill progresses. I am sure that this will be discussed in great detail.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

There is no doubt that a lot of the Bill is potentially of huge advantage, particularly in terms of animal welfare. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that concerns have been expressed that people should at least have the right to know what they are buying. Does he have any comments to make about food labelling in this respect?

[George Eustice]

There will be transparency in the sense that any authorised product will be listed. No marketing authorisation will be granted for the sale of any food unless it has been properly assessed. However, it is not currently our intention to have some kind of labelling requirement specifically for food, because a loaf of bread might have some of these crops going into it and others produced through other techniques. We do not currently, for instance, require people to label that a crop has been produced using an F1 hybrid technique such as an open pollination. That is the comparison that I would draw my right hon. Friend’s mind to.

Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems—one for research and one for marketing purposes. Developers will have to submit information to DEFRA that will be published on a public register, and this will support consumer transparency. Clause 3 sets out the conditions under which a person may release a precision-bred organism in England. Clauses 4 and 5 set out the notification requirements for the release and marketing of a precision-bred organism. Clause 6 describes the application process for obtaining a precision-bred confirmation. This will ensure that each precision-bred organism is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Clause 7 sets out the requirement for there to be a report of the advisory committee, with further provisions in clauses 8 and 9 regarding the precision-bred confirmation and its revocation if necessary.

The Bill will not compromise animal welfare standards. As I said, it establishes a regulatory system to safeguard the welfare of precision-bred animals. This system is described in clauses 10 to 15. Clause 10 establishes that precision-bred animals will need to be authorised before they can be marketed. Clause 11 describes the application process. Clause 12 describes the involvement of an animal welfare advisory body. Clause 14 makes provision for regulations requiring information on the health and welfare of these animals once they have been placed on the market.

Finally, the Bill also makes provision to ensure that there will be no compromise whatever on food safety and that there will be a comprehensive assessment of the safety of any products placed on the market that result from precision-bred organisms.