Biosecurity

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), not just for securing this important debate—and for winning South Norfolk, which is very precious to me—but for his continued commitment to championing our agriculture sector. East Anglia is a crucial part of the UK’s livestock and, in particular, arable sectors and provides quality produce that underpins our nation’s food security and is in demand across Europe and beyond.

We have had a thoughtful and sensible discussion this morning. Let me start by reiterating the Government’s total commitment to all those who work in the agriculture and horticulture sectors, and all those beyond. They are on the frontline, not only producing our food but protecting our national biosecurity. I was struck by the passionate interventions by all speakers this morning. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talking about the impact that bovine TB has on people. I was struck by the account that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) gave of walking through Thetford and seeing the dead birds after the avian influenza outbreak. Of course, I could not help but be struck by the way my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) summed up biosecurity as being like a Yorkshire wall—solid, well-built and designed to keep out things we do not want here. I paraphrase, but he gave a very good account of what we are trying to achieve.

I also listened closely to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). I do not think anyone could have failed to be moved by his powerful personal account of the foot and mouth outbreak, and I echo his warm words for those in our Government Departments, such as the chief vet, Christine Middlemiss, for the work they do. I think there is actually a lot of agreement in the Chamber this morning about the importance of the issue and our support for those working on it.

Biosecurity is vital. It underpins safe food, protects animal and plant health, and supports a prosperous economy and trade. It is a joint endeavour: Government, animal keepers, horticulturists and the public must do everything we can collectively to keep disease out. As we have heard from Members this morning, the costs are significant. Plant diseases alone are estimated to cost the global economy over $220 billion annually, and up to 40% of global crop production is lost to pests each year. Those are huge numbers, and are sadly unlikely to reduce as climate change drives the geographic expansion and the host range of pests and diseases. Healthy plants and animals are not just an important tool in the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss, but contribute directly to many of the UN’s sustainable development goals—in particular, ending hunger, achieving food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture.

Pests and diseases know no borders. New and emerging threats are often the result of trade and globalisation, and are then further exacerbated by climate change. Safe trade is essential to food security in a thriving economy. We want healthy trade to support food security and the economy, but at the same time we need to protect ourselves from risks. That is why DEFRA is a key delivery Department of the UK biological security strategy, which takes a UK-wide approach that strengthens deterrence and resilience, projects global leadership and exploits opportunities for UK prosperity. In parallel, the environmental improvement plan sets out how we will improve our environment at home and abroad, including through enhancing biosecurity. I can assure the House that we have in place robust measures to maintain and improve our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond and recover from outbreaks that affect animals and that affect plants.

One of our first defences is to understand the threats and monitor the risks, which we do through established expert groups, the veterinary risk group, the human animal infections and risk surveillance group, and the plant health risk group. Our programmes of research support the expert groups. For example, for plant health, DEFRA has invested more than £8 million into ash dieback research, including the world’s largest screening trials for resistant trees, the Living Ash Project, while for animal health, DEFRA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council are funding £6.5 million of research projects to better forecast, understand, mitigate and avoid vector-borne diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks.

Our second line of defence is detection through strong surveillance systems. Our network of official laboratories, veterinary investigators, border inspectors and bee, fish, and plant inspectors all contribute to the early warning detections for signs of disease or antimicrobial resistance.

Thirdly, prevention is key. As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure, so this Government will take action to prevent pests and diseases from arriving in the first place. Preventing an outbreak of African swine fever in the UK, for example, remains one of our key biosecurity priorities. Although, as has rightly been said, we have not had an outbreak of ASF in the UK, the overall risk of an incursion is currently assessed to be medium. We continue to prepare for a possible outbreak.

To help prevent ASF incursions in the UK, robust safeguards are in place, prohibiting live pigs, wild boar, or pork products from affected European Union areas from entering Great Britain. Enforcement is carried out by Border Force and Port Health Authority officers at seaports and airports. Under the enhanced safeguard measures introduced in the autumn—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for referencing them—travellers are no longer allowed to bring pork products into Great Britain unless they are produced and packaged to the EU’s commercial standards and weigh no more than 2 kg. DEFRA and its agencies continuously review the spread of ASF and other diseases, and are ready to introduce further biosecurity restrictions, should they be deemed necessary, in response to new scientific and risk data.

Our fourth line of defence is our response capability. Our disease contingency plans and underpinning legislation are regularly reviewed to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, and that we have the necessary capacity and capability to respond. We exercise our plans regularly and work closely with stakeholders on their own preparedness.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is turning to the contingency plans, so let me take us back to African swine fever, as he has not really touched on my question in that regard. Will there be the capability to have random spot checks within the port of Dover itself? We know that the inland centre will be up and running, but it is so important that unscrupulous people coming in know that they could be targeted within the port, so that these illegal meat imports can be snapped out.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We are working closely with the Port Health Authority to make sure that everything that needs to be done can be done.

As I was saying, we exercise our plans regularly and work closely with stakeholders on their preparedness. The ongoing response to bluetongue and highly pathogenic avian influenza are cases in point. Officials from across the UK are working closely with sector representatives on the implementation of control measures.

Early identification was crucial in enabling a rapid response to the bluetongue outbreak. DEFRA provided free pre-movement testing to animal keepers in counties at the highest risk of incursion from infected biting midges originating from the continent. A restriction zone covering the counties affected by bluetongue has been established. That measure has been carefully considered to protect the free area from disease spread while allowing the free movement of animals in the zone, keeping business disruption to a minimum. On the question asked by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, permitted use of the BTV-3 vaccine is available, and I am told that just over 14,500 animals have been vaccinated so far.

To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, I am aware of reports that some meat processors may have taken unfair advantage of the bluetongue outbreak to reduce prices. That is dreadful; I do not condone that behaviour at all, not least since bluetongue does not affect the meat. My understanding is that it is not a widespread issue, and that prices paid to farmers for beef and sheep continue to be stable and at five-year highs. That is a good example of why this Government consider fairness in the supply chain to be critical for farmers across all sectors. I also reassure hon. Members that the bluetongue virus is not a public health threat and does not affect people or food safety. While no sick animal should enter the food chain, meat and milk from infected animals is safe to eat and drink.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of virus yellows. A lot of work is going on with British Sugar, particularly at the John Innes Centre, which is just outside Norwich; I understand that there is a project involving the biotech company Tropic. I have stood in fields and looked at sugar beet suffering to varying degrees from yellows. Our proposals on genetic engineering may provide a solution in future, but in the shorter term some new innovations are being looked at. Those should give us better ways of tackling this disease, which is serious, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said—particularly for our region in the east of England.

On plant health in general, joint working with the horticultural sector takes place with the Royal Horticultural Society and the Horticultural Trades Association through the plant health accord, the tree health policy group and plant health advisory forum, and the Plant Health Alliance, which leads the plant healthy certification scheme.

As I have said, biosecurity has to be a shared endeavour. The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and we are working with the European Union to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit. We have been clear that a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could boost trade and deliver significant benefits to the European Union and the United Kingdom, but delivering new agreements will take time. It is important that we get the right agreement, meet our international obligations, and protect the UK’s biosecurity and public health throughout the process.

Furthermore, maintaining our high standards requires constant investment. The hon. Member for Epping Forest made a powerful case about the Animal and Plant Health Agency at Weybridge. This Government are not in the business of making unfunded commitments, but we have announced £208 million for the next phase of the redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s Weybridge laboratory. I echo the powerful praise from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for Jenny Stewart and her staff—we should thank all those, right across the piece, who work on our behalf.

We believe that the £208 million investment will help to safeguard and enhance the UK’s capability to respond to the threat from animal and plant diseases, help to protect public health, and underpin the UK’s trade capability with animal export products, which are worth £16 billion per year to the UK economy. The APHA is also looking to grow its external income streams over the coming years to support the delivery of key services, recognising the efficiencies that we all need to deliver in these challenging times.

I have talked about bluetongue, so let me turn to the threat to our poultry sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I have a lot of respect for the Minister and I like him a lot as a person, too. I will ask a question about the APHA before he moves on from it. I acknowledge that the Government have put forward £208 million. The previous Government committed £1.2 billion. The APHA still needs £1.4 billion. I know that he cannot make Treasury commitments on behalf of the Chancellor, but please can he give assurances that DEFRA will keep making representations to the Treasury that the refurbishment we have discussed needs to be undertaken in full? The £208 million is a start to help with the transformation, but more money needs to be committed for national security. Please will he and his DEFRA colleagues make that case to Treasury? If the money cannot come from the DEFRA budget, it can come from the Contingencies Fund.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear and respect the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I gently point out to him that the country is in an economic mess and we can only spend the money that we have. That point will be reiterated in debate after debate. Every part of our rural economy, indeed every part of our country, needs a sound economic basis upon which to proceed. The previous Government did not take that view, but we will.

In response to the detection of two new cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry in England this autumn, DEFRA and the APHA have stood up the well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and assist the recovery of local communities.

We are in a better place than in previous years, but there is absolutely no complacency. Hon. Members regardless of party have referred to the situation that we are in. It is too early to predict the outlook for future seasons, and risk levels may increase further this winter; obviously, we hope that they do not. However, this situation is associated with the migratory pattern of wild waterfowl and the environmental conditions becoming more favourable, sadly, for virus survival. As I have said, I was very taken by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk about the impact on the wild bird population as well as on our kept birds.

So, we continue to monitor closely the avian influenza outbreak and any effects it might have on bird keepers, poultry producers and processors, in addition to those wild bird populations that have been mentioned, particularly those of conservation concern. We urge all bird keepers, whether they have pet birds, commercial flocks or just a few birds in a backyard flock, to maintain stringent biosecurity in order to protect the health and welfare of their birds.

Slaughtering of turkeys and other birds for the Christmas market has already begun and we do not currently anticipate avian influenza to have any impact on supplies. Further information on the latest situation and guidance on how keepers can protect their birds from avian influenza can be found online from Government sources.

Fishing Industry

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes an important point—one that I used to make when in opposition, and one that I have impressed on officials. The effort has been made to ensure that is considered wherever possible. It is not always easy to find the right times, but we are doing everything we can.

This Government will always back the British fishing industry. We are absolutely keen to boost trade, deliver benefits to UK businesses and push for sustainable fishing opportunities for British vessels; but we recognise the huge challenges that the sector is facing and are engaging closely with industry to create a more secure, sustainable and economically successful fishing industry that we believe will in turn support local communities.

On some of the specifics raised around post-2026 access, as I am sure hon. Members will be aware, a full and faithful implementation of the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels to the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is significant. We will always listen to what the EU has to say on the matter, but we are absolutely determined to protect the interests of our fishers and continue to fulfil our international commitments to protect the marine environment.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly asked who would be leading those discussions; they will be led by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office. He asked who would speak up for UK fishers; the answer is the UK Fisheries Minister, which is me. I admired the slight cheek of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in challenging me not to let fishers down in those negotiations. I do not want to dwell on past misery, but let us say we are determined to do much better.

[Dr Hudson]

Does the Minister not acknowledge that in the last year, the tonnage secured for the United Kingdom was greater, and that was one of the benefits of the negotiations? Does he not acknowledge the fact of tonnage?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I recognise that there have been some opportunities—not many, but some—and we will do our very best to make more of them. But I do not get a general sense that people in the fishing sector look back and think that was our finest hour. We can do better.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I am grateful that the Minister is acknowledging the importance of protecting marine mammals while harvesting from the seas and oceans. When he is around the table with his officials, will he address the other countries, such as Norway? Perhaps it will be his colleagues in the Department for International Trade when they are negotiating arrangements with Japan. On talking about the horrific nature of whaling continuing in the 21st century, can he assure everyone that this UK Government will stand firm and use their power in those rooms to put an end to whaling right across the world?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think we can speak with one voice from this Parliament on those kinds of issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at events such as the G20 and the G7 that I have attended, we have raised those important questions.

I turn to the coastal state negotiations on quota shares.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Food security is national security, and underpinning it are farmers and farmland. Labour’s ill-judged and heartless family farm tax will put all of that in jeopardy: family farms lost; tenant farmers unable to continue farming; communities hollowed out; rural mental health damaged; and precious food-producing land lost to developers or investors. No farms, no food. No farmers, no food. Will the Government please now admit that they have got this catastrophically wrong? Will they do the right thing by reversing this farm tax to protect our country’s food security?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Let me say once again that it is important to treat this subject carefully. We must look at the facts and listen to people who know about it. I was asked earlier by someone else whether this measure was wrong, but we should look at what Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other tax experts have said. There are many ways in which this can be managed, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to join me in reassuring British farmers about their future.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that. We have had this discussion before and I have to disappoint him slightly, in the sense that of course the EU is moving as well on this. I suspect we will probably end up in a similar place at a similar time. However, he is absolutely right to point out the potential advantages.

The amendments before us are all Government amendments, because, despite the excellent learned and erudite arguments put by my colleagues in the other place—I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman, Baroness Jones and Lords Winston, Krebs, Trees and Cameron, among others—not much has changed, and that is genuinely disappointing. However, some improvements have been made. A number of the amendments move regulations to the affirmative procedure, as the Minister explained, and that allows some, if limited, further scrutiny, which is welcome. Amendment 1 to clause 1 is the Government’s further attempt to codify a particular knotty problem that we discussed at length in Committee. So the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing their amendments tonight. We will merely pointing be out how much more improved the Bill could have been had they had the confidence to embrace our positive suggestions.

I say that not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had the chance to peruse the Sunday newspapers, as I hope you had the time to do and enjoy, you would have seen comment on today’s gathering of international experts on human gene editing. Although the techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 may be similar, this is of course a different issue from those under consideration today. However, I would argue that many of the ethical issues around animals are not dissimilar. That is why the Government’s refusal to adopt our suggestion of an overseeing authority to look at these very complicated and challenging issues is so disappointing. We have a great chance to be genuinely world-leading in this area. We have brilliant people such as those at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, yet the Government are, apparently, not interested. That is a wasted opportunity.

Let us look at these amendments in more detail. As I have said, on a number of issues the Government have bowed to informed argument in the other place and agreed that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure: on the release or marketing of genetically edited organisms; on information that must be included in the register; on the animal welfare declaration that has to be made; and on the body to be designated as the animal welfare advisory body. That is all welcome. But one of the most powerful and consistent criticisms has been the vagueness of the Bill on many issues and the lack of detail, particularly relating to the proposals regarding animals and when regulations might take effect. I am afraid that these amendments do not seem to help us on this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on it. The promise at the outset was that nothing would be done on animals until the science was further advanced; it has been described as a “step-by-step approach”. Will the Minister reconfirm that commitment today and tell us what timeframe is actually envisaged? As for companion animals or primates, can he give any reassurances on that today? Many people will be keen to hear what he has to say on it.

As I have already indicated, the most significant amendment is to clause 1, as the Government seek once again to explain what they consider to be a natural process. We had an interesting and extensive discussion in Committee on this point, both with those giving evidence and between members, and it was discussed at length in the other place. I fear that the Government have struggled with this, and I am not sure the new wording takes us much further forward. In general, the Government have sought to define a new category, “precision breeding” which many expert witnesses doubt has much meaning. The particular concern is whether the definitions accurately describe gene editing, without allowing gene modification in through the back door, with one of the key issues being whether exogenous material is included.

The amendment before us introduces yet another term—modern biotechnology. This is also ill-defined, and, as argued by Lord Krebs in the other place, may not stand the test of time, or, more importantly, as we heard in expert evidence, legal scrutiny and challenge. I appreciate that this is difficult territory and hard to define, and almost any sentence fails to capture the complexity, but we were promised at the outset that GM is excluded, and it would be helpful to have the Minister confirm that clearly again today.

l am conscious that you do not want lengthy speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me conclude. The learned and lengthy discussions in the other place showed just how complicated this subject is. Sadly, the Government have made only limited changes in the light of those discussions. Those changes are welcome, so we will not oppose them, but we think that this is a missed opportunity to set out the strong regulatory framework that would have reassured the public, and given investors the confidence that the sector needs.

There is significant opportunity for good here, but there are also risks—risks we may not fully understand. It is also worth bearing in mind that one mistake could tarnish the entire technology. As so often, the Government have gone for the short-term quick fix—the sticking plaster. How much better it would have been to have set up the robust long-term framework that could have established the UK as the setter of the standard that others will follow. That is unfinished business, and it is for another day.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise

again in support of this important Bill. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am passionate about animal health and welfare, and strongly believe that the Bill will help in that area.

The Bill has been strengthened and improved in the other place. Its definitions are also tighter. I am pleased that the Opposition amendment to remove animals from the Bill was withdrawn and has not been carried forward. It is so important that both animals and plants are included in the Bill. I was also pleased that the amendments that would have phased in animal provisions were not successful. That has strong benefits for animal health and welfare, and it is important that animals are included.

I very much welcome the Government’s allaying of concerns expressed by the Opposition about exogenous DNA, therefore preventing any exogenous DNA that was outside the range of an organism’s existing gene pool from remaining in the organism. Amendments 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been very helpful in that regard. It is important to reaffirm to the public and the world at large that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very, very different from genetic modification. That is where genetic material from exogenous or unrelated species can be introduced. That will not happen in this gene editing Bill.

I very much welcome the Government amendments that have removed reference to natural transformation. Some clarity was needed in that regard. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces more parliamentary scrutiny to help protect animal health and welfare, which strengthens the safeguards. This increased scrutiny will also allay some of the fears that people had put forward.

The Bill has huge benefits to animals, plants, the environment and people in, for example, helping to develop resistance to diseases such as avian influenza. A lot of work is being done to make birds resistant to this horrific disease. A huge outbreak has gripped this country and others across the world and that is firmly in our minds. This sort of technology will help us in that battle. It will also help us to develop resistance to other diseases, such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs. It will help reduce the need for medicines, help combat antimicrobial resistance and, indirectly and very directly, help public health. It will also help us as a country and as a world in our fight to preserve and strengthen food security by being able to develop more climate-resilient and disease-resistant crops, reducing the need for pesticides and reducing the need for fertiliser as well. That will also benefit the environment.

In summary, I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the Government amendments. I thank the other place for refining and improving the Bill and I wish it well as it completes its passage.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We have touched on this issue already. Many are concerned about it, with the notable exception of the Secretary of State, who sparked incredulity across the sector earlier this year with comments suggesting that all is fine in the world of abattoirs. Opposition Members do not think that the lack of local abattoirs is fine, and we want to find ways to address the problem, which is what new clause 23 is about. I will focus specifically on the animal welfare benefits that building up such a network would achieve.

Through the Bill, the Government are rightly trying to end the export of certain livestock for slaughter. This practice can have seriously negative impacts on livestock as a result of extensive journey times, as we have discussed. However, we do not think that the problem will be resolved simply by banning overseas exports. In the UK, there has been a rapid decline in the number of local abattoirs. A report by National Craft Butchers stated that there are only 62 local slaughterhouses left, and prospects for the future are fairly bleak. Seven in 10 abattoir owners were aged over 51, with 11% still working beyond the normal retirement age. More than half had no plan for someone younger to take over. That decline is down to a host of reasons, including staff shortages, vet shortages, centralisation of supply chains and, inevitably, regulatory changes and bureaucracy.

However, the consequence of the lack of a local network of abattoirs is that animals are often transported over long distances for slaughter, which poses much the same welfare concerns as shipping animals overseas, as animals still spend long periods being transported. I appreciate that the Government are consulting on these issues, but I think I am correct in saying that that is largely about improving transport. That is fine, but it does not alter the fact that long distances remain long distances. As I said, some of this is inevitably linked to significant changes in the way supply chains operate and to consolidation within sectors; the old days of local markets have largely gone, and while vertical integration may have benefits, there are, as ever, wider consequences that are less beneficial.

In September, the EFRA Committee published a report on moving animals across borders, saying:

“The consolidation of abattoir services means that the spread of services is not uniform across the UK, so many animals have to travel long journeys prior to slaughter. This undermines the ambition of the Government’s consultation on ‘Improvements to animal welfare in transport’ to reduce unnecessarily long journey times”.

I have spoken about this before. It is quite clear that the lack of local slaughterhouses also means that smaller farmers are unable to keep certain types of animals, due to the welfare concerns associated with transporting them over long distances for slaughter, which in turn reduces the likelihood of the return to mixed farming, which many would like.

Put simply, the market may be delivering what works for some retailers, but it is not delivering the wider public goods that we were discussing in this very Committee room almost two years ago in the Agriculture Bill Committee. We warned about these problems then, and today we give the Government the opportunity to do something about them.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Cambridge. I am glad that he referred to the EFRA Committee report. I am a member of that Committee. Based on our findings on the movement of animals across borders, one of our key recommendations was that the UK local abattoir network needed supporting and bolstering, and we recommended that the Government look at that. If we improve the local abattoir network it will actually mitigate a lot of the animal welfare issues related to long-distance transport, because distances will be shorter and animals will be reared locally and slaughtered locally and the food will be purchased and eaten locally—something that we are all pushing for. I know that Ministers agree with me that that is a positive thing that we should try to move towards.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, please don’t, because obviously that would upset the Whip and then it would have to be changed.

Finally, we come to amendment 120, which I really hoped was going to be a final victory and was written with guidance from the British Veterinary Association. We have discussed the amendment and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border put things very well, although I wait to see whether his helpful suggestion about amending it further will be well received or not. The issue is around “specialist” and “expert”. We cannot see why the Government cannot just change that word, so, Mr Davies, we will press this amendment to a vote.

[Dr Hudson]

Again, we are coming back to this issue of specialist competency and expertise. As a new Member of Parliament, I am new to the system but I wish to put on record the frustrations with how we are drafting law. Obviously, we cannot change hundreds of years of history relating to how we do it, but it is very frustrating to have amendments from both sides of the House—from Government and Opposition—when if there were consultation with members of the Bill Committee, in a similar way that Select Committee members agree the final wording of a report, I am sure we could nail all the different issues and agree a sensible form of wording. When amendments are tabled and there has not been any discussion about them, then those amendments may pass or fail depending on the wording. If an amendment is incorrectly worded, then we cannot support it. If we could get together, consult and agree on wording, then we would pass better law.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a very sensible suggestion. I fear we are not quite in that world yet, although it is miraculous how things, as they go through, can sometimes change. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the message has been heard on this side, but we will still press the amendment to a vote. One never knows—we might even win. On that basis, I do not wish to pursue any of the other amendments.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

We are reaching a degree of consensus about this, in terms of the importance of education. Like the hon. Member for Ceredigion, I represent a rural constituency and we have had a lot of access to the countryside during the pandemic.

I take on board the Minister’s comments about the new countryside code. We have a spirit of agreement across the Committee and we encourage the Government, the Department for Education and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advocate the countryside code going into schools. That way, it becomes part of the education process for the next generation so that people appreciate the countryside, appreciate how and where food is produced and how to be respectful of that countryside that we all enjoy. We are in agreement and we just need to get the message out there, into schools and into the education system.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Everyone would agree with all that, but that is for the future. We are dealing with a generation now. It is not just a generational issue, but groups of people are going into the countryside who are either not cognisant of those recommendations, or just not behaving very well, frankly. I am afraid there are people who do not. That is why we think a simple measure like this one would help alleviate the problems that people in the countryside face. We think that the amendment is important and quite straightforward, and on that basis, we will put it to a vote.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

The amendments are about the level of expertise required of a veterinary surgeon. Our view is that more specialist expertise is required for primates. Looking to expertise in the room, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may wish to comment.

All veterinary surgeons have skills and qualifications, but given that this will be a relatively unusual occurrence one wonders whether they will be in the right place to do what is needed. I understand that a range of organisations, including Born Free, the RSPCA, Wild Futures, the British Veterinary Association, the Ape Alliance and others have expressed concern that premises inspections for licences, renewals and check-ups should be conducted only by competent veterinary surgeons with suitable knowledge and experience of primates. We have discussed how infrequent those checks could be. We do not know what the geographical spread will be, so it is possible that people will be doing this very rarely. Therefore, the question is: do they fully appreciate what is required?

I hinted earlier that the Government have failed to spell out the ideal conditions. I understand that further work may be done in regulations and so on, but, as we have just been reflecting, these creatures have extremely complicated welfare needs. They are long-living, intelligent —highly intelligent, in some cases—social animals. It is hardly surprising that many animal welfare organisations believe that a high level of expertise should be a prerequisite of assessing whether a keeper will be able to provide the right environment for a primate.

Amendments 110 and 111 address the aspects of the Bill that cover premises inspections for licence applications and renewals, which under the Bill currently can be carried out by a veterinary surgeon. An average veterinary surgeon will have a broad and extensive knowledge of a wide variety of animals, but how rarely will this arise? I genuinely do not know how many primates the average vet sees, but I guess it is a few. I shall happily take an intervention from a vet. How many primates does the average vet see?

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am not competent or experienced when it comes to treating or examining primates, and that is the nub of the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge is making. I am sympathetic to what he is saying.

When veterinary surgeons train, certainly in this country, they have the potential to practise on any species; they are described as being omnipotential. That is very different from being omnicompetent. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are very sensible, but I respectfully disagree with the detailed wording. Committee members will recall the evidence we took from the president of the British Veterinary Association about the term “specialist”—unfortunately, the amendments contain the word “specialist”. In the veterinary world, that will conflate and confuse the issue. As the president of the BVA said, she is not a specialist as per the definitions, but she is experienced in zoo medicine, having worked in it for many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

This has been a helpful discussion—hopefully, we will come to a sensible resolution. I hear what the Minister says about the advice and guidance. My reflection, having been some years ago a district councillor in a rural area that had some areas that needed to be licensed, is that we struggled with expertise.

Much of the discussion in the end is not so much about primates but about licensing, and how we go about it. Having spent a number of years trying to get the taxi licensing system improved, I am beginning to draw on my conversations with the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers; I remember some of the complexities that can be brought up. None of this is simple or easy. We need expert advice, and the right people. If we do not have them, we will not get a very good outcome. We think that amendment 112 is sufficiently important to vote on, but I will withdraw the others.

[Dr Hudson]

I support the Government on this issue, but we heard evidence last week that the number of veterinarians with the relevant competence and expertise to look at primates is unclear, but in the order of 50. If we had the word “specialist” in the Bill, we could whittle that down to single figures—or it could be 10 or 20 —because that term means that a person has either their royal college boards or their European college, American college, Australasian college or many others, and that then the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has accredited them as a specialist.

The current wording would really complicate things. I strongly urge the Minister and the Government to take on board the Opposition’s comments about competence and experience so that the licensing protocol is not merely a box-ticking exercise by someone who will potentially be very much out of their comfort zone.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 10, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) a local authority may take into account—

(a) any previous failure by the applicant to meet the licensing standards, and

(b) any other conduct of the applicant that is relevant.”—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment allows a local authority to take previous breaches of the licensing standards, and other relevant conduct, into account when making determinations under clause 5(2) and (3).

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

Again, I am sympathetic to the hon. Member for Cambridge and understand his intention. We have to be sensitive about the language when euthanasing animals. In different contexts, we use different terms. In small animal practice, “put down” and “put to sleep” are often used. In the equine profession, where I have spent many years, we will not use “put down”, but will often use “euthanased”. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments that in some of the legislation “humanely destroyed” has been used, which is often used in clinical and scientific literature.

To the Government, I say that in considering changing the terminology, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and would not prefer “euthanised”. If we look at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ website and the section on euthanasia, we often use the term “euthanased”, in that a vet euthanases an animal. There is that matter of semantics. In America, they talk about “euthanatizing” and “euthanizing”. I cannot support “humanely euthanised” for some of the reasons I have just given and I suggest that “humanely euthanased” would be a suitable substitution. I wish the Government would have a look at this to get to more clinical and scientific language.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His expertise is extremely helpful to the Committee and shows how complicated this is. Clause 16(2)(c) is just too aggressive in this context. While I accept the Minister’s explanation of the legal situation, I cannot see why that cannot be put in a different way, given the kind of creatures we are dealing with. I suspect the Minister agrees, but she has to do what she has to do. We are not going to push this to a vote to embarrass people—there is no point—but if there is an opportunity, perhaps it could be amended at some further point in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is very helpful. Thank you very much.

[Dr Hudson]

Q The Minister will be relieved to hear that Justine has answered many of my questions already. To reiterate a couple of them, you are keen for health checks to be made on animals prior to entry, covering diseases such as brucellosis and leishmaniasis. I am interested in your comments about reintroducing mandatory tick and tapeworm treatments for cats. Can you give the Committee your perspective on why it is important that we do that quickly?

Justine Shotton: That is to protect not only those animals, but animals in the UK. Certain parasites can be detrimental and harmful to human health, so we want to ensure they are eliminated before those animals come in. The timeframe is important in terms of the elimination. There are also some nasty tick-borne diseases. This would protect not only our pets but public health, and the timeframe is important because of the lifecycle of those animals and the timeframe in which they breed infection.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is very helpful. Thank you.

[Dr Hudson]

Q Paula, you talked about clarity on the age of animals being brought in. There are many welcome suggestions in the Bill. Many people have said, and I share the concerns, that we need more clarity and detail in the Bill, on issues such as increasing the age to six months, and you talked about reintroducing the rabies titre test. Also, the Bill talks about mutilations, but does not specify the mutilations; there is a similar point about the number of days pregnant. Currently, importation is illegal in the last 10% of gestation, but it is actually very difficult to ascertain how heavily pregnant an animal is.

Can you give us some evidence to help us in terms of tightening up the Bill through putting in numbers, such as six months of age; reintroducing health checks; the rabies titre test; and specifying mutilations such as cropped ears? The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about declawed cats as well. Can you give us specific asks? For example, how heavily pregnant should it be—is it in the last 30% to 50% of gestation? What can we do to tighten up the Bill to make the provisions clearer to the outside world?

Paula Boyden: You mentioned the minimum age of entry. The proposal is six months. We would really like to see that science, as there is a potential to start looking at older dogs. The reason I say that is because of the disease risk from those dogs, which I appreciate is not part of the scope today. We have 12 years of serology data on the rabies vaccination and the rabies titre test from the 12 years prior to the change in 2012. We know that the animals that are least likely to respond to the rabies vaccination are young dogs—young, naive animals—those under a year of age, I would say, particularly with large breeds. The wait period would bring the time period in line with the incubation of the disease—most cases of rabies will present between three and 12 weeks post infection. That measure starts to give us a good framework, should we want to expand that at a later date.

On pregnancy, David mentioned third-party sales. It is not a bad piece of legislation, but I go back to a previous comment—we need to take a holistic view. This is all about the supply of and demand for dogs. Illegal importation is one side, but the domestic legislation around breeding and sale is also important. We have to tie them together. Since that legislation on third-party sales came in, we have seen a significant increase in pregnant mums coming in. This time of year, we are seeing a surge because they are all coming in for the Christmas market, because it completely circumvents the ban on third-party sales.

As a minimum, we ought to be reducing the gestation period to a maximum of 30% —a maximum of one half to two-thirds pregnant. We had originally said 50% of pregnancy, and the reason for that was that the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 protects unborn offspring at 50%, but having spoken to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I understand that you can use ultrasound and the kidneys appear at about 42 days, so that could be quite a good indicator. The challenge with ageing at the moment is that it is very subjective. You are looking at the body weight, the size, of the puppy, but you are also looking at the eruption of the teeth—the adult teeth—which again is going to be variable. So having something that is a little bit more specific would be great, and if it were reduced to 42 days, it would mean that—well, certainly looking at the figures that we have, over 70% of the pregnant mums that were seized would have been illegally imported, compared with a smaller proportion. It is very, very difficult to say that a bitch is 50 days’ pregnant versus 54 days’ pregnant or whatever. The issue is having that specificity.

The journeys that these mums undertake are horrific—that is the only way I can describe them. They do not have enough room. There is no temperature regulation. Quite often, they are not fed, because if they are not fed, there is very little coming out the other end. They are given very little water. They have no breaks. That is not a way to treat a heavily pregnant animal of whatever species we are talking about. So the aim should be to reduce that and, as I mentioned, to absolutely ban the commercial importation of pregnant mums as well.

Sitting alongside that is the issue of mutilations. We very much support the ban on importing dogs that are mutilated—docked and cropped, and you mentioned cats that have been declawed. The one thing that does not happen at the moment is visual checks on importation. The checks are undertaken by the carriers, which we feel is wrong. That should actually be done by either an independent or a Government agency, so that there is no conflict there. But it should at least involve a visual check. We have demonstrated that on a number of occasions when we have actually imported a toy dog and nobody looked in the crate to see that it was a toy dog. We need that to see what the position is: “Does this actually match up? Does this animal actually need a physical examination?” We are not saying that we need to be hands on with every animal, but having a physical check is really quite critical in this respect.

In terms of mutilations, as I have mentioned, it is really important that we ban not only the importation but the sale of those dogs and cats so that they cannot be passed on, but we would very much welcome a very tight exemption so that, as a rehoming organisation, we could rehome them rather than the dogs being confined to our care for the rest of their lives. That is exactly what we have with section 1 dogs at the moment, because we cannot rehome them.

There is another thing sitting alongside this. We have spoken about the checks at the ports. I have two comments. One is that the risk with raising the minimum age of entry to six months is that we may see a shift from what we have at the moment, which is illegal importation, whereby the puppies are declared and have a passport but the information is wrong, to true smuggling, whereby they are hidden. We need to be mindful of that and look at how we can address it.

The other thing that we need alongside this, aside from the enforcement, is penalties, because the penalties just are not there. We have had approximately 2,000 puppies come into our care since we have been working with Animal and Plant Health Agency colleagues at Dover. Out of those, there have been three prosecutions and not one custodial sentence. If I use the analogy of cigarette smuggling, the maximum sentence there is seven years, whereas the maximum sentence for this is a year. I find it quite strange that if I were caught smuggling cigarettes, the last thing that would happen is that I would be given my cigarettes back, yet that is what has happened to the importers—they can claim their puppies back. One thing that we have seen through lockdown, because of the increased demand and increased prices, is more and more puppies being reclaimed through quarantine, because there is still a profit to be made. That is fundamentally wrong. At the moment, there is no deterrent to trying to circumvent whatever rules we put in place.