Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Q Earlier, you were asked about our relationship with the EU on this matter, and you mentioned progress in precision breeding across the world. How does that fit together, where is most of the research taking place, and which countries should we look at to make comparisons with the UK?

Dr Ferrier: Certainly, the most recent development in countries reviewing their legislation, and one that I think would be really useful for you to look at, is what Health Canada, the Canadian authority, has done. It has recently reviewed its legislation and put out some technical guidance. The key thing is that it confirms that precision bred organisms do not pose any additional safety risks compared with conventionally bred plant varieties. That is driving Canada’s regulatory process. It is not proposing different authorisation and risk-assessment processes. It does not believe that that would add any significant benefit for consumers or the environment, because the science does not show any additional risks—that is very similar to the European Food Safety Authority opinion from the end of November 2020.

Argentina is certainly a very interesting case. Since it has put in place proportionate and enabling regulations—such as those that the Government propose in this Bill—it has seen a real increase in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises and public-good breeding R&D activities taking products through that regulatory process, so that it is not just the preserve of the largest companies that are able to pay for and absorb any uncertainty in a less ideal or dysfunctional regulatory process.

Japan is another example of where a product—a tomato—has been through that process. In countries that put in place proper regulation, the actual process is functional and works well for the companies. Those countries then see investment in R&D and into commercial companies. That is bringing through the products. South America, North America and Japan are investing in this. It is interesting to see how quickly the science develops into commercial opportunities once the regulations are right.

David Exwood: The challenges that we face as farmers in the UK—sustainability, climate change and so on—are the challenges faced by farmers across the world, and we are all looking for solutions to those problems. It is interesting that across the world, there is a move on this technology, which we are seeing quite widely. That is because everybody is looking for answers and solutions to the challenges that we all face.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Q I thank the witnesses for their time. I want to turn to animals specifically, which some people are surprised to see included in the Bill so early on. Animal welfare charities are anxious that using gene editing to improve productivity and disease resistance could lead to more intensive farming. What would you say to that?

Dr Ferrier: There is no evidence that that would be the case, but we understand that people have concerns about existing farming systems. We see that expressed, and we work hard to address it. To me, that is a separate issue from the Bill. We can have discussions about how to improve animal welfare, but I really do not think that it would be sensible, I guess, to design special elements of this particular Bill to address general concerns about farming systems.

The other important thing to be aware of is all the existing animal welfare rules and activities within Government and industry. Obviously the Animal Welfare Act 2006 applies, so we need not duplicate elements of that in the Bill, and there are codes of practice for each sector that are being reviewed all the time. Also, the action plan for animal welfare is in place, and the animal welfare pathway is being developed. We therefore think that concerns in the area, which are freely expressed, are being, and can be, dealt with through appropriate parts of legislation and industry action.

The Bill, which relates to just one particular technology, is not the place to address those areas. We have talked about the challenges. It is not just a challenge for growers of crops; there are a lot of difficulties that are climate change-related, and disease, health and welfare-related production challenges for farmers. There are genetic solutions to some of those challenges that we would like to see explored. We would like farmers to have the benefit of them, but we will only be able to explore them if the legislation enables companies to invest in the technologies to work out whether some of them could help. We can only see benefit from using this technology to address some of those problems.

[Ruth Jones]

Mr Exwood, do you want to add anything specifically on gene editing and animal welfare?

David Exwood: I understand the concerns about animal welfare, but it is really important to say that with animals the ability to produce sustainability with less impact applies just the same as with crops. I have dehorned thousands of cattle in my farming career, and the ability to breed out horns in cattle is a clear gain for people and livestock. It would be good for everybody. I would be very happy if I never had to dehorn another calf again. I understand the nervousness, but there are things that this Bill will offer that are clearly a gain. It is wrong to assume that it will just lead to an intensification of production.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Q We have already spoken this morning and asked a question about regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU. Your response was that you were not concerned about that so much as you were about the UK being left behind. Some of us are quite concerned about areas of the United Kingdom being left behind, given the Scottish Government’s reluctance thus far to look at doing the same sort of thing that we are doing, so I want to ask our two guests: do you have any concerns about regulatory divergence within the United Kingdom?

David Exwood: Yes, we do have concerns. The main concern is that farmers across the UK should have access to this technology. I would urge that the gains we see are available to all. I understand the politics of the situation, but again I think that the fact that the EU is moving on this and has made clear signals about the direction of travel gives us some reassurance that across the whole continent we are moving to a different position on this technology. Therefore, the other countries of the UK should be looking to where everybody is moving and our market is moving, and think about how they might want to be in line, alongside what we could do in England.

Dr Ferrier: To be honest, I think it is a real shame, because clearly some of the best scientists and geneticists are operating in Wales and Scotland. There is a real strength. A lot of investment goes on under our devolved Administrations to invest in the science, but in order for there to be a return on that investment, it needs to lead to some kind of commercial adoption. It is a real shame for those scientists to consider that their work will not go beyond the lab if those Administrations’ positions remain the same. I do not think this should be a political issue, because it is about recognising a technology that has a lot of potential to do good things for the environment, society, animals, and farmers and growers; it would be a shame if it were a political issue. We will see. Time will tell whether movement within the EU—which certainly for the Scottish Government, as you know, is a key place where they are looking to see what approach they should take—will change the position. It would be a shame if this were derailed for political reasons when the issues are not political.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We are. We missed a little towards the end there, Professor.

Professor Henderson: I am sorry; if it happens again, I will switch wi-fi on to my phone. I do apologise.

I was saying that, from an EU perspective, the final thing to say is that the EU itself is of course consulting on changing the law in a way similar to the way that we are considering, and it is quite likely to change on the same timescale that we will be producing marketable crops.

[Ruth Jones]

Q Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Professor Henderson, for your time this morning.

I note in the Bill that the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals; therefore, it follows that it is obviously not just farm animals that we are talking about here. I just wondered what you see the Bill actually covering in terms of applications beyond farm animals—what sort of areas do you see the Bill taking us in?

Professor Henderson: I am sorry; could you repeat the question, please?

[Ruth Jones]

Yes, okay. In the Bill, the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals. Therefore, it follows that if we are not just talking about farm animals, we are talking about animals outside farms. What sort of applications you were thinking of? As you said, you have been involved in the development of this Bill. What sort of areas are we looking at in terms of the application of gene editing here?

[The Chair]

Did you hear that question, Professor Henderson?

Professor Henderson: I heard something about—[Interruption.] The application for animals outside the farm is something that will need to be addressed before secondary legislation can be enacted. It is not something that I am willing to discuss now, because I—[Interruption.]

[Ruth Jones]

I am sorry, Chair; I cannot understand the answer.

[Jo Churchill]

I understand, Gideon, that you are on a visit. May I suggest, with the Committee’s indulgence, that we slot you in on Thursday, if people are agreeable and you have the time? Your evidence is both welcome and vital, and we would like to hear from you.

Professor Henderson: Again, I can only apologise for the bad wi-fi I have here. I would be happy to come back to you at any time that suits the Committee.

[The Chair]

We have 10 minutes left in this session, so let us have one more try. If that is unsuccessful, then, with my co-Chair, we can consider changing the programme motion. We have agreed a programme motion so it would have to be formally changed. Will you ask the question again, Ruth?

[Ruth Jones]

Did you hear the question, Professor Henderson?

Professor Henderson: I think your question was to do with animals that are not on farms—non-livestock animals—which I take to mean things like pets. In that area, there is a piece of work still to do to ensure that animal welfare is looked after and continues to be well looked after following the passage of any Bill on precision breeding. That is a piece of work that scientific information will need to feed into.

There is a body of evidence on animal welfare, including on-farm and off-farm welfare. That is a process that I believe will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.

[Ruth Jones]

Q Just to be clear, did you say this piece of work will take two to three years to take place?

Professor Henderson: That is our expectation.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Continuing on the animal front, we know that some animals, such as pets, including some of the brachycephalic dogs, are bred to have traits that are not desirable from a health point of view. There is increasing concern about the popularity of pugs, French bulldogs and creatures like that. On the farm animal side, you have poultry that is bred to an immense size and cows where the milk yields are going up year on year—they are bred to produce more than they would naturally.

What do you see as the parameters of that? How will the Bill protect animal welfare? Because of the popularity of those dogs, breeders may make use of the new technology to breed even more extreme examples. Would that be desirable? How can we prevent that from happening? You may have answered that in response to my colleague and said that it needs more time, but how do you see that in terms of the desire for increased yields and increased production on farms? Is there not an argument for not including animals in the Bill while this further research takes place?

Professor Henderson: Scientifically, the application of these technologies to cross to livestock or other animals is identical in terms of the changes it can cause. It can mimic the impact of breeding more efficiently, effectively and rapidly. In the livestock and animal area, this has identified more clearly a problem that was already there and the fact that we know, with respect to animal welfare, there are some negative outcomes that come from traditional breeding processes. If we are able to speed that process up through precision breeding, those negative outcomes may occur more quickly.

The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals. That is not because the science is different but because the existing regulation around animals differs from that needed around crops. That is why the instrument is set up as a secondary instrument, so that there is time to fully consider and deal with the animal welfare processes before that is changed in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

That is helpful. Thank you.

[Ruth Jones]

Q Thank you for your time this morning, Professor May. We heard from a previous witness that the EU is likely to develop its work on gene editing along similar timescales. Given the need to share information, how will the FSA and the European Food Safety Authority share information as we go down this path?

Professor May: Previously, prior to Brexit, everything was handled at the European level. As I just mentioned, we share informally the scientific advice, which is very international. Often the people who are providing evidence for a risk assessment are the same people—they may not even be within the EU, but wherever that expertise is available in the world—so there is quite a lot of sharing at that level. Currently, our only formal arrangement with the EU on food safety is around alerts. An alert for a food safety issue that may have an impact on the UK is passed to us, but something that affects countries outside and has no impact on the UK would not necessarily be shared.

I think all of us hope that there will be a reciprocal arrangement for sharing information in future. It is in everyone’s interest to share as much evidence and data as possible, but that is obviously not in my gift to control. There is recognition in the EU that the current GM framework is not fit for purpose for these kinds of products, so the process is already rolling in the EU to look at how it might be changed. How long that will take, and what the outcome might be, will obviously be very different. I would anticipate that it is going to take longer than it will in the UK to get resolution on that.

[Ruth Jones]

Q You mentioned alerts. Obviously, nobody wants to leave it until there is an alert situation, but what about developing more formal mechanisms as we go forward, rather than relying on the good will of scientists?

Professor May: Sitting here as a scientist, obviously I hope very much that there will be good sharing. As I said before, it is in everyone’s interest to share the best science and the best evidence around this. Happily, building those relationships is not in my purview to organise, but I hope that there will be sharing, particularly around the horizon-scanning function. For us as a regulator, it is really critical to think about not just what is on our desks now, but what will be there in two, three or five years’ time. What is the science that we will need to assess the potential risks of products that I have not even thought of yet? Collaborative agreement around what might be coming down the road is really critical for all of us.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Something occurred to me when I was looking at the Bill again last night. Do you feel that you have sufficient capacity to be able to cope with the extra responsibilities that you are taking on? Have the Ministers given you further guarantees that you will be supported in that?

Professor May: That is a very good question. It is hard to predict based on the estimation of what might be coming to our desks. On the one hand, the Bill will remove a tranche of products that would otherwise have been assessed as GM products. We already regulate GM products, and there is the capacity. On the other hand, the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate development in this area, so we may end up with a lot more applications, in which case we are going to need additional resource. We have taken steps in that direction, including recruiting independent experts in this area to provide scientific expertise, but if there were a large volume of applications needing consideration, we would need additional support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher]

And she—let us make it a she—almost environmentally released it into a field.

Professor Dunwell: Yes. That is the context, and I think it is important just generally that people—well, that is me producing a sermon. That is the context in which we are now working.

[Ruth Jones]

Q I am interested in the environmental release side. Your advice to DEFRA was that “different parameters” should be applied to the environmental release of gene editing micro-organisms because of the increased risk of gene flow. Can you explain that point about gene flow? Does that mean that micro-organisms are outside the remit of the Bill?

Professor Dunwell: That is a whole other area. Science in this area has not been applied in the same way to a micro-organism. Obviously, it has been applied to animals. You talked before about asking the question about gene edited animals. One of the things I should add before I get to the other question is that the best example of that on the market at the moment is gene edited fish in Japan. There are two varieties of fish whose growth rate has been modified through gene editing, which have been on the market—I do not know whether successfully commercially, but they are one of the prime examples of that.

On micro-organisms, we hope at the next ACRE meeting—we have not had an in-person meeting since covid started—to start to explore the applications in the microbiology area. We have invited people along from outside, as we do quite regularly, for consciousness raising at a scientific level, to get the best experts to say where they see this type of technology going. Microbiology at the moment is not specifically described in here. It will develop over time because there is an increasing interest in applying different microbes—often ones that have been selected, because the soil is full of tens of thousands of microbes, and some of them are good and some are bad. Many companies now have huge collections of hundreds of thousands of microbes that they go through to try to pick ones that may have an antagonistic effect on other microbes, so they can be applied as inoculants into the soil to improve soil health.

All that is really admirable and exciting stuff. It depends, again, on our ability to identify, extract and sequence genetic information. I went to a meeting probably 20 years ago in Paris, when somebody for the first time said that their PhD student, having spent three years, had got the sequence of one bacterium. He was so proud of that student. Now, you can probably do hundreds in a day. The rate of change is orders of magnitude just in 20 years. It is in what grows out of that and how we develop the regulatory boundaries that the challenges lie.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you very much; that is very helpful.

[The Chair]

That brings to a conclusion this morning’s session. Professor Dunwell, thank you for your time and evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition this interesting debate on gene editing. I must say that the level of input has been high quality, with important points made across the House.

I trust that the Minister was listening carefully to the words of advice and guidance given to her by hon. Members across the House, but in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who has led on this topic for the Opposition for several years.

Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. We also recognise, as has been said, that laws designed 30 years ago for genetically modified products need to be updated and that most countries are recognising that gene editing needs to be treated differently.

We are more than willing to work with the Government to achieve real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. We want the Government to prioritise innovations that would provide public benefit and prosperity. We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK, and we know that crop development and innovation has brought us all huge gains. But that requires a strong regulatory framework to get it right, and this Bill does not provide that. It needs substantial amendment. We need a strong regulatory framework that will give scientists and businesses the confidence to invest here in the UK, while giving confidence and knowledge to consumers so they can make informed decisions—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made eloquently.

We welcome the research and innovation currently under way, but to get this legislation right, the Government must have a strong plan to balance the risks and manage trade-offs. Of course we cannot afford to let risks paralyse our course of action, but we do need a system that manages those risks and provides security and transparency for businesses and consumers alike.

The Bill provides for the deregulation of genetic editing of vertebrate animals and includes a provision to establish a welfare advisory body. That advisory body must report to the Secretary of State to inform them whether the originator of a genetically edited organism under consideration has identified any adverse impacts on animal welfare and made an appropriate risk assessment for their proposals.

However, the Bill as it stands does not specify which adverse impacts on animals would be grounds for a GEO application’s being denied, nor does it lay out what evidence the advisory body will consider with regards to animal welfare. Several non-governmental organisations and civil society groups have criticised that element of the Bill.

The Government’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 made provisions for an Animal Sentience Committee to scrutinise and consider the impact of legislation on animal welfare, but the committee has not yet been fully established. Can the Minister explain in her wind up why she is pressing ahead with this legislation before the Animal Sentience Committee has had time to consider it?

Research has overwhelmingly found that consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from that for genetically modified foods, but they want clear labelling and effective regulation of gene-edited products so they can choose the products that suit their lifestyle. Surely that is not an unreasonable ask.

Here we have a much-needed Bill, given the need for agri-innovation and scientific development, and of course the Opposition welcome the concept. But why oh why is this legislation being rushed in? We need strong and robust regulation of this important and developing field. We need clear scientific evidence and strong protections to safeguard animal welfare. We need clear and transparent labelling to protect and inform consumers. Yet again we see truth in the saying “Legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, and I urge the Government to consider our concerns and those of stakeholders and consumers and be open to constructive criticism in Committee. If they are prepared to do that, we will not push for a vote on Second Reading.

Breed-specific Legislation

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir George. This has been a very focused and consensual debate, and I am pleased to say a few words from the Opposition Front Bench. This is the second time in just a few months that I have had the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for opening a debate in the House, and I do so again today.

I would like to acknowledge the colleagues who have spoken in today’s debate and all those who signed this petition. Involvement and engagement with our democratic processes can at times seem difficult, so I am pleased that at least 114,000 people from across the UK, including more than 150 people in my own constituency of Newport West, signed the petition. I thank them for ensuring that their voices have been heard and I hope that the Minister responds in detail to the points raised in this debate.

The benefit of a very focused debate is that there is no excuse for rambling, dithering or delay, so I shall be as brief as possible. I start by reiterating, as I do at every opportunity afforded to me, that those on the Opposition Benches believe in honouring animal welfare and we will always push for the strongest possible animal welfare policies. Those are not just words. Colleagues across the House had the opportunity to help us to put our pledges into action during the passage of the Bill that became the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Alas, Tory Members of this House voted down every single animal welfare-related amendment, opposed every single suggestion and ignored even the most anodyne points from Opposition Members. That is a matter of deep regret.

Many people out in the country, including those who have signed this petition, believe that the current approach to dog control is misguided and does not adequately protect people, or animals for that matter. I agree with that and I hope that the Minister will be crystal clear about her view and that of Her Majesty’s Government.

It is important that we consider some of the background to this important issue. Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, also known as breed-specific legislation, makes it an offence to own, breed from, sell or exchange four dog breeds: the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro. The police or local authority can take away a banned dog even if it is not acting dangerously and there has not been a complaint. It is important to note, as hon. Members have done today, that owners can apply for an exemption order. I would be grateful if the Minister told us how many owners have applied for an exemption in each of the last five years. I hope that, if she does not have access to that information today, she will write to me with it. This is important, because if the court finds that the banned dog is not a danger to public safety, it will be put on the index of exempted dogs and the owner will be allowed to keep it—in compliance with certain conditions, which we have heard outlined today. I think that it would be helpful to colleagues if the Minister outlined whether she thinks that the said conditions as they stand are suitable and effective. If not, how does she think they can be improved, and what work is she doing to improve them?

The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced to protect the public from attacks by dangerous dogs. More than 200,000 people are attacked by dogs in England alone every year. The Act prohibits breeds traditionally bred for fighting, and makes it an offence for any dog to be “dangerously out of control” in our communities. However, since the Act was introduced, the number of fatalities from dog attacks each year has risen. Up to August 2017, there had been 73 fatal dog attacks in England and Wales since the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced. Hospital admissions, as we have heard today, have increased by 81% since 2005. Therefore this is not something that we can ignore.

A petition to the UK Parliament that was entitled “Replace Breed Specific Legislation with a new statutory framework” received more than 118,000 signatures and was debated in Parliament on 5 July 2021. The petition stated that BSL

“fails to achieve what Parliament intended, to protect the public. It focuses on specific breeds, which fails to appreciate a dog is not aggressive purely on the basis of its breed. It allows seizure of other breeds, but the rules are not applied homogeneously by councils.”

It further stated:

“We need a system that focuses on the aggressive behaviour of dogs, and the failure of owners to control their dog, rather than the way a dog looks.”

It called on the Government to “Reconsider a licensing system.” Opposition Members believe that safety must be our top priority, without unnecessarily punishing responsible dog owners or harming dogs that are not necessarily a risk. In other words, we need a realistic and objective approach.

Since the Dangerous Dogs Act came into force, more people have been killed by dog attacks and more people are being admitted to hospital due to dog bites. We all know the feeling of horror when we receive the news of a child or young person killed by a dangerous dog, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). Our sympathies and condolences go out to all those affected by this issue.

At the same time, it is important and fair to note that too many harmless dogs are destroyed simply because they are a banned breed, regardless of their temperament, behaviour or surroundings. We must be more pragmatic when it comes to banning certain dogs based on their breed. All dogs can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Action to tackle dog bites and canine aggression must focus on the deed, not the breed, and that requires proper resources, focus and attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) so eloquently stated.

In 2018, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee carried out an inquiry into breed-specific legislation, and called for a full-scale review of current dog control legislation and policy to ensure the public is properly protected and animal welfare concerns addressed. It said that changing the law on BSL is

“desirable, achievable, and would better protect the public.”

I would welcome hearing the Minister’s view on that inquiry. I would like to know whether she supports the recommendations and what progress has been made on introducing and implementing them. What cross-nation engagement has taken place with the devolved Governments of the United Kingdom?

Like my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I believe we must follow the science and evidence. I call on the Minister today to commit to a review of breed-specific legislation and the Dangerous Dogs Act as soon as possible, and to engage with local authorities, police and experts from other countries to develop a deeper understanding of different successful approaches for the UK.

Government-commissioned research by Middlesex University into dog control measures published in December 2021 concluded that dog ownership is insufficiently regulated. The Government have said that they remain concerned that lifting restrictions could lead to further tragedy, but they have indicated that they are considering the recommendations, which included improved recording of dog attack data and characteristics, and new legal requirements on dog ownership. It would be good to have a further update from the Minister today if possible.

Breed-specific legislation does not stop dogs biting children, young people and adults. It is bad for animal welfare because the dogs cannot be rehomed in a controlled environment. Thousands of dogs are being euthanised. That simply is not a sustainable or fair solution; not if we want to say that this country takes animal welfare seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) highlighted eloquently how people the length and breadth of the UK love their pets. I wish his cat and dog a long and happy life. We want a more holistic approach to dog control that focuses on prevention through education, responsible ownership and early intervention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly stated. As with so much of our national life since 2010, we can solve things if we want to. I hope the Minister will instruct her officials to start making progress on the many points that have been made today. We have no time to waste.

Fly-tipping and Illegal Dumping

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. It is good to see so many colleagues in the Chamber, especially Government Members who are joining us in our plea for the Government to go further and faster in tackling the crime of fly-tipping and illegal dumping.

This is the first time I have spoken in the House since the election of a Labour Government in Australia, and I know the Minister will join me in wishing the new Prime Minister well on such a fantastic result. He is a friend to many in this place, including Adam Jogee in my team. Focusing on tackling the climate emergency worked down under, and I look forward to seeing the same thing happen here—and, of course, I am hoping for the same result here in the next election.

I thank the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) for calling this debate and providing the House with the opportunity to address our collective responsibility for preserving our country, protecting our environment and leaving our planet for the next generation. His predecessor, Dame Caroline Spelman, was of course Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the coalition Government, so his constituency has a keen interest in these matters. It has been clearly highlighted that many other constituencies across the UK do too, and the public are keen to do whatever they can to help. We have already heard about the Wombles and the litter-pickers across the UK. In Newport West, Malpas, Duffryn, Rogerstone and Graig all have litter-pickers out in regular occurrence. Our “road to nowhere”, which was a fly-tipping nightmare, has now been transformed into a road to nature, which is brilliant.

Hon. Members have rightly raised the scourge of waste in their communities, not just today but in many previous debates. Until Ministers step up and give councils the resources they need to keep our communities clean and safe, Members will continue to raise this issue and seek help, change and assistance. Thanks to a lost decade of Tory austerity, plastic waste is piling up on high streets and street corners, and in our green open spaces. Moreover, it is being exported to some of the world’s poorest countries, where what was supposed to be recycled material ends up in landfill, polluting our oceans. It is then shipped back to Britain for us to deal with. This is a very real problem, and it requires speedy, comprehensive and properly funded solutions.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) highlighted the decrease in prosecutions by the Environment Agency. There is a reason for that: these agencies have been underfunded and understaffed for many years, and they have struggled to tackle waste crime and monitor waste exports because of the cuts to their budgets and staff numbers. We all know the impact that austerity has had on local government.

Hon. Members from across the House, including those who represent areas such as Meriden, have stories of how their local councils are struggling to deal with waste effectively, while being forced to cut waste collections. Labour believes that we need a more circular economy in the United Kingdom. The raw materials used to create our products should increasingly come from recycling our waste. Indeed, a Labour Government would take on the global waste crisis by investing in a new plastics recycling and remanufacturing industry, creating thousands of jobs, ending exports of plastic waste and reducing our contribution to ocean pollution.

I am sure the Minister knows that in England, the total volume of aggregate waste increased by 12% between 2010 and 2018. I speak to the House from a Welsh perspective: recycling must outpace the growth in consumption. That is a very simple sum that must add up.

Despite the new powers on waste targets in the Environment Act 2021, I am afraid that the Government have delayed the roll-out of important areas of extended producer responsibility, including the scheme administrators and fee modulation. The current inadequacies of waste collection and recycling systems mean that used compostable packaging tends to end up in either landfill or incineration, or it messes up recycling plants because some of the materials used can be as resistant to degrading in the sea as conventional plastics.

I do not want to show the Minister up, but I have to talk about the Welsh Labour Government, because Wales has been a standout performer in the UK when it comes to recycling rates and tackling waste pollution. The Welsh Labour Government have invested £1 billion since devolution in household recycling, and that has helped Wales’s recycling rates catapult from just 4.8% in 1998 to over 65% in 2021. The latest national recycling figures for Wales showed that we recycled 65.4% of our local authority-collected waste in 2020-21. Eighteen of 22 local authorities in Wales exceeded the statutory minimum target, and 13 reported an increase in performance on the previous year. The next statutory minimum target of 70% by 2024-25 has already been achieved by Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion, Conwy and Vale of Glamorgan. If the hon. Member for Meriden is hoping to find solutions to tackle waste pollution in his constituency, I urge him to look to Wales.

There are a couple of further points of interest. On the international dimension, since China banned the import of waste, illegal exports to other countries appear to be on the rise. I wonder why that is. England does not have the necessary waste and recycling infrastructure. I am afraid that has been made much worse by the soft-on-crime Conservatives, whose savage cuts have caused Environment Agency inspections and enforcement action to plummet since 2010.

When trying to stop waste and fly-tipping in our communities, it is worth looking at the provision for a deposit return scheme in Environment Act. That is limited to certain materials, rather than creating a framework that could be broadened to include more types of plastics or bioplastics in future. We know that deposit return schemes work successfully in other countries. We made it clear throughout Committee stage of the Environment Act that Labour supports a scheme funded by retailers and producers that collects plastic bottles, metal cans and single-use and reusable glass.

This is about pride and who we are as a country. For all the points we have raised about how to tackle the issue, we cannot ignore behaviour change. Waste does not just appear; it is caused by us all—everyday people going about our lives. That is why it is key that alongside all the enforcement, policies and decision making here in this place, we keep the focus on educating people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said, education is key. That starts with how we preserve our planet by disposing of waste properly and safely, and includes why we all benefit from seeing and living on clean streets.

I hope the Minister will provide some answers to my questions. What are her plans to extend the deposit return scheme in the way Labour suggested? What discussions have taken place with the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about ensuring that councils have the resources they need to tackle waste pollution? What lessons have been picked up from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland about their approach to tackling toxic waste, fly-tipping and waste pollution? Those are simple questions and I hope the Minister will be able to give some answers.

I thank you, Sir Mark, for an interesting debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden for bringing it to the Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The National Audit Office’s damning report on waste crime published this week has revealed the Tory Government’s shameful record on prosecutions and enforcement. When will the Minister finally get a grip on tackling waste crime and at least set a robust and achievable target for precisely how many criminals the Environment Agency will prosecute this year?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

We have a suite of measures that will help crack down on that. Yes, the report was damning and showed the size of the problem, but we have established the Joint Unit for Waste Crime to disrupt serious and organised waste crime and the Environment Agency has enhanced powers, as do local councils. Local authorities have the legal powers to take enforcement action and I urge them to use them. We have bolstered those powers. We have awarded £450,000 across 11 councils for the use of innovative technology, such as CCTV cameras, to really drive down on this issue.

Hunting

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who is no longer in her place, and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for opening the debate and raising some important points. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) made some interesting points. It is good that we keep talking as communication is really important in understanding where everyone is coming from.

We are here today because e-petition 552017 received more than 104,000 signatures from local people across the UK, and e-petition 584076 received more than 101,000. That is a lot of people committed to animal welfare, doing the right thing and maintaining and enhancing the protections in law for cruelty against animals. I do not plan to keep colleagues in the Chamber longer than necessary; I am sure that with votes coming up, nobody else wants to stay too long either. However, I want to ensure that a couple of points are on the record.

Members will know that e-petition 552017 asks Her Majesty’s Government to stop Forestry England issuing licences for trail hunting. Forestry England is a public body and in 2019-20 it issued 34 licences for trail hunting. Since 2020, licences have been suspended pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. E-petition 584076 seeks greater protection for pets and animals from hunts, following the mauling to death of Mini the cat. That mauling involved huntsman John Sampson, who was found guilty in December. The petition follows a campaign involving the likes of Action Against Foxhunting and I pay tribute to the campaigners for their tenacity, care and compassion.

Colleagues will know that despite the Hunting Act 2004, foxhunting has continued in England and Wales under the guise of trail hunting. That fact was recently exposed by the conviction of Mark Hankinson, now a former director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, for intentionally encouraging or assisting others to break the Hunting Act 2004, in the case of R v. Hankinson. Despite its exposure as a cover for illegal hunting, the Ministry of Defence still licenses trail hunting on its own land, with at least 259 days of hunting licensed during the 2021-22 hunting season. We all know that those hunts regularly cause havoc in the countryside, terrorising wild animals, pets—as we have already heard—and people as well as disrupting infrastructure such as railway lines and major roads.

The simple fact is that hunting with dogs has continued despite the ban, with weaknesses in the Hunting Act 2004 abused by those claiming to conduct trail hunting or exempt hunting. The Hunting Act was one of Labour’s greatest achievements, and we will continue to stand by it every day. Indeed, we went on to live those values by attempting to improve and amend the Agriculture Bill, but we were not able to persuade Conservative Members to vote with us. Enough is enough. The Hunting Act 2004 must be strengthened and trail hunting must be banned on Government and all publicly owned or managed land. For many years now, Labour, through successive shadow Environment Secretaries, and animal welfare campaigners, such as the League Against Cruel Sports, have said that trailing is a smokescreen designed to disguise the hunt’s true activity. We need to call that out.

I am grateful to the league for its work, and its helpful briefing ahead of the debate. It made clear that during the last full hunting season for which data is available, it received 485 reports of suspected illegal hunting relating to 110 different hunts in England, Scotland and Wales. In addition, during the 2021 cub hunting season, which is euphemistically described as the autumn hunting, the league received 115 reports of suspected illegal cub hunting. The league acknowledges, as I do, that those figures are reliant on eyewitness reports, so we can fairly assume that they are just the tip of the iceberg. Like many in the Opposition, I am concerned by the lack of transparency and how rules that apply to all are being played by a few as they seek to work their way around the law.

We need action and we need this Government to stand up and be counted. We need to stop public land being used by those seeking to play around with the rules. Despite the exposure of trail hunting as a smokescreen for illegal hunting, the Government have continued to allow and license trail hunting on Government land—particularly land owned by the Ministry of Defence. In a written question about the impact of trail hunting on MOD land, the Defence Secretary went as far as to defend trail hunting as a legal activity. Trail hunting is currently suspended on Forestry England land, which is one thing, but that is not enough. Forestry England, as the Minister knows, is a public body that reports to her Department. It is England’s largest land manager and looks after 1,500 of the nation’s woods and forests.

Since news of the Hunting Office’s leaked webinar emerged in 2020, Forestry England has suspended trail hunting licences but has yet to ban trail hunting permanently. What discussions has the Minister had with the leadership at Forestry England about the issue? I pay tribute to the National Trust, Natural Resources Wales, the Malvern Hills Trust, and Cheshire West and Chester Council, which are among those that have seen through the hunt’s smokescreen and have permanently banned it from their land. Could the Minister, if possible, touch on what discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the matter?

In the 17 years since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force under a progressive Labour Government, many in the hunting community have been determined to circumvent the Act, and since 2010 they have largely succeeded. Trail hunting was invented in 2005 as a means of exploiting loopholes and enforcement challenges. Recent criminal proceedings have demonstrated how trail hunting has been used as a cover for illegal hunting. However, the Government have repeatedly talked down the prospect of addressing the gap in legislation. A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report in August 2021 recommended that the UK Government review the Hunting Act and its exemptions to improve the ability of police to enforce the Act. Her Majesty’s Government have yet to respond to that recommendation, so can the Minister let me know when she will launch the review? I would be happy jointly with the Minister to sponsor a booking in Portcullis House for a launch, which would be great. Some cross-party consensus would be a fantastic thing.

A 2021 green paper from Act Now For Animals, a coalition of 50 animal welfare charities, recommended that the Government end trail hunting on their land and strengthen the Hunting Act 2004. It recommended removing exemptions in section 1 that are being exploited and introducing the possibility of custodial sentences for breaches of the Act. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, hon. Members who have spoken and those who signed the two petitions. Labour will continue pushing for strong observance of the law and proper and effective animal welfare policies, and will keep holding this Government to account.

Greyhound Racing

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond for the Opposition in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for opening the debate and for raising a range of important, thought-provoking points that we must all take on board now and in the weeks and months ahead. It was a useful, constructive debate. It was almost harmonious. I get a little bit anxious when that happens, and this debating chamber has many such debates, but it is good that we are working together constructively.

I would like to acknowledge the colleagues who have spoken in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the hon. Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I also acknowledge those who signed the petition. The top 10 constituencies are: Isle of Wight; Central Devon; Brighton, Kemptown; Brighton, Pavilion; Torridge and West Devon; Tiverton and Honiton; Hastings and Rye; Camborne and Redruth, the seat of the Secretary of State himself; Edinburgh North and Leith, the seat of the SNP spokesperson; and finally, Somerton and Frome. It is important that we acknowledge when our constituents get involved and get active, and they have clearly done so on this important issue.

We are here this afternoon because this petition received more than 104,000 signatures from local people across the UK. I do not want to detain the House longer than is necessary, but I will say a few things that I hope will reassure those who signed the petition that those on the Opposition Benches are listening but, more importantly, we understand animal welfare.

We believe in honouring animal welfare, and we will always push for the strongest possible animal welfare policies. Like many on the Opposition Benches, I am concerned by the lack of transparency about what happens to greyhounds after they are no longer fit for racing, which means that nobody knows the real situation. I hope the Minister will address that specific point in the wind-up. It is important that we hear about the transparency point, because my party and I believe that we must ensure that all retired greyhounds are properly cared for.

We need proper guidance on best practice and responsible ownership; statutory minimum standards for racing and welfare; better mechanisms to trace ownership; and a centralised database to record what happens after greyhounds are no longer fit to race. Does the Minister agree? If she does, will she speak to each of those real and tangible objectives?

As colleagues will know, and as has already been outlined by the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the welfare of racing greyhounds in England is covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010. The regulations were reviewed in 2016, and the Government state that they were found to be broadly effective. Ministers believe that a ban remains unnecessary, and the Opposition agree. I would be grateful, however, if the Minister outlined the most recent engagement with the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. What action is being taken to improve the welfare concerns outlined not only in this debate but by the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition?

Ministers indicated that from January 2021 all trainers’ residential kennels will be subject to auditing and veterinary inspections. Can we have a progress check on that? Last week I spoke for the Opposition at the Humane Society International’s parliamentary reception. In my speech I thanked the Secretary of State, who was present, for reading Labour’s animal welfare proposals in such detail that he ended up pinching many of those proposals for his own animal welfare action plan. That is important, because his action plan made a commitment to considering further protection for racing greyhounds, including further steps to improve standards at trainers’ kennels. Will the Minister outline in some detail what those further protections look like? I would be happy to receive a written report, but it would be great if we could have that information this afternoon. I am sure those sitting in the Public Gallery would be interested, too. Can the Minister touch on the steps being taken to reduce the number of dogs being put to sleep on humane grounds following injuries at the track? That matter is of considerable interest to many, and some clarity would be appreciated.

I led for the Opposition on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—the hon. Member for Romford was a member of that Committee, too—the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill and a range of other related pieces of legislation, such as the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill. In my role as shadow Minister for animal welfare, I am determined to keep pushing the Government to take the strongest possible action on animal welfare, to have the strongest possible resolve in the fight to act, and to not just make empty promises.

That is why I supported measures contained within the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act to increase maximum sentences for the most severe acts of animal cruelty from six months to five years. I am pleased that, in a moment of cross-party agreement, that legislation became law on 29 April 2021, after much hard work from Government Members and former colleagues such as Anna Turley, the former Member for Redcar. Their work means that the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment, which is a good step for animal welfare and shows that change can happen if people want it.

Ministers can and should focus on the strongest possible support for greyhounds, notably those who have retired or been injured. They should make sure that this sport—a part of so many working-class communities across the United Kingdom—gets the safeguards and protections it needs. I outline the following as a starter for 10: proper guidance on best practice in responsible ownership; statutory minimum standards for racing and welfare; better mechanisms to trace ownership; and, as already mentioned, a centralised database to record what happens after greyhounds are no longer fit to race. That plan is ready to go, so I urge the Minister to go back to her Department after the debate and get on with it.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is strictly necessary, but it is good to see so many Government Members so interested in the Third Reading of this Bill. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) noted in his excellent speech on Report, the Government could have tackled this issue head on had they not decided to oppose the recognition of animal sentience, and had they decided to carry over the rules and regulations covered by this legislation alongside the other laws that were carried over in the EU withdrawal Bill.

This Bill is an important one, and the House will know that Labour Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), have at all times sought to be critical friends, and to provide a wise and objective view. The Bill recognises that animals are sentient beings and creates an accountability mechanism that aims to ensure that UK Ministers have due regard to their welfare needs when formulating and implementing Government policy. An appropriate committee will be established to assess and report on the animal welfare impacts of policy decisions that have been taken, or which may be taken, by the Government. The relevant Secretary of State will be required to lay a written statement before Parliament responding to any such report. This is a small Bill, but it is an important one. If the committee is not set up with the correct terms of reference, or if it is not even allowed to establish its correct make-up, it is merely a paper tiger and a waste of time.

I am so grateful to the many animal welfare campaigners—Arthur Thomas and Claire Bass from Humane Society International, Matt Browne from Wildlife and Countryside Link, and James West, Sonul Badiani-Hamment and David Bowles—and all those who have worked with colleagues across the House to make this Bill fit for purpose.

Let me also put in a word for my noble Friend Baroness Hayman. She is a fierce champion of the strongest animal welfare protections, and it has been a pleasure to work with her and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

I want to acknowledge the hard work and commitment of all those involved in taking the Bill through the House, and I wish it well. I thank the staff of the House, the Clerks, the Committee staff and the parliamentary staff in the offices of all the Members involved. I acknowledge all those who sat on the Bill Committee, and give special thanks to our ever-present departmental Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for Easington (Grahame Morris).

I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with Opposition Members in recent days, but I have a word of caution for her: she must take every opportunity to rise up and take on her Back Benchers in the fight to improve animal welfare standards. As we have seen throughout the Bill’s passage, there remain some who are just not willing to get this done. If the Minister and her colleagues show that courage, they will have the co-operation of those on our Benches.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [ Lords ]

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Public Bill Committees

Division 1

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) In preparing its reports, the Animal Sentience Committee may consult or request information from government departments and other public bodies.

(4B) Public bodies and government departments must cooperate with requests from the Animal Sentience Committee under paragraph (4A).”

This amendment would require Government departments to respond constructively to requests for information from the Animal Sentience Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to move amendment 2 to this important piece of legislation. I wish the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster a belated happy birthday for last week, especially since she was born in Wales and us Welsh sisters have to stick together—a little plea there.

I rise to move the amendment in the names of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for North Tyneside, for Cambridge, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and for Bristol East. I thank House staff, the teams supporting us as Members, the Clerks and the Public Bill Office in particular for their work helping us to get here today. It is important to say that at the beginning because we tend to forget at the end, and it is important to note their work.

As we discuss another important piece of legislation in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill—not the sentencing Bill as it says on the door—it is important for us to think about the scope and reach of our actions and the effectiveness of legislation that passes through the House. That is why we are moving amendment 2 and will press it to a vote. The Bill is one of a number of major pieces of animal welfare legislation that either has gone through the House, is before the House or will come back before us in the weeks ahead.

In short, amendment 2 would require Departments to respond constructively to requests for information from the Animal Sentience Committee. That is important to ensure the committee receives the information it needs to prepare its reports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was an excellent and energetic shadow Secretary of State, and I enjoyed working with him. Amendment 2 is very much a reflection of the points he raised during Second Reading on 18 January 2022. In his excellent speech, he quite reasonably suggested that a large Department that has been historically removed from animal welfare issues could feel empowered to ignore committee requests for information, and it could do so because there is currently no legally binding obligation on Departments to engage with the committee. That is why the amendment is so important and would be a welcome addition to the Bill.

I am sure the Minister would want to ensure the Animal Sentience Committee, in the words of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, is not “toothless”—sorry, I get told off for my pronunciation. I urge the Minister to let Labour help her. Amendment 2 provides the perfect opportunity to ensure the Bill is not a toothless piece of legislation and that the Animal Sentience Committee is a body that will deliver. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Select Committee, is right to want a strong Bill and a strong Animal Sentience Committee. We all eagerly await to hear what the Minister thinks about that. I agree with the EFRA Committee that we want the Bill to be strong. We want the scope and reach of the committee to be strong, and the amendment would do exactly that. Does the Minister agree with us?

In preparing to move amendment 2, I caught sight of the written evidence from the campaigners Better Deal for Animals, and I ask the Minister to take a moment to reflect on it and in doing so, to give her support to amendment 2. The evidence makes the point that

“the Bill does have a weakness. The delegation of animal sentience responsibilities to the ASC, a body adjacent to rather than part of Government, creates the risk that the ASC (and with it, animal sentience issues) could be effectively ignored by decision makers. This risk was highlighted in the letter from the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ahead of second reading in the Commons, which warned that ‘the ASC risks becoming simply another toothless Whitehall committee whose reports gather dust, while critical issues of animal welfare within policy-making go largely unaddressed.’”

It says that while the terms of reference

“provide some assurance that the ASC will have the independence and powers it needs to do its job, amendments to the face of the Bill would go further in ensuring that the ASC and its work is closely tied into government operations and Parliamentary business, to such an extent as to make it difficult to ignore.”

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I agree that this is an important piece of legislation and, like the hon. Member for Newport West, I hope it will go forward in a timely way. I thank the EFRA Committee for the work that it has done in helping to guide us in ensuring that the Bill is as precise as it is. It is important to understand that there are two duties here.

The hon. Lady argued that the Animal Sentience Committee needs the power to compel Government Departments and public bodies to provide any information that the committee requests. While I would agree that it is key for the committee to have the necessary information to do its job, placing an additional duty on Departments to provide the committee with documents would just create additional grounds for judicial reviews. If a Department or public body was seen not to fully comply with the requests made by the Animal Sentience Committee, there would be grounds for a challenge.

The Bill has been carefully considered and worded to give meaningful effect to the principle of animal sentience without getting tied up in legal challenges. We want the committee to focus on current and future policy. Its aim is to improve transparency in decision making and in the policy-making process. The committee will build on and improve the evidence base, which I have referred to, that informs Government policy.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister talks about the evidence base, but how can the committee develop an evidence base if it submits a request to another Department, but that Department sees fit to ignore it?

[Jo Churchill]

I will come on to that in my answer because, arguably, the one thing the committee does have up its sleeve is the ability to name and shame if it is not responded to. That is the key thing to keep there.

The scope of the Bill covers all central Government policy decisions, from formulation to implementation. It aims to support the policy-making decision process, rather than operational decisions made by public bodies outside of those Departments. We have kept the scope to Ministerial Departments because we want the committee to focus its scrutiny on the key policy decisions affecting animal welfare.

That is why, as set out in the terms of reference, which the hon. Lady referred to, the committee’s secretariat will assist in raising awareness of the committee’s role and in forming an overview of relevant policy decisions. That work has already started in the Department to ensure that other Departments, at an official level, are ready, and there, to establish effective communication—which arguably was the underlying ask of the amendment—with the Committee. Guidance will also be provided to Departments on their responsibilities under the Bill. We believe that to be the most effective way in which to ensure that the committee has all the information that it needs to do its role. There are two powers in the Bill, not just one: we establish the committee and, crucially, that responsibility on a Minister—the duty to reply.

I am sure that Governments will provide the committee with relevant information, if requested, and if the committee struggles to engage with a particular Department or to receive information, it will be free to highlight that in its response. Ministers will then have their duty to respond to those reports. I am confident that no Minister will want their Department to be highlighted as unco-operative in the area of animal welfare. I therefore believe that the Bill, and the functions and the powers that it confers on the Animal Sentience Committee, are sufficient as drafted.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments. We are still not satisfied, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 2

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(8) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the commencement of this Act, set out a timetabled plan for the extension of Animal Sentience Committee scope to any other public bodies deemed relevant.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider extending the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies.

The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, my right hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West, for North Tyneside, for Cambridge, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol East, for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and my hon. Friend the Labour Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), among others listed on the amendment paper.

The amendment is self-explanatory, but I will take the opportunity to speak to it briefly and, I hope, to persuade Conservative colleagues in Committee to support it. I gently remind the Minister that the Bill has the support of the Opposition, but we want to make it even better, stronger and go further. Like the excellent amendment 3, which will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, amendment 4 proposes a realistic and pragmatic addition to the Bill. All things being equal, it should be welcomed by all colleagues in Committee.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider extending the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is no longer on the Bill Committee—we all wish him well in his new role—but I wish to quote him. In a strong speech on Second Reading, he said,

“on scope, I know that Ministers want the Bill to apply first to Government Departments—to the main Departments of State—but there is a strong case for Ministers to set out how they would accelerate its roll-out to apply it to non-departmental public bodies. For instance, I find it hard to justify the idea that the Bill will apply to the Department for Work and Pensions before it applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency. That does not make much sense, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the timetable for applying the Bill to every single non-departmental public body, and particularly to all the bodies in DEFRA…to ensure that they are within the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 255.]

How could anyone disagree with that?

The Minister would do us all a favour by making it clear that extending the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies would be really effective. If she will not support the amendment, I hope she will explain why. The amendment would bring some common sense to the Bill, and it would make for a joined-up approach that will deliver real results. That is what the Bill must be about—it must be about results, delivery and making the committee fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her co-operation; I know that she is merely trying to assist. At this point, I would like to associate myself with her comments on Her Majesty the Queen.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Animal Sentience Committee’s scope and public bodies, because we gave a great deal of consideration to both the scope and appropriateness. We expect the committee to focus on Government policy decisions that could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As we have previously indicated, that is expected to be in the region of six individual policy decisions per year. Given the breadth of government, the committee will need to be selective in what it scrutinises. It is unlikely that these kinds of decisions will be made outside ministerial Departments, because the vast majority of policy decisions with a significant bearing on animal welfare will be made within the Departments themselves.

The Bill is designed to create timely, proportionate and targeted mechanisms for holding Ministers to account. By their nature, and relative to core Departments, non-departmental public bodies operate at arm’s length from Ministers. Extending this committee’s remit beyond central Government Departments would not be targeted and so would not be in line with the aims of what we are trying to achieve. By the same token, we will not ask the committee to scrutinise policy decisions that may be made at local authority level, for example, because that would impose an unnecessary workload on the committee and, arguably, on our hard-working local authorities. It is unclear who would then answer in Parliament to any reports that came forward—that might be issued by, say, a local authority or a body—because Ministers cannot answer for a report and decisions that they did not make. For those reasons, the Government consider that the current scope of the Bill is the right one.

[Ruth Jones]

Given the NGOs’ comments and encouragement to the Opposition to lay this amendment, we will push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you, Sir Charles. I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who made an excellent speech that clearly and articulately explained how important the definition is and why the amendment is so important. The definition is the key to understanding the whole Bill and how the committee will work. I vividly remember the proceedings on the Environment Bill, when we were told, “Don’t worry; the explanatory notes will explain all.” However, that is not the same as legislation. Explanatory notes are separate, which is why the Opposition are so keen to have the definition enshrined in the legislation. That is why we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

And, I suspect, last but not least—shadow Minister Ruth Jones.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you, Sir Charles; I am not going to miss this opportunity.

I echo the thanks that have been given, and I would also like to place on record our thanks to our staff. The Bill has been interestingly timetabled, and we have been working under pressure, so it has been useful to have our staff so on board. I also thank you, Sir Charles, for your excellent chairing.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Draft Waste and Agriculture (Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to be back here with the Minister discussing more secondary legislation; in many ways, I do not feel that my week in London can be complete without a debate on delegated legislation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I will put the Minister out of her misery and confirm that Labour will not be opposing the statutory instrument. However, before we pack up and go I want to say a few things that are important to keep in mind.

As we all know, the European Commission has powers related to directives concerning waste, including those specifically covering end-of-life vehicles, batteries and accumulators, and electrical and electronic equipment, as well as to the overarching waste framework directive. This instrument transfers several technical powers and functions relating to those resources and waste management directives from the European Commission to the Secretary of State—who I am sure is grateful to still be in his job—and, depending on the power, to his devolved Administration counterparts.

The transfer will allow for the correct functioning of the relevant retained EU legislation following the UK’s departure from the EU. This instrument seeks to enable the UK and the devolved Administrations to maintain their environmental standards on the safe handling of waste, levels of recovery, recycling and treatment of waste. The functions listed in the instrument are routine and in several cases, the standards, requirements or other functions set out are already in place and working well. The powers are purely to be able to change them in future should that be necessary, rather than seeking to actively update or amend them at the moment.

Although we on these Benches cannot see any immediately obvious pitfalls—and I can confirm that we have looked—the instrument does open the door to potential divergence in technical standards. It is also important to note that any regulations made under the new powers would be done via the negative procedure, so there would not be so much room for effective scrutiny. The Minister will know what we think about that.

The powers in question are to set or alter certain technical criteria related to waste and agriculture. In the waste sector, the technical functions relate to: standards for sampling of waste going to landfill, from the landfill directive; exemptions covering the use of heavy metals in vehicles; minimum requirements for the certificate of destruction; conditions for storage and treatment; material and component coding standards for vehicles from the end-of-life vehicles directive; guidelines for inspecting waste facilities and sampling methods; updating regulations in line with scientific and technical progress, from the mining waste directive; export criteria; exemptions from labelling requirements, from the batteries directive; definitions of “by-products” and “end of waste”; application of the efficiency formula for classifying incineration facilities, from the waste framework directive; minimum treatment technologies; technical requirements for WEEE treatment and storage; categorisation of products specified in the directive; and the crossed-out wheeled bin symbol, from the waste electricals and electronic equipment directive, or WEEE.

As the Minister will know, I am a champion of our country as a Union of four equal nations; that is why I am concerned about the potential for divergence on technical standards between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and of course internally between the four nations of our country. I accept that there could be positives, too. For instance, the standards around WEEE treatment and storage could be strengthened and made more compatible with a circular economy for electronics.

Can the Minister confirm whether she plans to strengthen those standards? I would welcome an explicit answer, if possible, today. I also ask her to think about the formula for waste incineration facilities. That formula could be applied more stringently in conjunction with planning rules to ensure that only the most efficient facilities are permitted. Can the Minister let me know what the situation there would be?

These are important issues, albeit viewed as niche by most people in the real world out there—not least by my constituents in Newport West; I suspect that goes for the people of Bury St Edmonds, too. But that is why these debates are important. Our departure from the European Union changed life as we know it and required real change in what we do and how we do it. This instrument testifies to that.

In winding up, I would like to acknowledge Heeran Buhecha Fordyce and Pamela Frost for their work at the Department. Too often, our staff in this place and civil servants do not get the acknowledgement that they deserve.