Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard - part two
Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 27, to which I have put my name. I have the great privilege of following the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in doing so. This amendment goes to the heart of what I see, perhaps eccentrically, as the problem with the Bill. The Bill seems to be about animals and their welfare, and it seems to be based on science, but really it is a Bill about humans and our moral standing. It is not about our moral obligations—all animal welfare legislation for the last 200 years either articulates or creates moral and legal obligations on us; that is what law does—but rather it is about our moral standing. It is the ambition of the people who are promoting the concept of animal sentience that it should be a common moral measure, putting humans and animals on the same moral plane, differenced only by the degree of sentience that they evince.

I find this a really false anthropology. So it is absolutely right that the Bill, which actually makes no reference to humans, should say something about them, if only to try to achieve a better balance in the moral architecture that the Bill seeks to create. Amendment 27 does that. It says that there are some things about human beings that should not be trampled on by this Bill, by the principle behind it, or by the animal sentience committee it creates. Those are quite basic things: they are to do with religion and religious practice, culture and your local region or locality—the place where you belong. All Amendment 27 does is ask that those things should be carved out and specially protected—not in an innovative way, because in fact they are already protected in the European Union treaty, in the language that we adopted before. It is simply about incorporating that language back, not in a copy-and-paste way but because we genuinely believe that those things about human life are important and should be protected. That is why I support Amendment 27.

While I am on my feet, I am going to make a comment on Amendment 48, in the same group. It is a slightly more procedural comment—it is really a question to my noble friend. We have been told since Committee, through the issuance of the terms of reference of the new committee—which are not statutory as I understand it, but of course I am always happy to be corrected—that it is to be set inside and corralled by, so to speak, a new Defra centre of excellence on animal welfare. Other committees that already exist will also be brought within that nest, but the other birds in this nest are not statutory committees—they are creatures or creations of Defra, whereas this new committee is a statutory committee. I simply do not understand—this may be because I am relatively new—how it is that, through some non-statutory terms of reference, a committee that we are today being asked to give statutory independence to, can be reliably told that it will be part of this centre. What if it decided not to be? It is going to have an independent board; what if the board decided that the centre trammelled it or interfered with its work? My question to my noble friend is this: if this committee is going to be on the basis he says, corralled inside the new centre for excellence, should that not be in the Bill?

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about including or not including matters that relate to medical science and the slaughter of animals by ritual, religious methods. But unless I am much mistaken—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the Act that deals with the slaughter of animals specifically exempts ritual slaughter from what would otherwise be illegal. By the same token, we have legislation that deals with medical experiments which already tightly controls what may or may not be done. I cannot see, therefore, that the amendment being advocated can have any real substance to it, given those restrictions, and also bearing in mind that the committee that is being set up, although it is being set up by statute, does not have legal powers of any kind whatever. It will be entirely up to the relevant Ministers whether or not they accept any recommendations from that committee. In order to change the rules about medical science or the slaughter of animals, I believe there would have to be primary legislation. I hope my noble friend can confirm this.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to support Amendment 2 in the names of my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland. I also wish my noble friend a speedy recovery from Covid. As my noble friend Lord Marland, who spoke so convincingly to the amendment, said, the animal sentience committee will be both judge and jury. My worry is that it will also be legislator, since it seems to me almost certain that, in the way the Bill is currently drafted, it is likely to stray into the area of scrutinising policy as well as process.

I remain worried that the committee will also overlap with the work of the Animal Welfare Committee, as the Countryside Alliance and other institutions that actually understand nature and animal behaviour have pointed out. This committee is likely to be comprised of people who may have a huge understanding of matters of science and parts of the countryside but lack the experience to really appreciate the relationship between the countryside and the animal kingdom.

What about this animal welfare centre of expertise? I understand it is supposed to settle points of dispute with other committees. Which other committees is the new committee likely to be in dispute with? Obviously, it will be the Animal Welfare Committee. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we would wish to create an animal sentience committee which is obviously going to cover points that are already covered by the Animal Welfare Committee. I thought that, under this Government, we were likely to see some rationalisation and reduction of the number of committees and quangos being established. I regret very much that it looks as though we are likely to see the reverse.

I would also like to comment on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoken to very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. My noble friend Lady Fookes has just pointed out, quite correctly, that there are already exemptions for medical science in some legislation, but I think those exemptions are very much narrower than the exemptions that would be achieved by the amendment in the name of the noble Earl. The amendment is quite welcome, and I strongly support it, particularly as, having spent many years in Japan, I came to be very partial to Japanese cuisine. I fear that most methods used, including in this country by Japanese restaurants, to kill fish might fall foul of the opinions of the animal sentience committee. I think it could easily lead to a lot of unwelcome interference.

I also very much welcome the speech by my noble friend Lord Moylan, who explained so well that the sentience of animals is different from that of us. It is relative, and nobody would argue that the sentience of a dog is the same as that of a lobster.

I also strongly support Amendment 48, because to set up a statutory committee of this kind without including a schedule clearly setting out the committee’s role and functions is bound to lead to trouble.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard - part one
Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord Robathan’s remarks. I think this a perfectly terrible Bill, and I would like to speak to Amendment 1. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made the point that this Bill was Article 13 of the EU with bells on. He knows a lot more about this sort of legislation than I do. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to speak to this amendment, will explain why this Bill has to have bells on. Why could it not be just Article 13 of the withdrawal agreement? Why did we have to add things on to it? Many of us are disturbed at the propensity of our government machine—Whitehall departments—to always add things on to Bills and make them even more elaborate than they were originally intended to be.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also made the point that his amendment was about process. Process, as I see it, and certainly in the days when I was in government, was all to do with legislation. When a department produced legislation, if that legislation affected other departments, it was circulated through those departments for their comments on it before it was ever submitted to Parliament. I do not quite understand what this new committee is going to do in looking at legislation before it is actually submitted to Parliament, compared with what happened before. Presumably, if the question of animal welfare came up, it went to the Department of Agriculture and it went to the Animal Welfare Committee who looked at it and said whether it was within its remit and whether it approved of it. So what is this committee doing that the Animal Welfare Committee did not do before? Perhaps my noble friend could elucidate that when he comes to speak.

Generally, what we are doing is expanding the whole mass of quangos and we have to think about the Climate Change Committee. It always advertises itself as a committee that advises the Government but seems to have a complete mind of its own when it comes to climate change. It seems to be obsessed with CO₂ emissions. It never seems to champion or recognise what has actually been done in this country to reduce CO₂ emissions, and it does not seem to take any account of the collateral damage. I hope this committee is not going to be another one like that.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the two previous speakers, and I have no wish to be associated with the views that they expressed.

To look at one particular detail, my understanding of the committee is that it will produce reports which will then come to Parliament, where we can all see them. That publicity seems to me an excellent way of dealing with things. Of course, the committee would not be instigating legislation; it would be an advisory body. It will be up to the government departments concerned whether they choose to accept its advice, but at least we will know what this committee is thinking.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Grand Committee

Thus I support Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It would limit the extension to cephalopods—they are already protected in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act so there would be consistency there—and decapod crustaceans; there is mounting evidence that the latter are sentient beings. They are protected in the animal welfare legislation of many other countries and are a subject on which the LSE report is about to pronounce. This amendment would provide a hard stop at that point. It implies that, should there be further pressure to extend the range of animals, this can be considered but through primary legislation duly debated, considered and scrutinised in Parliament.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being here earlier in the afternoon when noble Lords debated amendments to which I added my name. Unfortunately, there was an additional meeting of the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, meeting on a different day and at a different time. However, I am here now. I will speak to Amendment 51 in particular; in that connection, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to say that they fully support the remarks I intend to make about it.

I make no apology for wishing to see cephalopods and decapods included in the realms of sentience and not left until some future date. I am aware that the Minister is awaiting the LSE report to which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred. I would be interested to know from the Minister when we might expect to see that report and whether it is likely to be in time to make a decision about including these creatures in the Bill before it reaches its final stages. For my part, I believe that there is already sufficient hard evidence to make it perfectly acceptable to include them here and now.

It is interesting that, way back in 2005, the European Food Safety Authority’s Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare considered these animals sufficiently sentient to be included. Since then, a lot of work has been done by Professor Robert Elwood of Queen’s University; I believe that he has provided good scientific evidence. I am happy to accept scientific evidence. I think mention was made earlier of one experiment where hermit crabs, which like to retreat to quiet places, were given an electric shock if they entered one refuge but not if they entered another. It soon became evident that they knew which one to choose and that they remembered it. Shortness of time forbids me from giving any further examples, but I firmly believe that there are good examples that give hard evidence. We know, too, that a number of other countries are ahead of us on this issue. They include, for example, New Zealand, some of the Australian states, Austria and even, surprisingly, Italy.

The final point I want to make is that I commend to the Minister the precautionary principle. Great publicity was given to it in the Environment Bill as one of five principles. It was given a good boost. I suggest that the precautionary principle is one to adopt here and now. As I understand it, it means that, if there is some evidence, you do not have to wait until something is proved to the hilt before you take action. On that basis, I have no hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 51 as it stands, but I hope for better things before the Bill reaches the statute book.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall be brief. By and large, the Government have got this reasonably okay. I can understand the sentiments of some of my noble friends and those on the other side. However, I have to say that Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean has a great deal of merit. I was a bit sorry to hear him, in his typically self-deprecating way, describing himself as an extinct volcano. He is possibly a dormant volcano, and something we should always watch—you never know when the smoke may rise—but at the moment he is still there. I regard myself more as a drumlin, as distinct from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean —that is, a small, egg-shaped glacial deposit. That is my place in life. We need to know more about the set-up of the committee and so forth. As I said, Amendment 11, which puts this so that it is in front of both Houses of Parliament, is a good solution.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Forsyth may be slightly surprised, given my interest in animal welfare, to find out that I share his criticisms of the Bill’s format. Indeed, I thought there was a Cabinet committee charged with ensuring that Bills came forth fully formed; I am therefore surprised that this one got through the gate of that Cabinet committee. It verges on being a skeleton Bill—or, if not a skeleton, it is seriously underweight, which has caused a lot of the difficulties and misgivings on all sides of the Committee.

I am concerned, too, not just that the way the first clause is set out gives unlimited power to the present Secretary of State over the membership of the committee and the terms on which they will serve, but that if that stands in the Bill, it will stand for ever. We cannot tell how that might be interpreted by future Secretaries of State, which I find very uncomfortable.

This is one reason why I have supported the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. First, her proposed new subsection (2) tries to set out that the function of the committee should be set out in the Bill. Secondly, she has proposed a schedule to point out who the members of the committee might be, how long they might serve and the committee’s general powers. I am quite sure that other Members of this Committee will find fault with whatever I have put down, but it is at least a worthwhile attempt to sort out what the Government really intend the committee to do and how it is to be constituted. I am anxious to see that people of varied expertise are chosen. I have no truck with what I call animal extremists and no wish to see them on a committee of this type. I want to see a well-established committee of experts who can offer sensible advice to the Secretaries of State of the day—because this will cover more than Defra, or I imagine it should if it is to relate to animals in general.

I very much hope that we can have considerably more thinking on the Bill on the Government’s part. I would prefer to see regulations brought in giving the details of the committee and how it will work, which could at least then be considered by Parliament, even if it cannot amend them. I ask the Government to look more closely at what they are asking us to accept.

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I should like to comment on Amendments 11 and 14. I agree in principle with what has been stated about these two amendments, which are concerned with clarifying the operational capabilities of the animal sentience committee.

I love animals and care deeply about their well-being. I have pets and I was brought up in home where we had chickens, ducks, rabbits, dogs and cats. I formed a bond with these animals and know that they had emotions and felt pain. In my language we say, “An animal is not able to speak but it does have feelings”. Of course, this makes it even more important for us to care for them, which is the reason I support the Bill. However, certain improvements need to be made to address this fact. We must ensure that the animal sentience committee is able to undertake its work as adequately as possible to fulfil its range of responsibilities.

I am a businessman and have been the chairman and chief executive of a successful public company. In business, if a company wants to undertake a project, it must thoroughly work out the details. Thereafter, adequate resources must be provided, including funding, the provision of appropriate staff and the sourcing of suitable accommodation.

Similarly, we must set out quite clearly what we are trying to achieve, and we must set out our objectives throughout. If the intention is to establish and maintain an effective committee, the terms of reference among other things need to be set out in clear terms. Amendments 11 and 14 address these requirements by setting out provisions, making adequate resources available for staffing composition as well as defining the relationship and appropriate consultation between the Secretary of State and the committee. I support all that is set out in the amendments but would like them to be streamlined and consolidated in one properly worded clause.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 16th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests with the RSPCA as set out in the register. Given that, naturally, I warmly welcome the Bill, which is in the vanguard of a whole suite of animal welfare measures to come. Many of us have sought in vain to expedite them over many years, so I am delighted by this first taster.

That said, I have some reservation about the Bill and agree with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Why is animal sentience not defined in the Bill? Maybe there is a good reason for this, but it is not clear to me, and if you are going to have something that is legal, it must be clearly defined. May I ask about that?

Secondly, I naturally welcome the setting up of the committee. But again, I think the terms of reference could usefully be widened. I note that it is there to look at “adverse” circumstances that might impact on animals. Why could it not be extended to beneficial ones, which would give it a more constructive remit?

I am also concerned that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint, and appoint the terms of reference for, the people on the committee. I am sure that the present Government are most anxious that these should be people of excellent experience and integrity. I remind my noble friend that not only do Ministers come and go, but so do Governments. I would like to know that this is more tightly constrained so that we still have a very effective committee in future. In the meantime, could the Government give us some indication of the kind of people they wish to see: their breadth of interests, and their ability to act independently without fear or favour and to tell the Government the truth they may not always want to hear? The capacity of that committee in terms of membership is absolutely vital, because if it does not exercise the powers it is given it is absolutely useless.

I come to the question also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, of the definition of “animal”. I believe very strongly that there is already sufficient evidence to indicate that non-vertebrates should be included in the Bill. It is not good enough that it should be there in reserve, as it were, for a Minister to take up later. I am indebted to Crustacean Compassion for a great deal of detailed evidence on the research that has already been taken out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, noted, a report was commissioned by Defra and I wonder what has happened to it. I hope it will be published very soon and I will be extraordinarily surprised if it does not back up the research we already have. I hope then that the Bill could be amended during its passage through Parliament to allow this to happen.

I have been shocked by some of the treatment of animals such as lobsters, crabs, and squid, in the way they have been stored and very often killed. There was one horrible example of a supermarket tightly wrapping a live crab in single-use plastic—a double abomination so far as I am concerned—and lobsters are still plunged alive into boiling water. I understand that there are perfectly good stunning machines which could do this job humanely. Indeed, I want the committee to look at that to see what it could suggest for improved methods of storage of animals intended for slaughter and their actual killing.

I hope my noble friend will not tell me that we still need a lot more research. If he does, then I remind him that in the Environment Bill currently going through this House there are several principles, including the precautionary principle—which suggests that you do not need absolute certainty before you act if there is a reasonable chance that something is wrong. This is one reason I call for the Bill to be amended to include invertebrates. Indeed, several European countries already care for invertebrates. This is also true in countries across the world—in New Zealand and some of the Australian states, for example. My noble friend made much of our proud history of animal welfare. That is fine, but we are behind these countries on this and I ask him: why?

Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have to confess that I find reading statutory instruments very hard going—certainly not bedside reading. I sometimes have difficulty with the Explanatory Notes, so I hope that what I am going to say accurately reflects the situation, and that where it does not, I can be put right.

My understanding is that, since 1 January, we have been operating our own passports for plant health, whereas Northern Ireland remains part of the EU for this purpose. People there will therefore continue to operate using the EU passports for health, in which I am greatly interested. When proper goods come over from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, if I may put it that way, I gather that we are going to accept the EU conditions. What worries me is this: supposing they differ over the course of time? I recall that, before we left the EU, there were sometimes mutterings that it was not being strict enough about plant health regulations. So supposing our regulations get stiffer and its remain the same or are different, what then would be the position for the import of these plant products?

I also understand that it is possible to convert EU passports into UK passports, if I understood the Minister correctly. Again, I am not sure whether I understand what the procedures or the conditions are. If my noble friend could tell me briefly, either at the end of the debate or subsequently, I should be very grateful.

On the other hand, when the plants go from the UK— or Great Britain, as I should call it, to be absolutely accurate—to Northern Ireland, I gather that it will not accept our UK passports. We shall therefore have to comply with whatever regulations the EU sets forth, as a third country, so to speak. What is the position right now? Am I to understand that there is a period of grace between now and 1 April, where it would be much easier to send them in, and what happens after 1 April? Will it be very tricky or expensive and administratively time-consuming to do all this? Again, I should be grateful for some answer on this from my noble friend.

Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Gardening and Horticulture Group. Of course, I welcome warmly in principle any system which will better protect our country from imported plant diseases. We have all seen enough of Dutch elm disease, ash dieback and sundry other horrible pests and diseases to know that we want to prevent the import of more, notably Xylella, which affects so many garden plants. Nevertheless, the horticultural industry is worried about the adjustments that it will have to make from 1 January. My noble friend the Minister referred to “some” adjustments; I think that the trade would say that they are tremendously important and worrying adjustments.

The regulations are long, complex and, to me, barely comprehensible. It is important that those who will have to run with these regulations have full explanations in everyday language. I am told that these are not yet forthcoming. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can say whether this is correct, because it is important that all traders, nurseries and so forth have access to them.

My noble friend Lord Taylor mentioned discussions with the Horticultural Trades Association, in which we were both engaged. Perhaps I may put to the Minister some of the worries that it has expressed, but I must make it clear that it, as much as anybody else, wants to prevent pests and diseases coming into this country and is anxious to work with the Government after 1 January as well as before it. It is concerned that border controls to check plant health will not yet be in place, meaning that checks will be made at plant destinations. According to the trades association, that means anything from 1,000 to possibly 2,000, which will be a considerable worry, especially for small nurseries or centres that sell plants. They will need to know whether and when an inspector is going to come and, in the meantime, they will not be free to sell the plants. The association is also worried as to whether there will be differences in the categorisation of plants—high-risk plants and others. I think that my noble friend the Minister has made it clear that the regime will not apply equally; inspectors will look to check high-risk plants, which is of some consolation.

Traders are also worried about the need to switch to, from their point of view, a brand new computer system in July. I believe that it is a system that already works for other organisations, but it would be brand new to the horticultural industry. If it is anything like my experience with computer systems, it is not a happy thing to which to look forward. I hope that my noble friend can explain a little more clearly how this will work, to make it easier for the industry as a whole.

My noble friend Lord Taylor has already explained the concerns in relation to Northern Ireland, so I shall not repeat them, but it is important to reassure the horticultural trades in their various forms that the department is understanding of their problems. Above all, I ask the Minister that he and his officials be prepared to work closely with the Horticultural Trades Association as the main representative of the industry to make certain that, as this thing rolls out and problems appear—some of which we may have discussed already and others that may come forward later—they are fully in touch and will adjust as the need arises. The concerns expressed hitherto reflect intense worry on the part of the various nurseries and garden centres. As I have said, they want a new system, but they do not want to be ruined by its implementation.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Motion A

Moved by

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also in support of Amendments 72 and 73 in this group, which were tabled by my noble friend Lady Fookes. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, which I highlighted in Committee.

All three amendments would enable us to put an end to much suffering incurred by thousands of animals when they are exported for slaughter or fattening. In their manifesto, the Government committed to end excessively long journeys for slaughter or fattening, so let us take this opportunity to deliver on that promise and put it in the Bill. Why wait? As I said in Committee, exporting animals for slaughter is simply a welfare insult. In this day and age there is no reason why they cannot travel on the hook rather than on the hoof.

I do not want to reiterate all the examples we discussed in Committee, but I remind your Lordships to look at the figures. The Animal and Plant Health Agency reported that around 40,000 animals were exported last year. Of those, around 30,000 were sheep, with only around half going to the continent. Some were transported all the way across Europe to countries that have a large onward trade to the Middle East. The long journeys are stressful for the animals and in some cases result in enormous suffering due to, for example, overcrowding, high summer temperatures and injuries received en route. On top of that, they can end up in fattening or slaughter systems that would be illegal in this country.

I believe that even in this country animals should be slaughtered at the closest point to production as a default option, and Amendment 73 addresses this. I understand that it is supported by the BVA. While I understand that various options in this area are being looked at, I point out that Amendment 73 would not come into effect until the end of January 2023, which gives us time to achieve that. As this was in our manifesto, surely the Bill is the right place to move this agenda forward and ensure that it happens.

Amendment 71 builds on the debate we had in Committee. In addition to Amendments 72 and 73, which focus on slaughter and fattening, and restricting journey times, it would specifically prohibit the export from Great Britain of farmed animals for slaughter without stunning. It provides that farmed animals transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for slaughter must be slaughtered in Northern Ireland and cannot be taken further afield before being killed.

In Committee the Minister stated:

“The Government encourage the highest standards of animal welfare. Although our policy is to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, we accept the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat killed in accordance with their religious beliefs”.—[Official Report, 16/7/20; col. 1801.]


I emphasise that I too respect the needs of our multicultural society in the UK. If, as the Minister stated, it is our policy to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, as long as enough animals are killed in accordance for UK halal and kosher consumption, I see no reason for the Government not to accept this amendment regarding export.

Indeed, the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have highlighted that more animals than are needed are already killed without stunning for UK halal and kosher consumption so that they are more flexible for sale. Figures from the Food Standards Agency indicate that in 2018 more than 94 million cattle, sheep and poultry were slaughtered without stunning. In addition, a Food Standards Agency report last year highlighted that 90,000 of the 2.9 million non-stunned animals slaughtered for kosher-certified meat were rejected as unfit for religious consumption and went into the general market unlabelled. This needs to be addressed so that there is equality of choice and those who would choose not to eat meat from an animal killed without stunning can identify that meat.

The BVA states that there is evidence that non-stun slaughter is highly likely to cause pain, suffering and distress. More animals than are needed are currently killed without stunning for the UK market. I personally find the figures I stated shocking and believe that we should kill only as locally as possible and only what is needed in this way.

The amendment would not prevent UK communities eating meat killed in accordance with their religious beliefs. What it would do is prevent British animals having to undergo long, stressful journeys to be killed in a way highly likely to cause pain and distress. Surely one of the main reasons for leaving the EU was so that we could put in place laws that we feel are right. The litmus test of humanity in a country is how we treat the vulnerable, and animals are surely among the most vulnerable. This trade is just utterly cruel, and if the UK wishes to consider itself a country leading in animal welfare, it needs to stop such practices around the export of animals now. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger most warmly. She has put the case on the various amendments powerfully, with great conviction and great compassion. I share her feelings and I hope this will not be lost on my noble friends on the Front Bench.

I do not want to add any more to what my noble friend said on her Amendment 71, except to point out that when the original exemption was made to allow religious communities with real scruples to have animals that have not been pre-stunned, it was never intended that they should be the subject of exports. I see no reason why unscrupulous traders should benefit from this so that they can send animals away to where pre-stunning is not so common. This ought to be dealt with very quickly indeed.

The amendment standing in my name and supported by my noble friend is a reintroduction of an amendment I brought forward in Committee to ban the export of live animals for slaughter or for fattening. This has been a gripe and a passion of mine for many years—in fact, since I was a young MP in the House of Commons. That shows you how long ago it was, because I am no longer the spring chicken—probably some people would regard me as an old boiler.

I feel very strongly on this issue, but I have concerns even about my own amendment, because we have had to include a provision permitting animals going to Northern Ireland freely to go into the Republic because of the withdrawal arrangement. This worries me enormously, because, once they are there, they can then be moved freely around all countries belonging to the European Union. Although there are supposedly welfare regulations which prevent them travelling for too long, they are weak and not enforced, so you might as well say they do not exist at all, because that is the plain fact of the matter. I worry that those who still want to send animals abroad will use this provision as a loophole.

I became more concerned about this only very recently. I did not know that the Port of Ramsgate, through which most animals currently exported go, tried to ban animals passing through it. The exporters took the port to court and unfortunately the court found for them and not for the port. That indicates the lengths to which they will go. Therefore, I am concerned about the possibility of animals being sent to Northern Ireland and the situation being almost worse than that which we have now. That is something on which I hope the Government will reflect carefully. I hope that they will be able to tell us that they will come forward with some arrangement, beyond my ken, which deals with this situation.

The other amendment standing in my name, again supported by my noble friend, would ration the hours which animals can spend in transport. I accept that this is a probing amendment. I am concerned about the hours for which animals travel, which came home to me in Committee, when I was horrified to learn of the extent to which animals travel within the United Kingdom. I had not quite appreciated that, so concerned had I been about animals going abroad. I saw this as an opportunity again to take up one of the manifesto commitments on ending excessively long hours for animals in transport. I remind my noble friends of that commitment.

I accept that this is a slightly strange way round of doing things. Normally, if a Government were going to introduce a measure such as this, they would get hold of the “stakeholders” beforehand—I think that is still the fashionable expression; that is, those whose livelihood depends on farming and transporting and who might be affected by any changes in the rules and regulations—and experts, such as vets and key farmers, who understand all the details of what it means to transport animals and can bring their expertise to bear. It is quite likely that one would want different hours for different types of animal. We know that calves are extremely sensitive to travel and feel it much more—they are also much more closely affected by temperature fluctuations. It also depends on the vehicles carrying them: whether they are good, bad or indifferent. My proposed new clause would permit distinctions to be made, and there is also a time lag. None the less, I recognise that this is the wrong way around, and I am sure that people can pick every manner of hole in the suggestions that I have made. However, my main concern is to ensure that the Government get on with this and bring forward really good arrangements.

I understand that the Farm Animal Welfare Committee has done a lot of detailed work on this issue, so I hope that we can pick up on that, in addition to the point already made by my noble friend, that the British Veterinary Association has it laid down as a cardinal principle that animals should be slaughtered or fattened as near as possible to where they were born or raised. I look to the Government this evening to bring forward some real progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly support this amendment and indeed have added my name to it. I must say that I am blessed if I can understand why this causes so many problems to the Government. I can understand how the regulations about how many hours an animal should travel raise all sorts of issues, but this is a general statement and I do not see why it cannot be introduced pretty quickly. I particularly like the part of this amendment proposing that an annual report must come forward from the Secretary of State to explain

“how the duty in subsection (1) has been discharged.”

I hope that is not offputting for the Government. It seems fairly reasonable to me and I hope that it can be introduced very rapidly.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, again I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and thank her for having introduced this amendment. The amendment speaks for itself and she spoke to it well. In light of what happened on the previous amendment, I am sure we will get reassuring words from the Minister asking us to take them to heart and not press the amendment. It would be more convincing if a declaration of that kind, which I know he makes in good faith, were backed up with some specific indication in terms of timing—what will this mean and how speedily do the Government intend to act.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Fookes]

220: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Export of farmed animals for slaughter or fattening
(1) A person commits an offence if the person exports to any country outside the United Kingdom a farmed animal for slaughter or fattening.(2) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the export to any country outside the United Kingdom of a farmed animal for slaughter or fattening.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the export of a farmed animal from Northern Ireland to the European Union.(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both;(b) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both;(c) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.(5) In relation to an offence committed before section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, subsection (4)(a) has effect as if for “51 weeks” there were substituted “6 months”.(6) This section extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.(7) This section shall come into force on “IP completion day”, where “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause prohibits the export from the UK of farm animals for slaughter or fattening. It includes an exception for exports from Northern Ireland to the EU as the Withdrawal Agreement prohibits restrictions on exports from Northern Ireland to the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in my name, I declare a non-financial interest as set out in the register. I am delighted to be supported on this amendment by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

It is a perfectly straightforward amendment. I seek to ban the exports of farmed animals for slaughter and fattening. It excludes a ban on trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, simply because the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU makes it difficult to do otherwise. There is also a set of suitable penalties for people who do not abide by the ban.

I have a strong sense of déjà vu, because I remember, as a youngish MP in the 1970s and into the 1980s, drawing attention to the scandal of animals being exported live for slaughter and further fattening. In particular, I recall the time in 1973 when we were debating whether a temporary ban on the export of these animals should be extended or withdrawn. I was angry with the Minister, because I thought he was vacillating and weak in his approach. I said then that

“nothing will induce me to sanction the export of live animals”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/1973; col. 833.]

I felt it strongly then and feel equally strongly about it 47 years later.

At that time I was a member of the council of the RSPCA, which gave me the opportunity to discuss first-hand with RSPCA inspectors their experience of that live trade. At that time they had an undercover agents operation and followed the consignments from the beginning to the end. The stories they told me were utterly horrific; I shall never forget them. Not only did these poor animals endure excessively long journeys—very often in wholly unsuitable vehicles and with little attention paid to rest—but they often went short of food and water and ended up deep in their own waste. The RSPCA inspectors themselves often endured considerable hardships, not least from the drivers of vehicles who did not want this kind of vigilant oversight of their activities.

I fear that great suffering is still endured by animals in the present day. Fortunately, it is not the large numbers I recall from those days—but even so, according to official figures in 2019, 3,500 calves were exported, very often from Scotland, going via England and France into Spain. That would be bad enough for mature animals, but for very young animals totally unsuited to such journeys I find that totally unacceptable. Worse still, if they stay there for further fattening, they are likely to be put in conditions that in this country would be illegal, frankly.

Far more sheep go. In 2019, 31,000-odd went on quite long journeys to the continent, even as far as Bulgaria. Again, the conditions at their destination are probably far from satisfactory. We do not even know whether some might be destined for slaughter without pre-stunning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful for what has been a very interesting debate with a lot of very good points made—not all of which, of course, I agree with. However, it has certainly aired the whole subject again, for which I am grateful.

I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has difficulties afforded him. I take it that he is genuine in his wish to bring about an end to the export of animals for slaughter and fattening. He mentioned the WTO rules, but I understand that a good exemption is possible under Article XX, to which he referred briefly, and I am quite sure that, if a good case could be made, there should be no great problems on that subject. I remind him that certain bans on the export of animals are already in existence and appear to be unchallenged, particularly the ban on the export of horses and ponies under a certain value.

I obviously want to think very carefully about my amendment, because of the possible—or perhaps certain —loophole of animals going from England to Northern Ireland and then perhaps to the Republic and on through other countries, which is exactly what we do not want. I therefore want to give further consideration to whether I should pursue my amendment on Report. I would like to have further discussions with my noble friend to see in more detail what the Government have in mind to fulfil their manifesto commitment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 220 withdrawn.