Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Trees and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations. I was chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place and, as my noble friend will recall, we took great interest in this.

My view is that this measure will be successful only if it is properly enforced. Given that that the penalties will, I presume, be similar to those imposed for a breach of the obligation to microchip dogs, how many fines have been imposed for failure to comply with the obligation to microchip dogs? Does my noble friend share my frustration that we are still 10% short of the magic 100% figure for dogs? It is hoped that the obligation to microchip cats will bring it up to that level. Is that the Government’s ambition, or are they aiming even higher than that?

At the moment, there is the vexed issue of dangerous dogs doing damage. Often, they attack a person in a public place. I assume that these dogs will be microchipped. To what extent does my noble friend think that the Government’s current obligation to microchip dogs is successful in identifying and tracing dogs that commit a grievous injury or fatality in a public place?

On the exemption, I presume that there will be potential for a feral cat to cross over and commit an injury such as biting or scratching a perfectly innocent bystander, which we know can have very significant effects. Obviously, they have no owner, so what happens in that situation, in terms of identifying the feral cat and bringing it to justice, as it were?

My final question is about the continuous issue of what I think are called boiler-house dogs: the breeding of multiple pups which, when they are not sold, are unlikely to be microchipped. For the sake of completeness, what is the Government’s policy in that regard? I understand from press reports that these dogs are literally dumped on the streets and taken in by cats and dogs homes, such as Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, for whose work we are grateful. Is that occurring more than it was before and is there a similar problem with cats and kittens?

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register and as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and as a veterinary surgeon.

I very much welcome this statutory instrument and the inclusion of cats. I also welcome the fact that there is no legal requirement in these regulations that vets must scan a dog prior to euthanasia. This matter has been of some considerable public interest, but the Government deserve credit for recognising that not only the veterinary profession but many of the dog and cat bodies—such as Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Dogs Trust, PDSA and others—have similarly opposed a legal requirement to scan prior to euthanasia. All these bodies have advocated that that should be a matter for professional codes of practice. Indeed, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has done so and has incorporated in its code of practice appropriate advice but ultimately gives veterinary surgeons powers to use their discretion. The reason is that a legal requirement could adversely affect animal welfare. In certain circumstances, it could deter individuals from bringing sick or injured animals to a veterinary surgeon if they thought the veterinary surgeons were essentially policing this microchipping requirement. That would be adverse for animal welfare.

One regret I have, which I think I share with many in our profession and many who are required to scan animals, is that there has been no attempt to reduce or limit the number of databases holding microchip information. I understand that currently, there are 22 different databases for dogs, which are fulfilling the Government’s current requirements to hold data. That creates an unnecessary and excessive burden, both on those required to put in chips and record the information and on those who need to recover the information from scanning. However, I note that there are now two portals to assist one in determining which database contains the relevant information for any particular animal. One is run by the Kennel Club and one by AVID, a manufacturer of microchips, but these are private initiatives. One hopes that they are maintained to facilitate the examination and identification of microchips.

I very much welcome this instrument, which makes a significant contribution to reuniting dogs and cats with their owners and, importantly, to the rapid identification and potential treatment of injured dogs and cats.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Trees and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as in the register. I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I thank the Minister for useful discussions during the passage of this Bill, and I hope that he is a very happy grandfather this afternoon.

I accept these amendments, particularly Amendment 1, but, as a vet and a veterinary scientist, I have to say that I do not condone some of the activities covered under the amendment in terms of,

“religious rites, cultural traditions and historical heritage.”

Some of those activities are not consistent with best practice in animal welfare science or indeed regulation, and I will take this opportunity to make a plea to those directly involved to consider very carefully and to reflect on whether practices which had some historical relevance in ancient times are relevant, necessary or at all acceptable in the 21st century. Having said that, I respect national and international laws pertaining to freedoms—in particular, Article 9 of the Human Rights Act on religious freedoms.

I will make one further point. During prolonged discussions about the Bill in this House, a number of noble Lords raised the potential threat to the use of animals in medical research. That was a fair concern, but one which could be countered—I spoke to that effect, as did others at the time—by the fact that the rigorous application and implementation of our Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was a sufficient response to the requirement for government departments to have due regard to animal welfare and the development of policies. We have thorough, world-leading regulations around the controlled use of animals in medical research.

Recently, it has come to my notice that there are changes afoot in the Home Office with regard to the implementation of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act. It is not yet clear to me what the effect of those changes might be on the welfare protection of animals used in medical research. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that any changes with regard to the implementation of the law pertaining to the use of animals in medical research should not weaken—or be perceived to weaken—that regulation, which could lead to increased legal challenge to the use of animals in medical research when the Bill becomes an Act. I support the amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing the Bill to this stage. My concerns about it have not changed, but we are where we are. I want to lend my support to and associate myself in particular with Amendment 1. In doing so, I repeat that I am a fellow of the British Veterinary Association and share some of the concerns outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, regarding its practice.

I seek reassurance from my noble friend as to the response of the devolved Parliaments to the amendments. Have the Government had the chance to square the amendments with them? I further seek reassurance that in the operation of the Bill the Government, particularly my noble friend’s department, will be mindful of the role that farmers and especially livestock producers play in rearing our farm animals, and perhaps recognise that they are best placed to respect animal welfare and are masters in their own right of animal husbandry.

I hope that, in light of the short debate we had elsewhere in Questions this week, the Government will be mindful of the fact that there is still a severe shortage of seasonal workers which is impacting on abattoirs and the slaughter of animals. I hope that there will not be any undue concern over potential animal welfare consequences of that. I realise that it is not entirely within the scope of the Bill, but I wish to draw it to my noble friend’s attention. I congratulate him on accepting the two amendments before us today.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Trees and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 16B and 18B. I am somewhat perplexed. As a party, we went into the election last year on a manifesto commitment to maintain high standards of food production in terms of animal welfare, health and hygiene, along with environmental protection. That will mean nothing if we have cheaper imports that undercut us. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will remember, I tabled an amendment at an earlier stage that would have gone further than this and would have been totally in keeping with what the World Trade Organization dictates: in certain circumstances you can have higher standards. That is something that my noble friend the Minister must accept is happening in certain agreements now. Indeed, it is already reflected in some of our fair trade deals, in that we buy products from certain developing countries on those grounds.

It is extremely important that we differentiate between elements that my noble friend tends to couple together, but which I think it is wrong to do. He has repeated that the Food Standards Agency for England and Food Standards Scotland keep up standards of food safety; I applaud the role that Heather Hancock and her team have played in the agency. We have now established in debates on both this Bill and the Trade Bill that those safety standards, which I fully support, can be amended by the stroke of a pen through secondary legislation. We do not even need the Government to come back with primary legislation in the form of a Bill. The standards can be amended and removed by statutory instrument. That is why I believe that Amendment 16B should be adopted. I did urge my noble friend to bring forward an amendment to this effect on behalf of the Government.

The reason given by the other place for not supporting the earlier amendment in this regard is:

“Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate to create new requirements for imports to meet particular standards.”


These are not new requirements; they are requirements on which I believe the Government stood and won so convincingly last year. We cannot set high standards in this country and accept imports that might undercut them. Why? Because a Conservative Government did precisely this in the mid-1990s by banning sow stalls and tethers, only to be undercut by cheaper meat produced using sow stalls and tethers in countries where doing so was still perfectly legal. The public voted on price. I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said on labelling and the campaign that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has been running. Regrettably, I believe there is a need for Amendment 16B. I urge my noble friend to think again.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for persisting with his campaign, which I entirely support, with his redrafted Amendment 18B. As my noble friend the Duke of Wellington said, the reason given—

“Because it would involve a charge on public funds”—


is unacceptable. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Grimstone for his reply in Oral Questions last week, which set out the budget for the Trade and Agriculture Commission as it currently exists, and for the Trade Remedies Authority. It begs the question why we need the Trade Remedies Authority to be on the face of the Trade Bill, but we do not wish to see the Trade and Agriculture Commission in statutory form.

I actually wish that the amendment went further. I pay tribute to what the Minister said in summing up the debate next door. My honourable friend Victoria Prentis recognised that there might be a need to extend the current remit and tenure of members of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, but I believe in the advice of Henry Dimbleby in his interim report. He has done us a great service by saying that the Government should consider a stand-alone, purpose-built international trade commission, such as exists in so many of the other jurisdictions with which we seek to trade in this brave new world, having left the European Union.

I will move a similar amendment in Committee on the Trade Bill. I believe there is scope for the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill to reflect each other in this regard. I cannot believe that the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s existing budget does not enable acceptance of this modest amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, which, as I said, I wish went further. I will support it if he presses it to a vote.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 18B in the name of my noble friend Lord Curry. The issue of maintaining animal welfare and environmental standards is of huge concern, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords. We have previously received a number of assurances from the Government, which are undoubtedly sincere, but there is legitimate concern to see that assurances are turned into deliverable action to create systems and mechanisms that provide a degree of independent advice and scrutiny to government.

As the UK starts negotiating its own trade agreements as an independent sovereign state, we have a chance to clearly demonstrate by actions, not just words, that we will negotiate on the basis that equivalent animal welfare standards and suitable environmental standards apply to the food we import, just as they apply to that which we produce ourselves. This is not about protectionism but giving our farmers a level playing field to compete on, and setting out a global exemplar position on animal welfare and the environment.

Last week, I had the pleasure, coming back from our local town, of passing a field of beef cows, with their well-grown calves at foot, contentedly grazing amid the woods and hills of Perthshire, all in a lovely wildlife-rich, biodiverse environment. Are we going to risk exchanging that for feedlot cattle that live their life on bare earth and are fed soya; or, worse, cattle reared not on natural grassland but on cleared rainforest? The UK is rightly proud of its climate change commitments, but what is the point of trying to reduce our agricultural carbon emissions if we import beef from cleared rainforests?

The creation of the Trade and Agriculture Commission was a welcome step and it will set out a framework for future trade deals, but it will cease to function by January. I submit that there will be a need for continuing advice and scrutiny. Why would any Government not want a readily available, very affordable pool of independent expertise to consult? For imported food, to protect our food safety, there is the Food Standards Agency. To protect animal and plant health there are the international sanitary and phytosanitary protocols. There is a deficit in independent oversight for animal welfare and environmental standards on imported products.

The amendment proposes that Parliament and a continuing Trade and Agriculture Commission should provide that oversight. If the Government object to this revised amendment, will they consider bringing forward their own suitable amendment in the other place? That would go a long way to assuage the very real concerns of the public—let us not forget the NFU petition which over a million people signed—and the legitimate concerns of the welfare and environmental bodies, the veterinary profession and our farmers. What is there not to like?

Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Trees and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explicit and clear explanation of these regulations. I have very little quibble with them, but just a few points. As he emphasised, a significant change is to require the holders of market authorisations to be registered in the UK. This will impose a small burden. About £100 was estimated in the Explanatory Memorandum, which seems extremely reasonable and justified, because this measure is required to bring the market authorisation holders under UK legal jurisdiction. That is clearly extremely important to protect animal health and public safety.

The monitoring of residues, to which the Minister referred, is extremely important. As he mentioned, it is devolved. Can he tell us which processes are, or will be, in place between the devolved authorities in the UK to ensure that we maintain consistent levels and standards, so as not unduly to interfere with internal trade within the UK? I was going to ask the Minister about the concerns raised by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in relation to the lowering of standards, but I accept his assurance that those concerns are unfounded.

Finally, I make a plea to the Minister, which I am sure he will fully understand. These regulations will significantly increase workload for the regulatory departments in our pharmaceutical companies, which form an important industry in the UK. I ask him to ensure that at least some degree of understanding and flexibility applies to the government agencies responsible for interacting with those companies. All in all, however, this is a very satisfactory SI.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing this SI. I am not a vet but an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association, and I am grateful for the briefing it has given me for today’s purposes. I want to press the Minister on the question of the potential cost. Historic and current approvals will obviously remain in place, but can he put my mind at rest on what the future cost will be? Can he also assure the Committee that the SI before us this afternoon will not potentially raise a barrier to trade?

In particular, I understand that the previous harmonisation and mutual recognition of products will not necessarily go forward. It is good that we are being nice about products coming this way, but will the Minister ensure that those going the other way will be equally assured? I understand that reciprocity will not be guaranteed in the event of no deal. I do not disapprove of the SI; I understand the absolute need for it, and welcome it. But what is happening to ensure reciprocity going forward?

Can my noble friend also give a hint to the Committee—this could be in the SI; I might have missed it—of what the cost would be of placing a veterinary product from the UK across the EU? That would be most helpful to know, as I understand that there will potentially be additional costs going forward. Could this lead to some companies, which might otherwise have chosen to establish themselves in the UK, choosing not to do so? This is one of the concerns that was expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Sub-Committee A, as it could mean a reduction in the number of veterinary medicines being available after exit. I assume this is something that the SI deals with. There are two sides to the coin. One is that a new product is going to cost more to be placed in another EU member state, or potentially an EEA country, even in spite of this. The flip side is that a company that may have wished to place itself in the UK may have second thoughts about doing so. Will this cover the situation if there is no deal, as the statutory instrument before us will presumably replace what would have been a transition period?

Equine (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Trees and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition. Notwithstanding his assurances, I would like to seek further assurance on two points. First, will this instrument adequately maintain the biosecurity of the UK horse population, particularly regarding African horse sickness and the movement of horses into the UK? My second point was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. In view of the fact that the welfare of horses in the UK might be hindered by the difficulty and costs of enabling humane slaughter of unwanted horses, can the Minister assure us that this SI places no additional impediment on the humane slaughter of horses in approved equine abattoirs, which in some cases might be abroad?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the statutory instrument’s purpose and I thank my noble friend for introducing it. We should not take equine health for granted, given the latest incident of equine flu and the devastating effect it could have on the racing community. I should declare that I am a member of the APPG on racing, and I live on what was a stud farm in North Yorkshire.

What is the relationship between the statutory instrument and the tripartite agreement? When the tripartite agreement was created it was outwith the European Union. It obviously continues to function extremely well and it is slightly confusing that it should have been brought in the EU’s remit when it refers only to horses travelling between the UK, Ireland and France. I know there is great concern that this agreement should continue. I hope the statutory instrument will allow that—it could be one of its benefits—but given that we now have almost less than a month to go, what will the status of the tripartite agreement be and what is the specific relationship between the statutory instrument and that agreement?

Most of the reasons why horses and ponies travel are for racing, breeding and the purposes of riding but, as my noble friend Lady Byford pointed out, there is quite a thriving trade on the continent for edible horsemeat. I confess that I did so once as a student in Denmark, when a trick was played on me and I did not quite realise what I was eating. Having grown up with a little pony, I was absolutely devastated afterwards. There was a sinister development in, I think, 2012 with the horsegate scandal. It showed that there is the potential for, or has been, an animal health issue almost every 10 years: we had BSE in the early 1990s, foot and mouth in the early 2000s, and then what was thankfully only a passing off, not a human or animal health food scandal. But it was totally unacceptable that we never really got to the bottom of the chain. The Select Committee that I chaired tried to invite witnesses who could have proved beyond doubt that there were Irish connections involved, which we were unable to do because we could not subpoena witnesses from outside the United Kingdom.

This is an extremely important instrument for biosecurity, animal health and potentially passing off. I hope my noble friend will put my mind at rest that that is its basis. I have a Question coming up next month, so I will have the opportunity to pursue that further.

My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned the Explanatory Memorandum, in which paragraph 3.2 on page 2 refers to the Lords sifting committee recommendation that this instrument should use the affirmative procedure. It also mentions the “potential costs”. In the disclaimer—for want of a better word—at the end, it is recorded as saying that,

“the total cost … falls below the £5 million”,

but the committee must have been concerned. Will the Minister repeat the actual cost for the benefit of the Committee this afternoon? It is obviously below £5 million, but I will be interested to know what the actual cost will be. I welcome that the department, through this instrument, will continue to allow free movement with a minimum of disruption. That begs the question of potential checks in the event of no deal at ports of entry to the continent. I hope that can be resolved by carrying over the tripartite agreement. If it was initially outwith the European Union, I see no reason why we cannot reach an agreement between the UK, Ireland and France that it should continue.

Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Trees and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, again I thank the Minister for his very clear and extensive exposition. I have one or two queries regarding the animals legislative functions regulations, particularly concerning regulation EC 999/2001, which concerns the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies—TSEs. Certain substitutions have been made under article 4—“Safeguard Measures”—on which I seek the Minister’s assurance. Specifically, in article 6, the appropriate authority is given any power to disapply the requirement for the annual monitoring programme under certain circumstances—a monitoring programme is required under current EU regulations—and in article 7, the appropriate authority can prescribe tolerated levels of “insignificant” amounts of animal protein in feeding stuffs.

Without seeing the original material, these sound a little concerning. Can the Minister assure us that they do not represent departures from the original legislation and would not leave us unaligned with current EU 27 regulations? That might create a prejudice against our livestock exports.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations are very technical and I congratulate my noble friend on moving them. I have a question that relates solely to the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, in particular to paragraph 7.9 on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum covering Regulation 9. This is the animal slaughter regulation which will transfer, as my noble friend has explained, the legislative functions from regulation EC 1007/ 2009. I notice that we are transferring the power specifically and allowing Defra, presumably, to,

“define the maximum numbers of poultry, hares and rabbits to be processed by low throughput slaughterhouses; and publish guidance”.

What is the average throughput of these animals at the moment? Is my noble friend minded to specify other categories as well?

Perhaps the Committee will permit me to make a general comment. I was in the European Parliament as a directly elected Member when we passed the original abattoir directive, as I think it was known. I argue that it was not the fault of MEPs that we applied that very restrictively in the UK. That led to a number of slaughterhouses closing. A point of principle has been established—I am sure my noble friend is wedded to it, as am I—that animals for human consumption should be slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible, yet we now find ourselves in a situation where we have a greatly reduced number of slaughterhouses. I had the privilege of representing two different areas, but for 18 years I represented next door to the joint largest livestock production area in the north of England. I believe that animals being transported further, because of the reduced number of slaughterhouses, was a factor in the foot and mouth disease epidemic. I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to say that we will draw the line and that we have no intention of reducing the number of slaughterhouses through this or any other regulation.