Asked by
of Hardington
Mandeville
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any,
to improve the standards of farm animal welfare.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. We
have delivered an ambitious legislative programme since the
publication of the Action Plan for Animal Welfare. We are
committed to maintaining our strong track record on animal
welfare and delivering continued improvements in the course of
this Parliament and beyond. This includes our commitment to ban
the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. Defra’s call for evidence
showed strong support and appetite from the public for animal
welfare labelling on supermarket products to level the playing
field for British farmers and help consumers make informed
choices based on how the food they buy has been produced. That
could not be more important when future trade deals will allow
food to be imported which has been produced to lower standards
than we legally allow in this country. Supermarkets such as
Waitrose have already shown their voluntary commitment to leading
standards of animal welfare. It is vital that there is a means
for different standards of farming practices to be clearly and
consistently communicated to consumers to help them and provide
choices. Can the Minister confirm when he will publish the
long-awaited consultation setting out the proposals to expand
mandatory labelling requirements for animal welfare for both
imported and domestic products?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right that the power to improve animal
welfare lies in large measure with the consumer, and keeping the
consumer informed is a key part of this. Therefore, in answer to
her question, we received over 1,600 responses to the
consultation, a summary of which is available on GOV.UK. Based on
the evidence provided, the Government are continuing to explore
options for improving and expanding mandatory animal welfare
labelling, covering both domestic and imported products, and we
will keep the House informed of our progress.
(Con)
My Lords, while I applaud the high standards that farming
communities and the Government have achieved on farmed animals in
this country, does my noble friend regret the fact that we have
not extended the same high standards to imports, particularly
those from Australia and New Zealand through the free trade
agreements? Will he give the House a commitment today that future
trade agreements will insist on the same animal welfare and
environmental standards for imports as are applied in this
country?
(Con)
Imports into the UK must comply with our existing import
requirements. Products produced to different environmental and
animal welfare standards can be placed on the UK market if they
comply with these requirements. We are taking a tailored approach
in each of our new free trade agreements. For example, pork,
poultry and eggs were excluded from our agreement with Australia,
and in our agreements with Australia and New Zealand, we secured
non-regression and non-derogation clauses on animal welfare. This
will be a feature of future agreements.
(Lab)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for his
courteous correspondence after the conclusion of the Genetic
Technology (Precision Breeding) Act. Apropos of that Act, it is
very clear that, when we start to modify animals, there will be a
number of mutations which are likely to be unpredictable. Can the
Minister give us some idea of how we will control the potential
for animal cruelty when mutant animals are produced in this sort
of way?
(Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his involvement with that
Act. He challenged me and the House to become more knowledgeable
during our debates on it. We think that the Act will have huge
benefits for animal welfare; I have two examples for the noble
Lord. The Roslin Institute and Genus have developed gene-edited
versions of pigs, which could improve the situation with regard
to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, a terrible
disease of that animal. The other example is pancreatic necrosis
virus in salmon. We want to make sure that we are regulating this
properly; we talked about that throughout debates on the Act. We
now have a system in which there is transparency about how we
regulate that, but I will continue to keep the House informed as
we develop that.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify exactly when the ban on live
animals for slaughter being exported is coming in? Is it not a
fact that, when and if it does, it could not apply to Northern
Ireland because Northern Ireland has been under EU rules on live
animals for slaughter?
(Con)
The number of live animals exported from Great Britain since
Brexit has been zero—none: not one. There is one vessel, the
“Joline”, which operates out of Folkestone and has the capacity
to take live exports from Great Britain to Europe, and there is
none going on that vessel at the moment. We still want to bring
in this legislation, because there may be future demand, the
infrastructure to support that trade might start up again and we
want to make sure we are legislating in the right way. On the key
point about Northern Ireland, that is an even more complex issue,
because we are trying to resolve this through the Windsor
Framework, but I will write to the noble Baroness on that.
(Con)
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords—
(Con)
I know my place.
(Con)
Perhaps I may take issue with my noble friend about the export of
animals for slaughter, which has been a concern of mine for more
years than I now care to remember. This is a good time to do it
when nothing much is happening; that could change overnight. What
is more, countries such as Australia are seriously considering
operating such a ban. Here, we could give a good lead, and if the
Government want to be at the forefront, now is the time to do
it.
(Con)
I agree with my noble friend. She is not taking issue with me;
she is pushing at an open door. This is a manifesto commitment
and in our animal welfare action plan, and we want to do it.
(Lab)
Given that the hundreds of millions of food production animals
that we eat have to be slaughtered first, should not the public
be entitled to know what the method of slaughter is?
(Con)
We have a very clear set of guidelines, which we have improved in
recent years, such as by putting CCTV cameras in slaughterhouses.
As the noble Lord will know, the Food Standards Agency oversees
this and requires vets to be present. I think his point relates
to pre-stun slaughter, and that is an ongoing discussion. We want
to work with those groups that want a particular type of
slaughter, while recognising that there is a very strong view out
there about our knowledge and understanding of what an animal
senses in those final moments of its life. We want to make sure
that our WATOK rules, as they are called, are absolutely up to
date, and I shall continue to keep him informed of this.
(Con)
My Lords, it is absolutely right that the Government seek to be
at the forefront not only of technology but also of animal
welfare. What thinking is there in the department about the
future of meat, particularly lab-grown meat and whether there are
any welfare implications for lab-grown meat in future?
(Con)
This is a fast-moving technology all over the world, and I think
people look at it with some suspicion in terms of where plants
come from and what has to happen to plants in order to make them
both taste like meat and look like meat. We want to support a
livestock industry in this country that continues to have a much
wider benefit across the rural economy but with the highest
welfare standards possible. However, in this area of policy, if a
Minister was to stand at this Dispatch Box and go to the furthest
extreme possible, there would still be people in the animal
welfare movement—or more the animal rights movement—who would say
it is too little, too late; you will never satisfy everyone. I
think the Government have this right.
(Lab)
Nearly three years ago, the campaign group Christian Ethics of
Farmed Animal Welfare published a report exploring the ethics of
current farming practices, yet little has seemingly progressed.
When Christian churches are concerned about severe welfare
problems experienced by caged laying hens, broiler chickens and
the impact of fast-growth breeds, we should probably take note.
What discussions is the Minister having with chicken farmers to
encourage transition back to slower-growing, higher-welfare
breeds of chicken, as recommended by the RSPCA?
(Con)
I refer the noble Baroness to my earlier comments about the power
of the consumer here and retailers in informing their consumers
and providing what they want. There is that side to it, but the
Government have a role. The UK is currently 91% self-sufficient
in eggs and produces 40 million hens per year. The movement for
them to be either in cages where there are high welfare standards
or reared in the open air is now moving very fast, but there is
more that we can do. That is why we passed several rafts of
legislation in recent years: the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act;
the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act, which does have relevance
here; the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act; and a whole range of
other measures, which we described in the Action Plan for Animal
Welfare which the Government are taking through. Some of them are
legislative but not all of them.
