Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-12-06
Topic: Agriculture
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robathan on stepping into the breach at such short notice and so eloquently moving Amendment 3. I will speak to Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10 in my name, and I associate myself with earlier comments on the general thrust of this Bill put by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, in moving his Amendment 2 in the earlier group I share the general concern of those who are sceptical about the need for this Bill. I see it as a further onslaught on farming and livestock producers, particularly those in the uplands. I yield to no one in my praise and admiration for the way they go out in all weathers to produce lambs and suckler cattle at this time of year and, especially, in the spring. We are conscious of the fact that, in the north-east of England, there are some 12,000 people without electricity; presumably, the farmers are having to milk the cows by hand, which, of course, takes a lot longer than would normally be the case by other means As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer that we keep to the basics of the manifesto. I have now had a chance to reacquaint myself with Article 13, which states: "In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals." This neatly makes the case for the main thrust of my argument—the reason why Clause 1 is not required is that it is adequately covered by Article 13. I look forward to hearing a strong argument and reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to why that should not be the case. I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Marland; it would seem that the Government are drifting away from supporting farming, maintaining self-sufficiency in our food production and our high standards of food production. However, through this Bill, the subsequent regulations and, no doubt, the advice of the committee being set up by Clause 1, we are actually making life much more difficult, in particular for livestock producers. I put on record my regret for that, particularly with respect to tenant farmers—and 48% of farmers in north Yorkshire fall into that category In speaking specifically to my Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10, I refer to the earlier arguments put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in private practice on what constitutes "an act" for the purpose of judicial review. I humbly submit to my noble friend the Minister that the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference—a final draft of which was sent to us on 17 November 2021—will indeed constitute an act that would be justiciable as regards a judicial review. Is there a strong reason why that would not be the case In Committee, when I moved similar amendments, I did not obtain the reassurances from the Minister that I sought at that stage. He argued that he did not want to put on the face of the Bill the length of time for an appointment. I argue in my Amendment 4 that appointments under Clause 1 should be "for a period of three years" I argue in Amendment 6: "The membership of the Committee is to include, amongst others … a veterinary surgeon; … an active farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production or land management; and … a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses" Abattoirs are, if you like, the final nail in the coffin for the animal, which is sent on its way. That is my plea for more detail in the Bill Equally, I have set out perhaps greater detail in Amendment 8. I lifted this text from an earlier Bill—it might have been the Trade Bill, now the Trade Act, with respect to the Trade Remedies Authority. I forget which Bill it was, but I am grateful for the help that I received from the Public Bill Office in drafting the amendment. In desperation, I have also retabled Amendment 10 to leave out Clause 1 in case I do not get satisfaction and reassurance from the Minister this evening The Minister’s argument is flawed. If he does not wish the detail to be on the face of the Bill since this would constitute an act that is justiciable in terms of a judicial review, I argue that it was equally inappropriate to put in his letter to us of 17 November, as well as in a separate printout of the terms of reference, what the remit and constitution of the committee would be. Even though it is a separate document, that is as justiciable as it would be if it were on the face of the Bill I am extremely proud to have been a student of constitutional law at Edinburgh University under the excellent tutelage of Professor JDB Mitchell, who was at the time a leading expert in administrative law. I keep his book in the kitchen. My husband sometimes thinks that I am confusing administrative law theory with my recipes, which is why I often leave the cooking to him. A more up-to-date authority that I turn to is the Public Law Project, which sets out, for example, what can be challenged. It says: "Decisions, acts, and failures to act by public bodies exercising their public functions are all potentially challengeable by judicial review." I must be simple in not being able to follow my noble friend’s argument but, to be absolutely clear, why is it not acceptable to put in the Bill the level of detail that I am seeking, but acceptable to put it in the supplementary documents? These are easier to amend but, in my view, because they constitute an administrative act, they will be equally justiciable I end with a last request to understand why, when just about every other Bill introduced by the Government since 2017 has waxed lyrical as to the composition and remit of the committee it set up, that is deemed not to be subject to judicial review, yet this is subject to judicial review. With those few remarks, I look forward very much to receiving reassurances from my noble friend the Minister.