My Lords, I have two amendments that make up this group. First, I will look at Amendment 56. Clause 10 defines a relevant animal as a vertebrate for the purposes of the welfare protection measures in Clauses 11 to 15. This is in line with the definition of an animal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. With Amendment 56, I am interested in looking at the relationship between the Bill and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which some of us were involved with. I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for her support in this. That Act defines an animal as
“any vertebrate other than homo sapiens … any cephalopod mollusc, and … any decapod crustacean.”
Noble Lords may remember that during the passage of that Act, we debated the definition, particularly regarding the scientific evidence for the sentience of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans, and eventually they were included in that definition. Our concern is that, despite that, Clause 10 continues to define animals only as vertebrates. We also note that the clause does not exclude Homo sapiens explicitly: my noble friend Lord Winston has previously made that point. Basically, what we are trying to achieve here is to align the definitions in the Bill with the most recent piece of relevant legislation that has gone through the House.
The clause also makes provision for the Bill’s definition to be extended to include invertebrates if the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is extended to include them. Therefore, we have a rather confusing situation where we have two different definitions of animal in law, one from the 2006 legislation and one from the very recent legislation. As an aside, given that the Government’s aim with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act is to recognise the sentience of animals in law, it is kind of surprising that the Animal Welfare Act has not been extended to reflect the Government’s latest position on this. Regardless of that, we think that the Bill should use the most up-to-date definitions and allow for any new legislation to be properly established in this area.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch mentioned at an earlier date the situation regarding the animal sentience committee. The Minister confirmed that it does have a chair, but it is not yet fully established, and the Minister did not adequately answer the question as to when we are likely to see it up and running. What is the point in having a chair if you have no committee?
7.45 pm
I also acknowledge that the Minister has said that the elements of the Bill regarding animals are going to take at least two to three years to be developed, even though there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that this happens. My question to the Minister, therefore, is: why did the Government not wait for the animal sentience committee to be established and have time to report on the Bill before introducing it? If they really wanted to recognise the sentience of animals, they would prioritise the committee’s establishment before pressing ahead with legislation that would have a real and significant impact.
That is why we have tabled Amendment 56, which would delay the release and sale of precision-bred animals until at least
“12 months have passed since the date of the establishment of the Animal Sentience Committee under section 1 of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and … 6 months have passed since the date on which the Animal Sentience Committee has made to the Secretary of State a report on the provisions of this Act.”
The Minister again said that it did not matter because it was going to be two to three years, but it would be extremely helpful if it was actually on the face of the Bill so that we could have security about that.
Amendment 79 would insert additional subsections into Clause 43 with regard to the environmental principles of the Environment Act 2021 and the non-regression principle laid out in the 2020 trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the European Union. This is important because it is about upholding the standards that we have committed to in both domestic legislation and international agreements. Basically, it is about upholding the promises that we have made.
The first of these relates to the Environment Act, specifically the Government’s obligations under Sections 17 to 19. Section 17 states:
“The Secretary of State must prepare a policy statement on environmental principles”
to be interpreted and applied in the making of government policy. Section 17(5) lays out a definition of environmental principles. This includes:
“the principle that environmental protection should be integrated into the making of policies … the principle of preventative action to avert environmental damage … the precautionary principle, so far as relating to the environment … the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and … the polluter pays principle.”
We had extensive discussions during the passage of the Environment Act on these issues.
Section 18 details the timeframe for the policy statement, and Section 19 details the obligations that Ministers are under once the statement is finalised. Section 19(1) states, for example:
“A Minister of the Crown must, when making policy, have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles currently in effect.”
The problem is, as far as I am aware—the Minister may be able to tell me otherwise—that the Government are yet to finalise the statement. A draft was published in May this year, and we debated it by virtue of a take-note Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The Government then confirmed that there would be an implementation period once the final version had been laid, to allow government departments to prepare for this new duty. However, I cannot find anything that suggests that a final statement has been published. What progress has been made since our debate before the summer?
Our Amendment 79 would ensure that regulations under the Bill were made in accordance with those environmental principles. It would ensure that no regulations may be made under the Bill unless the policy statement has been finalised and laid before Parliament. Ministers are then under an obligation to pay due regard to it.
The second element of this amendment concerns Article 391 of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. Chapter 7 covers environment and climate. It defines environment levels of protection as
“the levels of protection provided overall in a Party’s law”—
that refers to the parties to the agreement—
“which have the purpose of protecting the environment, including the prevention of a danger to human life or health from environmental impacts”.
The TCA then lists some specific examples, some of which would concern the Bill. These include,
“the protection and preservation of the aquatic environment”,
and,
“the management of impacts on the environment from agriculture or food production”.
Each party in the agreement—the EU and the UK—is committed to
“the principle that environmental protection should be integrated into the making of policies”
as well as to the precautionary approach and the principle
“that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source”.
Article 391 sets out the rules on non-regression. It allows each party
“to determine the environmental levels of protection and climate level of protection it deems appropriate and to adopt or modify its law and policies in a manner consistent with each Party’s international commitments”.
However, it also aims to prevent either party weakening environmental legislation below the levels in place at the end of the transition period.
What concerns us is that the non-regression rules allow the UK to argue that it is allowed to change its regulation on precision breeding to create the new category that we are discussing, that it can do so safely and that there is an environmental case for doing so. However, we could argue that doing so poses environmental risks. Although the Bill attempts to manage those, and we broadly agree they could be managed, we also believe that the safeguards need to be strengthened, because there are potential grounds for disagreement.
It also seems that the EU could make a determination on how the UK has moved, carry out an assessment itself on the balance of risks and benefits and make a judgment on whether we have adhered to the non-regression rule. Given that we trade with the EU extensively, and this element of the TCA explicitly references impacts on trade, I hope the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s assessment of how the Bill will interact with the TCA, whether parity is maintained, and whether there will be any trade repercussions as a result.