My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group, who have all in their different ways raised important questions about how we can enhance animal welfare standards in the UK. The UK has a good record of animal welfare policies, but there is always more that we can do to improve the policies still further. It is equally important that, when we leave the EU, our existing protections are not undermined or traded away.
It is vital that we do not allow our high standards to be undermined by the imports of products with lower environmental and animal welfare standards. This is an issue that I know a great many noble Lords care deeply about, and it is also a concern shared by the British public. This of course is why the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment not to compromise these standards, and why we have tabled Amendment 271, which would enshrine our high standards in law. I hope that when we reach that debate, at a later stage, noble Lords will support our position.
7.30 pm
In the meantime, we have a number of amendments in this group that enable us to spell out in more detail what good animal welfare practice is and how it should be rewarded. First, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and others that the health and welfare of livestock should go hand in hand, and that the current wording is not a good reflection of what we all aim to achieve. I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I have the greatest respect for him, but I am not sure that I am with him on this point. The proposed amendment would not make it too restrictive and he has, in a sense, overanalysed what the intent of its wording is about. I support the amendment.
I also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that we should be incentivising the rearing of livestock outside, in their natural habitat, rather than in indoor factory farms.
I listened to the words of my noble friend Lord Rooker, who is enormously wise and experienced on this issue, but I feel that we have to see this in a wider context: we are going to have to move to a more plant-based diet across this country. In that context, we can move away from intensive animal farming to having less meat in the diet—and that meat which we have being raised to higher welfare standards. That is a big ask and a big issue, but it is the direction in which we need to go, for the sake of our environment and of people’s health in this country.
Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raises concerns about the strict confinement of livestock and some of the cruel and unhealthy practices which have traditionally been associated with livestock farming. She also raised the overuse of antibiotics. Although there have been a
number of measures from the Government about cutting down on their overuse, I agree that more could be done to incentivise the non-use of antibiotics, except in emergency cases.
We agree that any payment should incentivise good animal husbandry, which should be above and beyond a legal minimum, rather than just supporting the status quo. This is a theme followed up in our Amendments 296 and 297, which we will deal with later. They place limits on the density with which cows and pigs can be reared and encourage raising them in more natural habitats. We welcome these proposals but, once again, we are debating some issues which will arise again in a later context. I apologise for that.
The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, also raise the issue of penalties for animal cruelty on farms. I agree that we need to have a better system for monitoring animal welfare standards, to ensure that finance cannot be claimed where poor standards are identified and that legal action is taken where necessary, even where that legal underpinning already exists. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was right to say that this is about not just cruelty on farms but the transportation and moving of livestock. That was a point well made, which needs to be borne in mind as well.
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, tried to get us to think outside the box with his amendments, which would extend the definition of livestock to include dogs, cats, pigeons and horses. When he spoke, I half expected him to mention hounds for hunting; I am glad that he did not go there, because that would have made it worse. I am not in any way sure about this amendment, which I feel is pushing the boundaries of financial assistance rather wide.
Finally, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, proposes a consultation on the transition from livestock to plant-based production, and she is absolutely right to raise this issue. We know that a plant-based diet is healthier for people, which was a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and it contributes less to our greenhouse gas emissions. It can also help to address food poverty, so it should be a central part of public health policy, and the Bill should play its part in delivering that. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that community engagement has an important role to play in this. It can bring people closer to the land and help them to understand how plants are grown and nurtured.
We welcome these amendments. They reinforce the fact that we all want to move to a healthier diet but that, where animals are reared for consumption, we agree that strict welfare standards should apply in all cases. We also agree that financial assistance should be focused on driving up those standards to beyond the legislative minimum rather than simply rewarding the status quo. With those comments, I look forward to the Minister’s response.