Daniel Zeichner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will know that we have acted with speed and haste to make sure that we are protected. We have banned personal imports, and we are absolutely committed to giving the Weybridge facility the support that it requires—we have given it what it asked for. The question is why we were in that position in the first place when we came into Government. What were his Government doing for all those years? These are not new problems.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The UK flour sector is really important. I very much welcome the work that that sector does for us. It is right to raise the point about trade deals. We are determined to make sure that we do nothing to undermine a very successful sector that helps keep food security at high levels in this country.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to hear that news. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking very closely at how we can use the co-operative model to boost the rural economy, particularly in respect of farming profitability, as we know that access to new private market opportunities is not always straightforward.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, having made the observation about what happened in 1999, we do not want to return to that situation. Let me turn to labelling. Considerable work has been done recently to consider the merits of method of production labelling. That, too, was raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who has talked about it repeatedly in this place. As we have heard, last year the previous Government undertook a consultation seeking views on proposals to improve and extend existing mandatory method of production labelling. I am pleased to say that, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest noticed, we have now published the Government’s response, which is available on gov.uk. In looking at that, we recognised the strong support of members of the public and many other stakeholders for the provision of clearer information for consumers on the welfare standards of their food. We also heard and understood the views expressed on the detail of the consultation proposals by the many interested parties who responded. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that we are carefully considering the potential role of reform of method of production labelling as part of the Government’s wider animal welfare and food strategies. As he will have appreciated, the Prime Minister has announced that we will announce an animal welfare strategy by the end of the year. Finally, I turn to game birds. Approximately 40 million of them—30 million to 35 million pheasants and 5 million to 10 million partridges—are estimated to be released each year in Great Britain. Game birds bred and reared for sporting purposes are not subject to the same legislative requirements on welfare as farmed poultry, because they are not regarded as farmed animals. They are, however, protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause any animal under the control of humans unnecessary suffering, or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. DEFRA’s statutory code of practice for the welfare of gamebirds reared for sporting purposes provides keepers with guidance on how to meet the welfare needs of their game birds, as required by the Animal Welfare Act. The code recommends that barren cages for breeding pheasants and small barren cages for breeding partridges should not be used, and that any system should be appropriately enriched. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for opening this debate, and I reassure Members that the issue of confinement is one that I take seriously. The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. The Department has initiated a series of meetings with key stakeholders as part of the development of an overarching approach to animal welfare. As I said, the Prime Minister committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this year. That is exactly what we will do, and I look forward to being able to outline more detail in due course.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I join others in thanking the Petitions Committee, and in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for not only introducing the debate but bringing her usual thoughtfulness and passion to the subject. I also join others in thanking all who signed the petition, which meant that we were able to debate this important issue. This is the third consecutive week that we have debated farm animal welfare issues, and that brings home just how much both the public and this House value how animals are treated. We are genuinely a nation of animal lovers. We are also a nation that needs to eat, so I thank all who are involved in the farming process and the food production sector, who help to keep us fed. The issue of confinement and the use of cages in farming is a long-standing subject that has been brought to Members’ attention several times over recent years, and it is a topic that has consistently come across my desk since I became a Minister. As a nation, we are rightly proud of high welfare standards. On confinement, veal crates for calves were banned in 1990, sow stalls for pigs were banned in 1999 and barren battery cages for laying hens were banned in 2012. I will reiterate what I said in the debate on animal welfare standards in farming on 3 June. We are determined to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection that they rightly deserve, in whatever farming system they are kept. In addition to this e-petition, there have been a number of campaigns urging the Government to publish consultations on banning the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. I assure my hon. Friend that I am keen to act and certainly do not want to fall behind the EU countries that have already banned, or are in the process of banning, cages and crates. I am acutely aware that these are complex issues that need careful consideration, particularly with regard to food security and trade. I want to work closely with the sectors and bring them with us to improve animal welfare standards together while maintaining a thriving, sustainable and competitive industry. The petition calls for a ban on cages for laying hens as soon as possible. Enriched colony cages are a significant welfare improvement on barren battery cages as they are required to have nest boxes, litters and perches, but they do not fully provide for the birds’ physical and behavioural needs. The colony cage system restricts the hen’s choice, preventing her from running, flapping her wings, dust bathing or foraging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) has said in detailing the concerns raised by his constituents. The UK laying hens sector has already made significant progress in moving away from enriched colony cages. The transition has been supported by the major supermarkets, which pledged in 2016 to stop selling shell eggs from caged hens by the end of 2025, with some retailers extending that pledge to products containing liquid or processed egg. I am pleased to say that the percentage of eggs from enriched colony cage systems continues to fall. The current level is just 18% of the total UK throughput in the first quarter of 2025, with free-range eggs now accounting for 70% of the total. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) detailed, the retailer pledge in response to consumer demand is to be welcomed, but not all supermarkets have committed to cage-free. I am afraid that real-world considerations around affordability for consumers are clearly at the fore in some of those decisions. Although the retailer pledge is significant, it does not raise welfare standards across the whole laying hen industry. While the retail element is the largest part of the market at 65%, the food service and egg processing elements are not insignificant, and they represent 18% and 17% of the market respectively. The focus needs to be on addressing the welfare of laying hens producing eggs for retailers that have not signed the pledge, and for the food service and egg processing markets. To help the sector, the Government are providing financial assistance to laying hen and pullet farmers in England with flocks of 1,000 birds or more, with £22.5 million of allocated grant funding via the animal health and welfare pathway to refurbish or replace existing housing, including for those who are looking to make the transition from enriched colony cages to high welfare non-cage systems. I turn to the pig sector. We already have a significant outdoor pig sector, as we have heard, with 50% of the national sow breeding herd giving birth freely on outdoor units with no confinement. But 50% of breeding sows are kept indoors, with approximately 42% of them confined in farrowing crates for around five days before they are due to give birth and until the piglets are weaned at approximately 28 days of age. When the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, now known as the Animal Welfare Committee, reviewed the welfare of pigs in farrowing crates, it recommended that “in considering which farrowing system to adopt or support, farmers, the pig industry as a whole and other stakeholders such as retailers should consider the welfare of both sows and piglets, and be aware that they are not necessarily benefitted by the same things.” A range of hon. Members have made that point. The committee’s considerations included sow comfort and freedom to nest build; nest-building material being made available in the period before and after farrowing; the avoidance of sow injuries from interaction with the floor, pen, furniture or piglets; floor design being given more priority in the design of farrowing accommodation; the protection of piglet welfare, including prevention of injury or death; and an environment in which they can thrive, along with the promotion of hygiene and avoidance of disease in both sows and piglets. There is consensus that farrowing crates restrict a sow’s movement, preventing her from turning around and performing normal behaviours such as nest building, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) has pointed out. Animal welfare non-governmental organisations such as the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have campaigned for a long time for the Government to ban farrowing crates. I am also well aware that the British Veterinary Association and the Pig Veterinary Society have recently called for a gradual phase-out of farrowing crates, and for them to be replaced with a system that maximises sow and piglet welfare and ensures human safety. I welcome those organisations’ contribution to the ongoing debate. The National Pig Association has recognised that the direction of travel is moving away from farrowing crates, and it has done a lot of work in that area. Indeed, some producers have already made a move towards alternative farrowing systems. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who spoke as usual with great knowledge and sensitivity about these issues, industry estimates that around 8% of the British indoor pig herd are now flexibly farrowed, where the sow can be confined on a temporary basis and for a limited period to protect her piglets in those crucial early days of their lives. Flexible farrowing, also termed temporary crating or adaptive farrowing, is where the sow is confined without the ability to turn around on only a temporary basis—for a few days around farrowing in the initial suckling phase—before movable restraining bars are opened to give the sow the space to turn around. The other alternative to farrowing crates is a move directly to free farrowing systems, where there is no confinement of the sow when in farrowing and lactation accommodation, allowing the sow to freely turn around and have the opportunity to more fully perform nest-building activities. A significant part of our consideration around alternative systems is the evidence around sow and piglet welfare and stockperson welfare, and I was very struck by the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) about the dangers facing stockpeople. We recognise that moving away from farrowing crates requires a fundamental change for producers and, as we have heard, significant investment. On that note, it is encouraging to see the investment commitment some retailers have made to improve the farrowing experience for pigs. The shadow Minister asked how we would go forward on this. As the Government bring forward proposals, we will subject them to a full consultation. We absolutely recognise that the industry will need time to adapt. Farrowing accommodation will need to be considerably adapted, and potentially rebuilt and extended to allow for a larger pen footprint, and that will clearly impose significant costs on the indoor pig sector. It will also require communities to recognise that the planning system will have to accommodate changes to allow better welfare, so we need to get specifications right. Training will also be essential for stockpeople to adapt to a brand new system and ensure both human and pig welfare. Members have mentioned trade, and I am mindful of what happened in 1999 when the UK unilaterally banned sow stalls. Although it was the right thing to do in animal welfare terms, it did, as has been said, contribute to a reported 40% decline in the pig breeding herd in the following decade, sadly opening the door to more pig meat imports from countries still using sow stalls. It is therefore essential that we carefully evaluate the implications of potential cage and crate bans on trade. We need to carefully consider the potential for unintentionally replacing UK production with lower welfare production overseas. We know that the European Commission is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) mentioned, considering proposals to ban cages and crates. It has said that the first legislative proposals on cage reforms will be announced in 2026. We do not yet know what phase-out periods it will propose or how long it will take it to get agreement among member states. We are acutely aware of and concerned about imports produced using methods that are not permitted in the UK, and I can reassure the shadow Minister that we will use our trade strategy to promote the highest food production standards and protect farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. Can I join others in thanking both the Petitions Committee and the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject? I also commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening the debate on this sensitive topic so very thoughtfully, which is very characteristic of his approach. It is clear from the petition and from today’s discussion that both Parliament and the wider country care dearly for our farm animals and their welfare. I was in this very Chamber at this very Dispatch Box last Tuesday, discussing farm animal welfare standards. I will be returning this time next week to debate another e-petition on cages and crates. I have no doubt that farm animal welfare is an issue the public care deeply about. I was struck by many of the contributions from hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and others, who made a series of wider points about animal welfare. I hope we can continue that discussion as we make progress through this Parliament on improving animal welfare in general. The topic of non-stun slaughter is clearly important, but, as we have heard from passionate contributions, it is also a sensitive one that understandably evokes deep convictions on both sides of the debate. I was struck by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan), which I thought was both thoughtful and well-grounded. Let me be clear from the outset: it is the Government’s preference that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. However, the Government respect the right of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs. We therefore intend to continue to allow the religious slaughter of animals for consumption by Muslims and Jews. We believe that is an important religious freedom, as we have heard; many have spoken passionately about that point. There is a long history of upholding this freedom, set down in legislation since the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contained an exemption from stunning for religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims. Since then, animal welfare legislation concerning all slaughter methods has continued to develop, with new requirements introduced through EU legislation in 2013 that have now been assimilated into UK law. When animals are slaughtered either by the Jewish method or the Muslim method without prior stunning, there are additional animal welfare rules that apply to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, suffering or distress during the slaughter process. One important requirement stemming from European legislation is for all ruminants that are to be slaughtered in accordance with religious rites to be individually and mechanically restrained. This has resulted in improvements to sheep handling, because sheep are no longer lifted on to tables to be slaughtered. New monitoring procedures have also been introduced to check for unconsciousness and death among all species. Our slaughter legislation also provides greater protections than those contained in the EU regulation, which sets a baseline for standards in Europe. For instance, we prohibit the inversion of cattle for religious slaughter, which the EU regulation does not prohibit and some EU member states still allow. This ban followed a 1985 report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which recommended that cattle inversion should be banned. Our legislation also specifically requires that any animal slaughtered without prior stunning must not be further processed before a minimum length of time after their cut has passed—90 seconds in the case of meat chickens. This adds an extra safeguard to ensure that animals are not dressed while still conscious. Cattle present particular animal welfare issues due to the time that it takes for them to become unconscious, so additional national rules also specify that adult cattle have to be restrained in a restraining pen that has been approved by an official veterinarian from the Food Standards Agency. Also, following the neck cut, cattle must not be moved until they are unconscious and at least 30 seconds have elapsed. The Government pay careful attention to trends in slaughter methods. With the Welsh Government, we jointly commission the FSA to undertake a biennial survey of slaughter methods. This survey is carried out over the course of a week and deliberately avoids any major religious festivals. The most recent iteration was carried out in February 2024 and was published last November. It showed that the majority of animals are stunned before slaughter: 97% of poultry, and 86% of animals that produce red meat. The number of poultry and cattle that are not stunned before slaughter actually decreased between 2011 and 2024. However, I recognise that the rate of non-stun sheep slaughter has effectively doubled over the same period and is currently at 29% of all sheep killed in England and Wales; to some extent, this answers the questions put by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). The data shows that this change is being driven by increases in non-stun halal. However, it is unclear whether those increases are being driven by exports or by the changing requirements of Britain’s Muslim communities. The survey also shows that a considerable proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter. For example, in 2024 88% of halal meat chickens in England and Wales were stunned prior to slaughter. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made a very thoughtful speech, in which he talked about the demonstration of life protocol. This is an industry-led initiative. It provides assurance for Muslim consumers that stunning sheep and goats is compatible with halal slaughter requirements while protecting the welfare of the animals involved, and it also supports opportunities for trade. The FSA recently removed its associated fees to promote uptake of this protocol, which the Government support. I turn to labelling, which a number of Members raised. Concern has been voiced about meat from animals slaughtered without stunning being sold to consumers who do not wish their meat to come from animals that are killed in that way. Clearly, such sales are regrettable. Currently, there are no regulations that require the labelling of non-stunned slaughtered meat. Legally, however, where any information of this nature is provided, it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer. I think the point was made by a number of Members that it is also worth remembering that the major supermarkets currently have sourcing policies requiring that all their own-brand fresh meat comes from animals that have been stunned before slaughter. Alongside that, they operate limited concessions for halal or kosher food that will clearly be labelled as such. In addition, some farm assurance schemes, such as Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured, also require stunned slaughter, so consumers can look out for such labels. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) made an important point about the out-of-home sector, which is clearly more challenging. Recently, considerable work has been done to consider the merits of method-of-production labelling. A public consultation on proposals to improve and extend current method-of-production labelling was undertaken last year by the previous Government. The consultation sought views on options for the production standards behind the label, including the period of life that should be covered by the standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase also spoke about the BVA proposals, and the potential for a plethora of information on labels. In the debate on Tuesday last week, the interest in animal welfare labelling was very clear. We recognise that this is an important matter, and are looking closely at all the responses to that consultation before we decide on the next steps, but there will be a response to the consultation shortly. “Shortly” is quite interesting parliamentary language, but Members will not have to wait very long. The effective monitoring and enforcement of our animal welfare regulations is key to ensuring that our high standards are maintained. Official veterinarians from the Food Standards Agency carry out that important work at approved slaughterhouses, and religious slaughter can take place only in an approved slaughterhouse. Enforcement action is taken when there are any breaches of animal welfare legislation, and that may involve suspension or revocation of a slaughterman’s licence, the imposition of an enforcement notice requiring that the non-compliance be remedied, or a formal investigation with a view to prosecution. CCTV is an important tool to assist with monitoring and enforcement for all methods of slaughter, including non-stun slaughter. It provides assurance that it is done in accordance with the regulations to protect animal welfare. All slaughterhouses in Great Britain are required to have CCTV recording in all areas in which live animals are present, and they must make the recordings available to the official veterinarian. In conclusion, the debate today has been wide-ranging, underlining the complexities involved. I understand the welfare concerns of animal welfare and veterinary groups, as well as of many Members who have spoken today and urged the Government to reform the rules around non-stun slaughter. I can assure the House that I have listened carefully to all the points made. As hon. Members would expect, I will engage with religious communities and other stakeholders on these issues. I reiterate that the Government will continue to respect the rights of Jews and Muslims to continue to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs, but I am also proud that we have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. The Prime Minister announced last week that we will publish an animal welfare strategy later this year, and I look forward to being able to outline more detail in due course.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Animal Welfare in Farming · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate all those who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate. We are a nation of animal lovers, as has been made very clear to me since I became an Environment Minister. As Members would expect, animal welfare issues consistently form a significant proportion of the correspondence that comes across my desk. I want to start by saying a bit about people, because I have “food security” in my job title, and I take it very seriously. I am very proud of the people across our country who, at this very moment, whether on land or at sea, are producing the food that we absolutely expect to be available. It is an extraordinarily complicated and sophisticated system; of course it can be improved, and we have heard suggestions for improvement, but it is important that we register just how extraordinary the food system already is. When there are transgressions—it occasionally happens that people in this place transgress—we should not see people as guilty by association. We should celebrate the success of the system, as well as the challenges. We are rightly proud that this country’s animal welfare standards are very high; in fact, they are one of the selling points of our agricultural sector. They are greatly valued by consumers at home and are part of our sales pitch to people abroad. We want to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection they deserve. The Labour party has a proud history of improving animal welfare. Next year will mark 20 years since the previous Labour Government introduced the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, which still represents the most fundamental change to our animal welfare law in nearly a century. All farm animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health and welfare legislation. The Animal Welfare Act makes it an offence to either cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 set down detailed requirements on how farmed livestock should be kept. There is also legislation that sets out specific conditions that need to be met for permitted procedures, such as tail docking, to be performed on certain species of animals. In addition to farm animal welfare legislation, my Department has a series of statutory species-specific welfare codes, such as the code of practice for the welfare of meat chickens, which farmers are required by law to have access to and be familiar with. That encourages high standards of husbandry. As we have heard, we want to do better, and I absolutely understand that the keeping of farm animals in cages and close confinement systems is a topic that has exercised many of us over many years in this place. It is one that I absolutely assure hon. Members is currently receiving my very careful attention. I am well aware of recent and long-running campaigns that have urged the Government to publish consultations on phasing out the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. Many Members have spoken passionately about that. I am sure Members are aware that the Petitions Committee has selected a recent e-petition on the use of cages and crates for debate, and many of us will be back here in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) raised a series of points around those issues. She also raised the culling of male chickens. I followed that subject very closely. Clearly, the technology, as she rightly pointed out, now allows chicks to be sexed within the egg. We very much welcome the UK egg industry’s interest in the development of day zero sexing technology. This is one of the areas on which we can move forward. I also want to address the points on trade, because that has been one of the key themes in this debate. It is very topical and there is a lot going on in the world. Ending the use of these systems is an issue that our European trading partners are also carefully considering. We heard a number of interventions, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake)—she and I have debated these issues on many occasions over the years. I was also delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), who is a genuine friend. She raised a particular issue around decapod culling. My Department is talking to both the industry and relevant animal welfare non-governmental organisations on potential non-statutory guidance on which methods of killing decapods are or are not in line with the existing welfare at time of killing legal requirements. I hope she will find that encouraging. As a number of Members have pointed out, with any change to our farming systems we need to evaluate the implications for trade. When considering welfare standards at home, it is crucial that we consider the potential for unintentionally replacing UK production with lower welfare production overseas—that point was well made by my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling). Replacing a UK egg with an imported caged egg would be not only bad for the consumer and bad for the producers, but bad for animal welfare as well. These are complicated questions. I am not going to go into the fine detail of all the trade points, but I will make a few observations. We have been absolutely clear as a Government that we will use our trade strategy to promote the highest food production standards. We are determined to prevent farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) all raised those points. I will say a little about some of the recent trade deals with the United States, India and, of course, the European Union, which I think are to be celebrated, frankly. The United States deal does not change our own sanitary and phytosanitary regime. This—and any future agreement—only concerns US food products that have existing access to the UK market. We are absolutely committed to our high welfare standards and high consumer standards. I assure colleagues that chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will remain illegal in the United Kingdom. On the EU agreement, the European Union has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. It is still subject to negotiation, but we have been absolutely clear about the importance of being able to set high animal welfare standards, support public health and use innovative technologies. The shadow Minister raised the issue of precision breeding. We have clearly been closely involved in that debate over a long time. I am determined to ensure that we protect our position. On factory farming in general, I do not agree with some of the comments about large-scale production. The key issue is not size but ensuring that every farm complies with comprehensive UK law on animal health and welfare, planning, veterinary medicines and environmental legislation. Stockmanship and high husbandry standards are the key to ensuring appropriate welfare standards for all farmed animals. I appreciate the nervousness about large farms, but I have seen less than wonderful standards of biosecurity on smaller farms—although that has not always been the fault of the people involved. I do not think the issue is size; it is quality, and the ability of that business to carry out its work in a correct and safe way. On the animal health and welfare pathway, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Epping Forest and his colleagues in the previous Parliament on this important point. Improving animal health underpins the welfare of farmed animals, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, slows the rise of antimicrobial resistance, better protects farmers and the public against the economic impact of disease, and helps to demonstrate a commitment to rising standards of animal health and welfare to our current and future trading partners across the world. It is really important, and we are good at it—we should be proud and celebrate it. The pathway aims to promote the production of healthier, higher-welfare animals at a level beyond compliance with regulations, and to deliver sustained improvements over time, which address the challenges of the future as well as those of today.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Animal Welfare in Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the hon. Lady that we are very aware of that issue. I can also assure her in passing that I have regular dialogue with Minister Muir on the issues she raised. I would like to say something about the funding that has been made available to help farmers. In early 2025, we announced £16.7 million of funding for a new round of animal health and welfare grants delivered through the farming equipment and technology fund. Applications are currently open, with livestock farmers able to apply for funding towards the cost of equipment and technology that delivers benefits for animal health and welfare. On the poor behaviour that has been referenced, like all of us I have been shocked by some of the things we have seen. I listened closely to my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). He is absolutely right that such unacceptable behaviour must be taken extremely seriously. It is imperative that any suspicion of animal cruelty is reported to DEFRA’s Animal and Plant Health Agency as quickly as possible, so that timely investigations can take place and the welfare of animals safeguarded. I am told that there can be a gap between some of these incidents and the reporting, which makes it difficult to move forward. More generally on enforcement, the Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors and local authorities conduct inspections on farms to check that animal welfare standards are being met. The vast majority of owners and keepers both comply with their duty of care and follow the law, but there are occasions when some fail to do so. It is absolutely the responsibility of enforcement authorities to use appropriate enforcement tools to ensure that the law is upheld, to protect animals and people and to encourage animal keepers to be compliant now and in future. To ensure that we have a transparent enforcement regime, we are actively working with enforcement authorities to reform the way they collect and publish data of on-farm enforcement activities and the actions they take to support compliance and act on non-compliance. I am aware of your strictures on time, Sir John, so I will finish by saying a little about the important points made by a number of hon. Members about labelling: my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), and the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest. We are looking at labelling extremely closely. There are so many things that people want to know about, and I am talking to a whole range of stakeholders about how we can get the issue right and take it forward. The points that have been made are very important. There is a real opportunity to improve the welfare side, but there are many other things we can do with it as well. I am also mindful of the points made about some of the farm assurance schemes. I think they are an extremely important tool and lever, but they are, of course, independent—and that is part of their strength and importance. We need to make sure that we can achieve, with them, the kind of improvements that we wish to see. I reassure the shadow spokesperson that £208 million has been made available to the National Biosecurity Centre; I am sure he would join me in being pleased to hear that. I also assure him that we are working very hard to ensure that the future is secure. Let me conclude by saying that the Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Our farm animal welfare policy is backed by robust science and evidence, and supported and shaped by input from expert advice groups, including the Animal Welfare Committee, as well as funded research and development. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently undertaking a series of meetings with key stakeholders as part of developing an overarching approach to animal welfare. I very much look forward to coming back to talk to hon. Members in more detail about that in due course.

• 21 May 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is right; I meant to fold that into my previous answer. As he would expect, this new Government are taking stock. By supporting these private Members’ Bills, we are effectively finishing the work of the previous Parliament before we move on to our exciting new measures, and our approach to responsible dog ownership will form part of that.

• 21 May 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will certainly give way. I am sure that my hon. Friend is going to press me.

• 21 May 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury not just on introducing the Bill, but on her calm and thorough presentation of the issues, which served as an excellent introduction to our discussions. I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments about the range of organisations that have engaged constructively on the long path to this point. He eloquently outlined the history, including the work of Baroness Coffey, to whom I pay tribute for strengthening the legislation in her version of the Bill. I have a sense of déjà vu from previous debates and from last week’s discussions—we are still working on measures that could have been put in place through the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—but here we are, and we can all celebrate the fact that this is finally going to happen. Let me reiterate how seriously the Government take the issue. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock have devastating impacts on animals and people. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or even death to the livestock and has a seriously detrimental effect on farmers and on those who work in the countryside. I am very grateful for the contributions from Members across the Committee. We all know that the issue is important, but there are some wider implications that are perhaps not so immediately obvious, such as lambs being aborted and flocks of birds sometimes smothered. Let me repeat some statistics. In 2025, a National Sheep Association survey found that 96% of farmers experienced between one and 10 sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. The remaining 4% experienced between 10 and 30 incidents, and one respondent reported 44 sheep killed in a single attack; one of our colleagues conveyed that powerfully in a previous discussion. Those tragic statistics show that it is worth our time ensuring that the Bill is passed. The Bill takes forward important measures that will extend the locations and species in scope of the 1953 Act, strengthen police powers and increase the penalty from the current £1,000 fine. I am well aware of the strength of feeling among Members across the House, stakeholders and people who live and work across our country. The main purpose of the Bill is to improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively. It extends powers of seizure and modifies entry powers; it also introduces a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. Obviously, the world has changed a lot since the 1953 Act was passed; the Bill should give the police the tools they need to investigate, collect evidence and, most important, increase the number of prosecutions. It is striking how difficult it is to do that. The shadow Minister asked about the DNA systems for evidence gathering. DEFRA has part-funded phase 1 of the canine DNA recovery project, which as he said is led by Liverpool John Moores University. The project will support measures in the Bill, and, we hope, facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect the data. We are working with the project team, and I have asked them about how we can ensure the new DNA powers are rolled out effectively with the police. As we have heard, the Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater outlined so eloquently. That will help to protect livestock when farmers need to move them from place to place. The changed wording of the offence and the creation of separate offences for attacks on livestock and worrying is really important; the shadow Minister made that point strongly. The term “worrying” can downplay the severity of some of these offences; the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made that point very effectively. Reframing the Act so that “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of the incidents. My hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset and for Stratford and Bow showed that there is widespread understanding of just how serious these issues are. The welcome extension, referenced by a number of hon. Members, of the 1953 Act to include camelids such as llamas and alpacas will allow much greater protection. The maximum penalty, which is currently a fine of £1,000, will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. The courts will be able to determine an appropriate fine in line with sentencing guidelines that takes account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The amendment was so eloquently spoken to that I was surprised to hear that this is the first time the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin has served on a Bill Committee; I hope she is enjoying it. The procedures are sometimes quite complicated. The 1953 Act makes it an offence to allow a dog to be “at large” around sheep in fields or enclosures, and makes it clear that a dog is at large if it is not on a lead or otherwise under close control. She is absolutely right to say that I have raised similar questions in the past about how to further strengthen the Bill’s provisions on that. However, I have been advised that the current approach is sensible, as it places strong requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, but does not unduly restrict the circumstances in which a court could conclude that a dog was not under close control. It is important to get the balance right between responsible dog ownership, which I will come back to in a moment, and livestock protection. We know that many responsible dog walkers enjoy the countryside without incident. The countryside code, which I strongly believe we should strengthen and promote, already provides comprehensive guidance for dog walkers and highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. I pay tribute to organisations such as the National Trust that are doing good work to promote and educate on responsible dog ownership. It is important that people understand what it is sensible to do when walking in the countryside. The amendment would specify in more detail when a dog should be treated as being under close control, but I have been advised that that that is not expected to change behaviour among responsible dog walkers. The advice that persuaded me to change my mind is that setting out the meaning of “close control” risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. The benefit of the current approach is that it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was not under close control, and that evidence need not be limited to proving specific elements such as whether the owner had reason to be confident that the dog would respond promptly to recall. On balance, therefore, I think it preferable not to introduce the more stringent requirement. Although I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, I gently ask her not to press her amendment. Turning to the wider animal welfare issues, I was delighted to hear the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn and for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who quite rightly did exactly what one would expect of one’s colleagues and urged the Government to move more quickly. I will relay that message to my colleagues. I assure my hon. Friends that the Government are consulting widely. This is the important point: we were elected on a strong commitment to strengthen animal welfare. We are engaged in detailed conversations with all the stakeholders at the moment and will come forward with proposals that will, I am sure, satisfy my most engaged colleagues. I look forward to having that discussion with them as we go forward.

• 21 May 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s helpful contribution. I assure him that a date will emerge in due course. I am very happy to offer the Government’s support for the Bill.

• 21 May 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I endorse that and thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for the way she has conducted this process? We wish the Bill well, because it is very important to tackle attacks on and worrying of livestock. The Bill will strengthen the 1953 Act, so let us get it on the statute book as soon as possible. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for promoting this private Member’s Bill; as we have heard from a range of hon. Members this morning, it is an extremely important Bill for animal welfare and the safe movement of our beloved pets. I also thank him for the amendments that he has tabled, which I assure him the Government support. I echo the witty comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, at the beginning. We have been through a long journey on this issue, and I am delighted that Parliament is at a stage where we can deliver it. The Bill will be welcome. I well remember the discussion of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and Selaine Saxby’s efforts, to which I pay tribute.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for all the contributions on this very important part of the Bill, and I will try to address briefly some of the points that have been made. On bringing the numbers down from five per person to a maximum of five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger, I hear the points made by both the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. The Government strongly support the reduction, but a limit of five pets per vehicle gives flexibility for individuals travelling with assistance dogs alongside their other pets, as well as family and friends travelling together, as the hon. Member for Winchester explained in his introductory comments, while also significantly reducing the risk that non-commercial pet travel rules will be abused. Clearly, we will always monitor the way in which this works and act accordingly. The limit of five pets per vehicle and three per air or foot passenger was recommended by the EFRA Committee back in April 2024. In passing, I will also reference the Veterinary Surgeons Act. We are well aware of the need to update it, and it will be in the programme in future—it is a question of finding legislative time, but we are very keen to proceed. The Government also strongly support the Bill’s introduction of a requirement for pets and their owners to travel within five days of each other—that is really important. It will link a pet’s movement to their owner’s, closing a loophole that we know is exploited by unscrupulous traders. As explained by the hon. Member for Winchester, amendment 14 is a clarificatory change to make it clear that the existing definition of pet animal is not affected by the measures in the Bill; some of these finer points are really quite important to ensure that we do not introduce unintended consequences. The amendment seeks to maintain the status quo by clarifying that the Bill is not changing the definition of pet animal, to avoid any unintended consequences that may impact the operation of the pet travel regime. I urge Members to support that amendment. Turning now to amendments 4 to 8, we all recognise the importance of the measures in clause 4 to prevent abuse of the pet travel rules and to close existing loopholes. However, to address the point raised by the shadow Minister, sometimes exceptional circumstances arise where strict adherence to those rules may be impractical or negatively impact individuals, such as those—but not only those—with protected characteristics. In our view, an intentional and tightly controlled exemption is entirely appropriate, but I give an absolute assurance that it will be in very limited circumstances. The Government will be able to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis to ensure that groups such as those with protected characteristics are not adversely impacted, but there has to be sufficient justification for an exemption. The purpose of the amendments is to give us flexibility and to allow the objective of introducing tighter restrictions on pet travel to be balanced with the need to ensure that genuine pet owners are not penalised in emergency situations, and that those with protected characteristics can, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, travel together. We are trying to get the balance right, and obviously we will see how it plays out in practice. I genuinely believe that the exemption upholds our commitment to ending puppy smuggling while offering flexibility, providing that individuals can demonstrate that their movements are genuinely non-commercial. The exemption would not create any blanket exceptions from the rules, and its application would be determined on a case-by-case basis. My officials will be working with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop clear operational guidance outlining exactly what circumstances might justify an exemption and what evidence would be necessary. That will be communicated to the public ahead of the measure coming into force. For those reasons, I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments. Amendment 14 agreed to. Amendments made: 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5. Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert— “(ba) after paragraph 3 insert— ‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if— (a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and (b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’” This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case. Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— “(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5. Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8. Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert— “2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if— (a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if— (i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and (ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and (b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.” —(Dr Chambers.) This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 Consequential provision

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the comments from the shadow Minister. This is a very important piece of legislation and I am very pleased that it is finally happening. It builds on the recommendations from the EFRA Committee, it addresses multiple concerns raised by stakeholders about the current pet travel rules, and it supports the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling. I am delighted that we are making good progress, and I am very much looking forward to seeing it continue to progress through its remaining parliamentary stages. Amendment 9 agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Regulations Amendments made: 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9. Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9. Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6). This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9. Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.— (Dr Chambers.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9. Clause 7, as amended, o rdered to stand part of the Bill . Ordered, That subsection (1) of clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 7 on page 4.—( Dr Chambers.) Ordered, That clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 21 on page 5 .—(Dr Chambers.) Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

• 8 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and note that even in those times of distress, woe and horror, some good relationships were formed. The seasonal worker visa scheme for 43,000 seasonal worker visas was announced a few months ago. That number includes 2,000 extra for poultry. At the National Farmers Union conference, the Secretary of State announced a five-year extension to 2030. That will provide certainty, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to analyse and assess very carefully what the industry needs to ensure it has the resources required.

• 8 May 2025 · Nature-friendly Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady and I have discussed these issues before. I know that she shares my passion for achieving the transition to the nature-friendly farming that we all want. The Government are investing £5 billion in farming over the next two years—the highest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in our history. Through a range of measures delivered through the Government’s environmental land management schemes, we are supporting farmers to implement nature-friendly farming practices. We now have more farmers than ever in nature-friendly farming schemes, and reform in the sustainable farming incentive will target funds fairly and effectively towards food, farming and nature priorities. We will announce further details later this year.

• 8 May 2025 · Nature-friendly Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I am always interested to hear reflections from farmers. I have spoken to other members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network who are very pleased with the progress being made, but of course we want to go faster and further. We have over 50,000 people in the schemes and more money is being spent than ever before. We must recognise the important progress being made.

• 8 May 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this extremely serious issue. To prevent the further spread of disease and manage the risk of avian influenza, DEFRA and the Animal and Plant Health Agency have implemented well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and support recovery in local communities. Avian influenza prevention zones are in force across the UK. To further protect farmers and help communities, we are currently investing £208 million in the future of the biosecurity labs at Weybridge.

• 8 May 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words and his praise for the APHA. These are extremely important subjects. We face a range of threats. That is why the Government have increased security in terms of personal imports through the short straits in particular. On his point about Weybridge, we have had this discussion before. There is a major programme under way, which will take a number of years. It is already a world-leading facility, and this Government are committed to providing the funding that Weybridge needs to do its job. We are absolutely committed to that, which is why we have announced £208 million this year.

• 8 May 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, the right hon. Gentleman makes a well-informed point. Vaccination has been considered for some time. There are trade issues, but as he says, the fact that the French are changing their position is useful. The Government are committed to exploring options for vaccination, and a cross-Government and industry avian influenza vaccination taskforce has been established. It published an initial statement on 7 March and will report more fully this summer.

• 8 May 2025 · Arable Farms: Cost of Materials · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure my hon. Friend that we will always maintain our high standards. All imported products will continue to be subject to clear controls, including limits for pesticide residues. I join him in sharing the really good news on that trade deal: it is good news for Scotch whisky and good news for British producers.

• 8 May 2025 · Arable Farms: Cost of Materials · Hansard source

  More

  I am always grateful for a contribution from the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, a series of fair dealing clauses were included in the Agriculture Act 2020; they are being brought into effect at the moment and we expect to see more progress made in that regard. He is absolutely right to raise the point that farmers should get a fair deal.

• 8 May 2025 · Arable Farms: Cost of Materials · Hansard source

  More

  Annual variations in farm input costs are driven by global markets. UK fertiliser farm gate prices are tied to movements in the international markets, and UK fertiliser suppliers compete for market share, providing the best price they can for farmers.