Daniel Zeichner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · English Wine Production · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) for securing this very important debate. As she said, this is English Wine Week, so it is a timely and fitting moment to celebrate the remarkable achievements and growing global reputation of the English wine industry. Wine events and regional showcases taking place across the country this week demonstrate the increasing breadth and variety of domestic wine production. It is an industry that not only carries historical and cultural significance, but is also a modern success story of innovation, investment and rural regeneration. The Government absolutely recognise and celebrate the rapid growth of the English wine sector. It is one of the fastest growing agricultural industries in the UK, with production, exports and consumer demand all on the rise. For example, exports of English wine doubled from 4% of production in 2021 to 8%, as was celebrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), whose contribution as chair of the all-party parliamentary group I welcome. It is imported by 45 different countries across the world, and that growth is a testament to the hard work, vision and entrepreneurial spirit of those working across the sector. The area represented by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent is home to some of the most distinguished and pioneering vineyards in the country. Chapel Down, Balfour and Squerryes Winery are shining examples of excellence in English wine production. They not only produce award-winning wines, but contribute significantly to local employment, tourism and rural development. Their success reflects the broader momentum of the English wine industry and the exciting opportunities that lie ahead. English wines have built a well-earned reputation for quality and high standards, and the Government are committed to working with the industry to champion and protect that reputation both at home and abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford asked how we can help to boost those exports. We have an excellent group of agricultural attachés who work very hard across the world to boost our exports and products. I am conscious that they are working very hard to make sure this brilliant British product is exported across the world. The Government are steadfast in their commitment to support rural economies. We are determined to ensure that the UK has a thriving and diverse economy that promotes local jobs, boosts growth and supports communities across the country. The English wine sector is a really good example of that vision in action.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 5 June and which will protect the availability of retail goods in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, to maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market. It will do so by providing the Secretary of State with a targeted power to implement “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain. I will first set out the background to the policy. The Windsor framework, which was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023, replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol. A key component of the framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland by removing the requirements for costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This also allows goods to move on the basis of UK food safety standards. The scheme operates alongside other schemes and flexibilities that smooth the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework. To benefit from those simplified arrangements, business operators must label certain retail goods as “not for EU”. Such labelling requirements are being introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July 2025. At that point, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland relative to that in Great Britain, certain businesses may decide that it is not commercially advantageous to label their goods exclusively for the Northern Ireland market. This runs the risk that businesses would have to remove their goods from sale in Northern Ireland rather than make the necessary changes. That is not an acceptable outcome for this Government. We believe that the smooth operation of the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme is essential to ensuring product supply in Northern Ireland. We will therefore ensure that no incentive arises for businesses to avoid placing goods on the Northern Ireland market through this legislation. That brings me to the purpose of the draft regulations, which will empower the Secretary of State to issue a notice requiring that certain retail goods be labelled as “not for EU” when placed on the market in Great Britain. To make this determination, he will need to be satisfied that the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland will be seriously adversely affected. He will also need to be satisfied that this is a direct result of the requirement to mark a product as “not for EU” to move into Northern Ireland via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. The Secretary of State will consider a variety of evidence, including information on the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, the way in which goods are moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and representations made by UK businesses on making goods available in Northern Ireland. He will also consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, in recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter. He may engage the Windsor framework independent monitoring panel, which was established through the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, for its advice. Once a notice is enforced, relevant business operators in Great Britain will need to ensure that goods in scope of a notice are labelled “not for EU” before they are placed on the market in Great Britain. By extending the labelling requirement to the much larger GB market for certain products, we will take away the incentive for businesses to stop supplying goods to Northern Ireland. The extended requirement will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive for businesses to label their goods. This will ensure continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and uphold the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper. The timing of the draft regulations is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must legislate now to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter businesses from taking decisions to remove their products from the market. We must have the tools to act, should it appear likely that products may no longer be available in Northern Ireland. I will outline the key provisions of the draft regulations. The Secretary of State must issue a marking notice specifying which goods must be labelled in Great Britain and from what date. He should do so after making a determination that the supply of certain retail goods “is, or is likely to be, seriously adversely affected” as a result of the “not for EU” labelling requirement. The notice must be published in the London Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette and must be accompanied by a written statement to Parliament explaining the rationale. Separately, we will publish the notice on gov.uk, as well as promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses. The obligation would fall on the relevant business operator that first places the goods on the market in Great Britain; this is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging. Exemptions will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, in line with this Government’s commitment to support growth. Enforcement powers will be delegated to local authorities, with a regime of improvement notices and fixed monetary penalties for non-compliance. Together, these provisions will ensure that there is a clear deterrent for businesses that may choose to withdraw supply from the Northern Ireland market, as well as an active tool that will be deployed in that event. That will protect consumers in Northern Ireland, as well as trade within the United Kingdom internal market, thereby reinforcing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. This will also support our relationship with the European Union. Through our common understanding, which was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, we and the EU have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Once finalised, that will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agrifood requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that it may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland. Achieving such benefits, however, relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in future. We therefore expect that the draft regulations will maximise compliance with labelling requirements from 1 July and will prevent the movement of unlabelled goods onwards into Northern Ireland. We believe that the draft regulations are a pragmatic and proportionate response to a material risk. They will support the continued flow of goods across our United Kingdom, protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland and reinforce our commitment to the Union. I commend them to the Committee.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets. We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations. We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy. The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Nature-friendly Farming · Hansard source

  More

  On 11 June, we committed to the largest ever investment in nature. Funding for the environmental land management schemes will increase to £2 billion per annum by 2028-29, and we now have more farmers than ever in nature-friendly farming schemes, which we should all be pleased about. We are reforming the sustainable farming incentive to target funds fairly and effectively, and to ensure that, in those schemes, the user experience is absolutely prioritised.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Nature-friendly Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady will appreciate that we inherited a scheme that did not have proper budgetary controls. Once the money was spent, none was available to people who had yet to come into the scheme. We have dealt with the administrative problem of those who had expected to benefit when they applied. We are planning to make an announcement in the next few weeks, in which we will explain the future scheme for people who are interested. We very much want to get more people in.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Nature-friendly Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that when a report from Lord Curry arrives in my inbox, I read it. I did so, with great interest. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not food secure—the food security report produced at the end of last year explained this very carefully—but I am always willing and happy to discuss these issues with him and Lord Curry.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Fruit and Vegetables Aid Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The fruit and vegetables aid scheme is an EU legacy scheme, and it closes in England on 1 January 2026. It is available only via producer organisations —that was an EU requirement—and only 20% of growers are benefiting from it; 80% get no benefit. All growers will continue to benefit from the farming innovation programme’s £63 million of grants, and the five-year extension to the seasonal workers visa scheme that we have announced.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Fruit and Vegetables Aid Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise our fruit-growing sector. It has been known for a long time that this scheme is coming to an end, and I am afraid the truth is that it did not provide very good value for money. We will replace it as part of our new food strategy, and announcements on that will be coming down the line. However, I am slightly surprised to hear that he is so keen to preserve an EU-based scheme. Who knew that there were Opposition Members still hankering to be in the EU?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Animal Disease Outbreaks · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and relatively near neighbour. He is right to raise the bluetongue issues, which have been dealt with effectively by our officials. His points about border controls and checks are under close consideration, partly as a consequence of our new arrangements with the European Union.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Animal Disease Outbreaks · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask that question. As I just referenced, the bluetongue issue has been serious and difficult. We have made a sensible decision for England, and the approach we have taken has managed to control the spread. The decision in Wales is obviously a matter for the Welsh Government, and I am sure that he would understand that I respect that decision. We are talking about how we can resolve the difficult issues that he has raised.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Animal Disease Outbreaks · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We take this matter extremely seriously. Sadly, it is not a new problem. We have had similar reports in the past, and I can assure him that we are giving careful consideration to this report. We will develop a plan to address it. He will be aware that there are a range of threats, and it is important that we balance our work. We have taken strong measures to restrict personal imports, given the threats on the continent.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Animal Disease Outbreaks · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning. Can I start by acknowledging the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the House? We are investing in the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and have committed more than £200 million to the next stage of rebuilding our biosecurity facilities at Weybridge to enhance our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond to and recover from outbreaks. That is in addition to supporting farmers through the animal health and welfare pathway, which includes veterinary visits to improve livestock health, welfare, biosecurity and productivity.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Animal Disease Outbreaks · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman knows that I take this issue very seriously. I gently point out to him that this exact situation was pointed out by the National Audit Office during the last Parliament. The previous Government had 14 years to get the principles in place, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives. I can tell him that we have a £208 million investment this year; that is what was asked for. I can assure him that there will be funds in future, because we take biosecurity very seriously.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Animal Disease Outbreaks · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not extending the badger cull. We have a clear commitment to ending the badger cull in this Parliament, and I will visit Gatcombe with others in the weeks ahead. We are taking an evidence-based approach. We also have to make sure that we help farmers tackle a distressing and difficult disease.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Public Bodies: British Produce · Hansard source

  More

  We have a strong ambition that half of all food purchased across the public sector should be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards. The new national procurement policy statement requires Government contracts to favour products that are certified to higher environmental standards, which we believe British producers, operating to higher standards, will be well placed to supply.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Public Bodies: British Produce · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and relatively near neighbour for her question. We are in constant dialogue to achieve exactly that objective. She will have noticed last week’s announcement on the extension of free school meals to everyone on universal credit, which is a key plank of our food strategy. It is exactly those kinds of initiatives that we think will benefit British producers.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Public Bodies: British Produce · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is exactly why we wanted to improve our relationship with the European Union. We have negotiated and are undertaking further negotiations to improve those systems to very much help people to achieve that. We genuinely believe there are real opportunities here if we can eliminate some of the unnecessary bureaucracy.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman criticising Natural England in that way. It is a very responsible agency that does very good work on behalf of us all. We made the decision not to issue a general licence for gamebird releases in special protection areas such as Salisbury plain. We think it is really important that we help protect our internationally important bird populations from avian influenza, and I am sure he would share that goal.

• 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.