Daniel Zeichner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I start by thanking the Petitions Committee and the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject today. I also acknowledge the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who opened the debate. I thought he was going to have a shot at making the case for the petition, but he fessed up very early. It was good to see him at the Royal Highland Show the other day. It is clear from the petition and the discussion today that Parliament and the wider country care dearly about the issue of driven grouse shooting and managing our uplands in a sustainable way that protects wildlife, the environment and, very importantly, the people who live there. I can confirm at the outset to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) that, although the Government have no plans to ban grouse shooting, I appreciate it is a topic that understandably evokes strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and we keep options under close review. I also listened closely to the powerful economic arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). I fully appreciate the economic benefits that come from that part of the rural economy, but valid concerns have been raised on the issue of wildlife, most notably the birds of prey that live in those areas and that, sadly, have been all too frequently persecuted. It is disturbing to hear the statistics from the RSPB’s recent publication, “Hen Harriers in the firing line”. I heard the statistics cited by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, but I also note the statistics and comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake). There were 102 confirmed hen harrier persecution incidents in the last five years, with 89% taking place in northern England. In 2023 alone, 34 hen harriers were confirmed to have been killed or disappeared under suspicious circumstances. As the RSPB argues, it is a concern that only two people have been prosecuted for offences relating to the persecution of a hen harrier, and those incidents took place in Scotland. While birds of prey are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is vital that the law is respected by those involved in the grouse shooting industry. I absolutely hear the comments made by Conservative Members, and we all agree that there is no place for raptor persecution.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 · Small Abattoirs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing the debate, and for delivering a thorough and thoughtful introduction to a subject that matters deeply to all those who have spoken today and indeed to many of us across the House. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions to the debate from a range of Members. I thank the UK meat processing industry for all it does to provide us with products that meet high human health, environmental and animal welfare standards, and to support our domestic food supply chains and strong export market. In 2024, the sector was worth some £12 billion. Today, we are obviously concentrating on the small abattoir sector. Over 93% of meat is slaughtered in larger slaughterhouses but, as has been outlined, the small abattoir sector is still very important, particularly in dealing with rare breeds and in achieving the premium outcomes that I think we all want to support. Everyone who has spoken has made a strong case for the importance of small abattoirs, because they contribute to economic growth in rural communities, provide skilled employment opportunities and offer an outlet to market for those who farm rare and native breeds. As has been said, they promote animal welfare by enabling shorter journey times to slaughter. We are all aware that the situation for small abattoirs has been an issue for a number of years. Of course, over the last few years a number of smaller abattoirs have closed; some of them have been mentioned in this debate. However, it is also worth pointing out that a number of small abattoirs work very effectively, and have shown remarkable adaptability and resilience. We saw that during the covid-19 pandemic and during disease outbreaks, and we have all heard and understand the crucial role that they play in the agricultural community. When one looks at the map to see where they are, one sees that they are still quite spread out, although quite clearly there are areas of the country that are particularly challenged. Several Members mentioned the Food Standards Agency’s ongoing evaluation of the discount scheme for meat inspection charges. Obviously, some elements are for the FSA to consider, but as a Minister I can also have a view. Although it is necessary to review such schemes periodically, I absolutely recognise the importance of the discount scheme to smaller abattoirs and the contribution that the industry can make to the evaluation process. That important point was raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), who has since had to go to the main Chamber, and by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton. After the call for evidence in autumn last year, the FSA has hosted several engagement sessions to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to share their views on discounts, so there is an ongoing discussion about discounts and how they should be structured in the future. My understanding from those discussions is that there was positive engagement, and that the information that was gathered from those sessions will inform future proposals. I can assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to engage with the sector on those wider priorities, concerns and opportunities, and we will use some of the well-established forums, some of which were mentioned earlier—the small abattoir working group and the small abattoirs task and finish group. I am very grateful to the members of these groups; they provide a valuable opportunity for Government to collaborate with stakeholders on finding, where possible, practical solutions to the priority challenges they have identified, and to support our shared ambition for future resilience and growth. I checked earlier, and they have had meetings recently, in March and January, and I will look closely at the suggestions that they make. One of the areas in which we have been working closely with the industry, and the Food Standards Agency, is in looking at how we can reduce regulatory and administrative burdens within the framework within which the wider abattoir sector operates. We have to get the right balance because, clearly, we need to make sure that the proper standards are maintained, but also that the regulation is appropriate and proportionate. I absolutely hear the point that has been made that it often seems that there is a disproportionate impact on the smaller abattoirs, as it can be hard for them to meet because of their size. Actions have been taken already, and will continue to be taken, including the introduction of the reduced administration initiative, which aims to remove certain daily administrative tasks for food business operators, and the FSA escalation process, which is designed to help abattoirs quickly raise and resolve operational issues. I can pledge that we will continue to work collaboratively with the industry, and focus on evaluating the feasibility of other potential flexibilities, including relaxing post-mortem checks within smaller abattoirs. I am also aware of the impact that recent disease outbreaks have had on the sector. The spread of diseases means that it is sometimes necessary to implement restriction zones, and abattoirs must be designated to receive animals for slaughter from within those restriction zones. Again, I appreciate and understand the difficulties that that can place on both farmers and processors. We have made this process as simple as possible by working closely with both the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. Before turning to some of the other actions that the Government are taking, I want to take the opportunity to use this debate to pose a few questions for us all to consider, some of which have already been raised. How can we raise awareness about the vital role that smaller abattoirs play in maintaining the UK’s food supply, and how can we work with local butcheries and farm shops in promoting the added value to primary products, which we have heard about from others? We should also look at the rural employment opportunities that are provided for skilled workers while continuing to innovate and use new technology to drive efficiencies and productivity. I genuinely believe that this is a sector that has a good story to tell.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I said in the Chamber the other day that it was perfectly obvious that this would happen from the moment we introduced these new schemes. I knew five years ago that this would happen at some point. We monitor the schemes on a regular basis and the closure was decided a few weeks ago when it reached the limit— [ Interruption. ] I will not take any further interventions. Hon. Members present need to understand the consequences of voting against this statutory instrument. Without it, the agricultural transition effectively goes into reverse. No reductions at all will be applied to the payments. The subsidy levels would go back to what they were not in 2024, but in 2020. Hon. Members must think carefully about what they are voting for. Without this instrument, the spend on delinked payments in ’25-’26 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a £1.5 billion shortfall in the farming budget. They need to think carefully: they can vote against the instrument, demonstrating their complete financial irresponsibility and tying them back into the kind of approach they took in the previous Parliament, or they can be grown up and understand the consequences of their actions—but I can guess what they are going to do.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Prioritising British Produce: Public Bodies · Hansard source

  More

  The new national procurement policy statement sets out requirements for Government contracts, and favours high-quality products that we believe British producers are very well placed to supply. This will support our ambition to ensure that half of the food supplied for public sector catering comes from local producers, or those certified to higher environmental standards.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress, because I know that time is short. The third principle is a sector that recognises that restoring nature is not in competition with sustainable food production, but is essential to it. On our first strand—food production—our new deal for farmers is supporting them to produce food sustainably and profitably, and we are making progress. Statistics released earlier this week show that average farm business incomes across the country are forecast to rise in the first year of this Government. That is welcome news, but we recognise that there is more to do. That certainly will not happen overnight, but over recent weeks, we have announced a series of new policies. We are extending the seasonal worker visas for five years, and we are making the supply chain fairer, an issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter). In the next few weeks, we will see new regulations for the pig sector, making sure that contracts clearly set out expectations and only allow changes if they are agreed by all parties. Of course, we are also introducing a new regulator alongside the Groceries Code Adjudicator, building on the work of the existing regulator—the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which is already in place. We are using the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce, working with the Cabinet Office to create new requirements for Government catering contracts to favour high-quality, high-welfare products that British producers are well placed to provide, as was outlined very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley). That will mean that British farmers and producers can compete for a fairer share of the £5 billion a year that the public sector spends on food, with that money going straight into farmers’ bank accounts to boost turnover and profits. We will never lower our food standards in trade agreements, but will promote robust standards nationally and internationally, and will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and by others. We are investing in the UK agri-technology sector, and I listened closely to the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—there is always much that we agree on. As we announced last month, we are looking to put in a further £110 million in farming grants, and we are also strengthening the wider British tech sector, a point that was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). These reforms will support farmers to make more money from the food they produce. On the second strand, diversification, farmers must be resilient against future challenges if they are to remain financially viable and strengthen food security. We know the threat from flooding, drought and animal disease, as well as the geopolitical tensions that increase demands on our land for energy generation. We are investing to help farm businesses build resilience against animal diseases that can devastate livelihoods and threaten our entire economy—we are all mindful of the issues with bluetongue and avian flu. On the recent case of foot and mouth that we saw in Germany and the one in Hungary, I spoke to the Hungarian Minister earlier this week, and we have put in place all the appropriate precautions. As ever, though, if the shadow Secretary of State wants a briefing with the chief vet, that is always available in these cases. We are investing over £200 million to set up a new national biosecurity centre, modernising the Animal and Plant Health Agency facilities in Weybridge, which will be vital for protecting farmers, food producers and exporters from disease outbreaks that we know can be devastating to businesses. We are helping keepers of cattle, sheep and pigs in England to improve the health, welfare and productivity of their animals by expanding the fully funded farm visits offer. We have also announced new ways to help farmers to remain profitable and viable, even in a challenging harvest. We will consult on national planning reforms this spring to make it quicker for farmers to build new buildings, barns and other infrastructure to boost food production, and we will ensure that permitted development rights work for farms to convert larger barns into whatever is required or suits their business planning, whether that is a farm shop, a holiday let or a sports facility. We are working with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero so that more farm businesses can connect their own electricity generation to the grid more quickly, so that farmers can sell surplus energy and diversify income. The third element is nature. Restoring nature is vital to food production; it is not in competition with it. Healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water are the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields and turn a profit. Without nature thriving, there can be no long-term food security. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). We now have more than half of all farmers in environmental schemes. That includes 37,000 live SFI agreements, meaning that 800,000 hectares of arable land is being farmed without insecticides, 300,000 hectares of low-impact grassland is managed sustainably and 75,000 km of hedgerows are being protected and restored. That is important for nature. We have already had a discussion about the SFI cap. It is set at £1.05 billion for 2024-25 and 2025-26. As we discussed yesterday, that cap was reached this week with a record number of farmers in the scheme and 37,000 live agreements. Every penny is now paid to farmers or committed for payment through existing agreements or submitted applications. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models, and we will announce details of the revised scheme after the spending review.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) for securing the debate and providing such an excellent and thorough introduction. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) and for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on their contributions. I am sure that they will all be delighted to hear how much I enjoyed my visit in the summer to the Glendronach distillery in Aberdeenshire. The Government recognise and celebrate the global success of the Scotch whisky industry, which is of historical and cultural significance and plays a huge role in the UK’s economy and balance of trade. In 2023, exports of Scotch reached almost £6 billion in value. That success comes from the industry’s well-earned reputation for quality and high standards, and we are committed to working with the industry to champion and protect that reputation.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Cat Breeding: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  Under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, anyone in the business of breeding and selling cats as pets needs to have a valid licence issued by their local authority, and licensees must meet strict statutory minimum welfare standards, which are enforced by local authorities.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. The issues at Dover are significant and long-running. The funding was not resolved ahead of the general election, and there is an ongoing discussion. We are very aware of the challenges, but we are on it, and we will make sure that we are talking to those at Dover Port Health Authority.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  Avian influenza is once again posing a threat to both kept and wild birds across the country, and supporting birdkeepers, the public and conservation bodies to manage and prepare for avian influenza continues to be one of our main priorities. Following the detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry and other captive birds this winter, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Animal and Plant Health Agency have stood up their well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and assist local communities’ recovery. DEFRA’s disease control measures seek to contain the number of animals that need to be culled, either for disease control purposes or to safeguard animal welfare, and our approach aims to reduce adverse impacts on the rural and wider economy, the public, rural communities and the environment, including the impact on wildlife, while protecting public health and minimising the overall cost of any outbreak. Our approach to avian influenza considers the latest scientific and ornithological evidence and veterinary advice. Current policy reflects our experience of responding to past outbreaks of exotic animal disease, and is in line with international standards of best practice for disease control. All birdkeepers are urged to remain vigilant and take action to protect their birds from avian influenza. Scrupulous biosecurity by all birdkeepers at all times is essential to protect the health and welfare of flocks. In response to the heightened risk levels and escalating number of cases, an avian influenza prevention zone, mandating enhanced biosecurity, is in force across England, Wales and Scotland. In addition, mandatory housing for kept birds is in force across the unitary authority of the East Riding of Yorkshire, the unitary authority of York, the city of Kingston upon Hull and all districts in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, North Yorkshire and Shropshire, to mitigate the risk of further outbreaks of disease occurring. In areas where an AIPZ is in force, it is a legal requirement for all birdkeepers, whether they have pet birds, commercial flocks or just a few birds in a backyard flock, to follow strict biosecurity measures to limit the spread of, and eradicate, the disease, including—when mandatory housing measures are a requirement of an AIPZ—a requirement to keep their birds housed. The need for an AIPZ is kept under regular review as part of the Government’s work to monitor and manage the risks of avian influenza. Together with the devolved Governments, we will closely monitor the need to extend mandatory housing to other areas of the country. While avian influenza is primarily considered a disease of birds, it can infect humans, although this is a very rare event in the UK and the risk to the general public remains very low. Nevertheless, protecting public health remains of paramount importance, and DEFRA and the APHA work closely with regional UK Health Security Agency health protection teams to monitor the situation and provide health advice to persons at infected premises and those who have been in close contact with infected wildlife as a precaution. As a further reassurance, the Food Standards Agency has confirmed that avian influenza poses a very low food safety risk for UK consumers. Properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat. DEFRA and the APHA will continue to work with birdkeepers, who are on the frontline of this terrible disease. Compensation is paid for any healthy kept birds culled. As the House will know, compensation was updated to involve earlier assessment of the number of healthy birds and swifter calculation of compensation. That allows DEFRA to provide earlier certainty about entitlement to compensation, better reflects the impact of outbreaks on premises, and leads to swifter payments to help to stem any cash-flow pressures.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Public Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Again, my hon. Friend tempts me to rewrite the policies of the Department for Education, but I recognise the problem he highlights. I am pleased about the presumption against the closure of maintained rural schools, but he points to a very important challenge. As we all know, the survival of local schools is key to many communities, so I have sympathy with what he says. Health was raised by a number of colleagues. We are very aware of the mental health challenges faced in rural areas, which I have discussed with colleagues on a number of occasions. My Department has recently established a new group to look specifically at these issues, because we know it is an important challenge. Colleagues have also talked about GPs and dentistry, which is one of the issues that consistently came up in rural communities during the run-up to last year’s general election, and it is a key challenge. We know that people in rural areas who need care are often more likely to live far from those facilities, and we are mindful of that challenge. The integrated care system will have a role in designing those services, but it will need to work closely with clinicians and local communities at neighbourhood level. We are making significant new funding available for local government in 2025-26, which we think will help with some of the wider issues. There is £1.3 billion of new funding in the local government financial settlement, with £600 million to support the most deprived areas, including in shire districts, through the new recovery grant. There is also £233 million of additional funding for homelessness services. There is a guarantee that no local authority will see a reduction in its core spending power in 2025-26 after taking account of any increase in council tax levels. We believe this will provide the protections required for all authorities, including district councils, to sustain their services between years. Taking into account both the money allocated to councils through the settlement and the extended producer responsibility guarantee, every council will have more to spend on planning and social care services in 2025-26 than in 2024-25. For almost all authorities, we expect that to be a real-terms increase. We are also providing a flat cash funding floor after council tax increases, which means that every council will receive as much in core spending power next year as they received this year, if not more. This Government recognise the importance of providing accessible, high-quality services across rural communities, and we will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that they are delivered effectively. Question put and agreed to.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Public Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and I meet frequently, but I will very happily meet him to hear more about what sounds like an excellent initiative. I shall turn now to another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, which was the importance of education and skills. It is absolutely essential that we ensure sustainable improvements in skills in rural areas, and to do that we are planning to expand our childcare and early years system, drive up standards and modernise the school curriculum. We will also boost rural and agricultural skills by reforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, giving businesses the freedom and flexibility to upskill their workforce. We will also be opening new specialist technical excellence colleges to give rural communities the chance to fit skills to the needs of their local economies and empower rural businesses to play a bigger role in the skills revolution. My hon. Friend also raised, again rightly, the challenges around rural health.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Foot and Mouth Disease · Hansard source

  More

  The whole House will be aware of the concern across rural communities about the potential threat of foot and mouth disease. It is a severe, highly contagious viral disease of livestock that can have a significant economic impact, and a truly devastating effect on farming and rural communities when outbreaks occur, as we know from history. I assure the House that the UK is currently free of foot and mouth disease, and has been since 2007. But following confirmation on 10 January, foot and mouth disease in the German state of Brandenburg, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken rapid action to protect the UK, including suspending the commercial import of susceptible animals from Germany and restricting personal imports of animal products from across the European Union. I assure the House that the Government will do whatever it takes to protect our nation’s farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth. We have increased risk levels in the UK to medium. Last night, the chief veterinary officer and I spoke directly with the German Federal Minister and his officials. The Government have taken decisive and immediate action. The import of cattle, pigs and sheep from Germany has been stopped to protect farmers and their livelihoods. We will not hesitate to add additional countries to the list if the disease spreads. I can inform the House that this morning the chief veterinary officer has confirmed that while Germany’s surveillance continues to be ongoing, it has not as yet detected any further cases. Foot and mouth disease guidance is available on gov.uk and livestock farmers are urged to be extra-vigilant and report any suspect disease to the Animal and Plant Health Agency immediately. The UK chief veterinary officer is also urging livestock keepers to remain vigilant to the clinical signs of FMD. I reiterate that there are no cases in the UK currently. I also reassure the House that FMD poses no risk to human or food safety but it is a highly contagious viral disease in cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals. Livestock keepers should therefore be absolutely rigorous about their biosecurity. The Government are absolutely focused on responding to the animal disease threats we face, protecting animal health and welfare. Upholding high biosecurity standards is paramount for protecting and promoting food production and food safety, both animal and human, and supporting our economy and trade. That is why we have invested a further £200 million in the UK’s main research laboratory testing facilities at Weybridge to bolster protection against animal disease. While we stand ready to protect our livestock from the threat of foot and mouth and other exotic diseases, we also offer our support to our European neighbours as they face this threat to their livestock, farming and rural communities. I can assure the House that the Government will be decisive and take the necessary action to protect our farmers from foot and mouth disease.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Draft Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024. It is Wednesday morning, so we must be here again, Mrs Harris. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 21 November 2024, and will amend the existing legislation governing egg marketing standards to enable free-range eggs to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures that restrict laying hens’ access to open-air runs. Currently, when free-range hens are placed under mandatory housing measures due to disease outbreaks such as avian influenza, the existing egg marketing regulations allow their eggs to continue to be labelled as free-range for only 16 weeks. This is known as the 16-week derogation period. If the mandatory housing measure lasts for longer than 16 weeks, eggs from those hens have to be labelled and sold as barn eggs. The requirement for egg producers and packers to re-label free-range eggs as barn eggs once the 16-week derogation period is exceeded is difficult to implement in modern automated pack houses, adding significant logistical and packing cost to the industry, so the statutory instrument will remove the 16-week derogation period so that free-range egg producers and packers can label and market the eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that might last. Under mandatory housing measures, egg producers still have the higher operating costs of maintaining their free-range egg system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that hens are also temporarily housed indoors. The normal laying period of a productive free-range laying hen in the UK is around 90 weeks. The SI will remove the derogation that will affect only a small part of a laying hen’s productive life, with all the other free-range criteria, except access to open-air runs, still needing to be met. In 2024, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Government held a joint consultation on the proposed changes, and 70% of respondents supported the removal of the 16-week derogation. The removal of the derogation has already come into force in Scotland. Following their own consultation exercise, the Welsh Government have announced that they will also introduce legislation to remove the derogation. In 2023, the European Union amended its egg marketing standards regulations to remove the 16-week derogation period. Through the Windsor framework, this also applies to free-range eggs produced in Northern Ireland. Without the SI, the introduction of any mandatory housing measures that last longer than 16 weeks—for example, during an avian influenza outbreak—would be detrimental for English free-range egg producers and result in an increase in the importing of free-range eggs from the EU and Northern Ireland. This could have a significant negative long-term impact on the English free-range egg industry. The SI will restore alignment with the EU and Northern Ireland, and will also ensure that free-range egg producers and packers do not incur additional costs for adhering to Government-imposed housing requirements. Unfortunately, outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months, as was the case in 2021-22 and 2022-23, resulting in the introduction of housing measures for poultry that, in both those cases, lasted longer than the 16-week labelling derogation period. They lasted for an additional six weeks in 2021-22 and seven weeks in 2022-23. It is, then, imperative that the SI is in place for the rest of the winter period and beyond. We continue to uphold the high standards expected by UK consumers and businesses. The change in the statutory instrument will safeguard our important British egg industry. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Draft Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. We are very much carrying forward the work of the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman asked about the additional measures to preserve biosecurity and raised the important issues in respect of bluetongue and of foot and mouth disease in Germany. I assure him that all the measures he would expect to be in place are in place. I spoke to the German Minister about foot and mouth last night, and we will update the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues if there are any further developments. We obviously hope that outbreak can be contained. On bluetongue, we held a roundtable yesterday on our approach for the future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very aware of these threats. Anyone who holds the relevant offices is aware that they are of huge concern not just to the farming community but to the wider community. The vaccination against avian influenza of poultry and captive birds, excluding those in licensed zoos, is not currently permitted, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. Although authorised vaccines are available, they are unlikely to provide full protection for the strains of highly pathogenic avian influenza that are currently circulating in the UK and Europe. At present, while vaccination can help to reduce mortality, it is likely that some vaccinated birds would still be capable of transmitting avian influenza if they became infected. Vaccination is not, then, part of our current approach. The hon. Gentleman asked about the situation in respect of Wales. As I said in my opening statement, the Welsh Government are pursuing similar lines on this matter. With that, I hope we can move to a conclusion. I should add that I understand that there will be concerns that somehow consumers will not get quite what they what they seem to be getting. We are we mindful of that, so to reduce the risk of consumers feeling misled, we will encourage retailers to place signage near where eggs are displayed, to inform consumers of the imposition of mandatory housing measures and their impact on the marketing of free-range eggs—notably that, except for access to open-air runs, the rest of the free-range egg criteria continue to be met. This statutory instrument is an important measure to support the British egg industry by making sure it has a level playing field with trading partners such as the European Union that have already adopted similar provisions. On that basis, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.