Daniel Zeichner MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

  We will find ourselves arguing over definitions. Many farmers will now be environmental land managers and will be able to get money for schemes that protect nature. We have allocated £1.8 billion in 2025-26 for the environmental land management schemes. That will boost Britain’s food security and accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector. We are on track to spend the budget in full. Furthermore, record numbers of farmers—50,000 farm businesses—are in our environmental land management schemes, and more than half of all farmed land in England, more than 4 million hectares, is now managed under such schemes. That includes about 38,000 live multi-year sustainable farming incentive agreements. We expect to publish more information about our revamped SFI offer following the spending review. The new countryside stewardship higher tier offer will open for applications from invited farmers and land managers this summer. The stand-alone capital grants will also reopen this summer after a short pause. We are investing in about 50 landscape recovery projects, which were awarded funding through rounds 1 and 2. We recently announced increased payment rates for higher level stewardship across a range of options from this year. We are also extending the farming in protected landscapes programme until March 2026. That extension will support farmers in protected landscapes in transitioning towards profitable food production at the same time as delivering nature recovery and mitigating the impacts of climate change. We are continuing to invest in farmers through our other grant offers, with up to £110 million available in new grant competitions starting this spring. That includes up to £47 million for farming equipment and technology fund grants, as well as up to £63 million available for farming innovation programme grants. Those will help to improve productivity, trial new technologies and drive innovation in the sector. We are also expanding the animal health and welfare pathway, with more funded vet visits now available to farmers. Also, I am pleased that more than 26,000 farmers have made use of free one-to-one business support through the farming resilience fund to help them through the agricultural transition. By investing in healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water, the Government are investing in the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields and turn a profit. Adopting the sustainable farming practices rewarded under our schemes will also help farmers to reduce their input costs. Reducing delinked payments as planned enables us to make those investments through our other schemes. That will serve the best long-term interests of farming. We are also developing a 25-year farming road map to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come. As we set out in our “Plan for Change”, we are focused on supporting farmers, supporting rural economic growth and boosting Britain’s food security.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  Many farmers are now in these schemes and are benefiting from them. We are also getting the environmental benefits that the whole transition away from basic payments to the environmental land management schemes was designed to achieve. Let me give some credit to the Opposition—they set this train in motion, but what they did not do was set up the schemes in a way that could properly be managed. That is what we are now doing.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the sustainable farming incentive. We stand on the edge of an unprecedented global transition for British farming. From leaving the European Union to the challenges of climate change and geopolitical events, we are asking more of farmers than ever before: to continue to produce the food that feeds the nation and to protect the environment on which our long-term food security depends. We are determined to create the conditions for farm businesses to be profitable and succeed. We are proud to have secured £5 billion for farming over two years: the largest budget for sustainable food production in our country’s history. That is £1.8 billion for customers already in agreements, £1 billion for farmers now in SFI agreements and a further £150 million for farmers in the SFI pilot. Labour has got that money out of the door and into farmers’ pockets. We have invested it to bring thousands more farmers into environmental land management schemes, which were vastly underspent by the previous Government, to make a record number of capital items available for the coming year to help farmers carry out actions under the SFI and countryside stewardship, with £600 million available for productivity, animal health and welfare innovation, and other measures to support agricultural productivity, as well as 50 landscape recovery projects across the country. We have responded directly to calls from the sector to roll out a new higher-tier scheme, and to increase payment rates so that higher-level stewardship agreement holders—many of them upland farmers—are fairly rewarded for their work. More than half of all farmers are now in schemes, with 37,000 live SFI agreements and 50,000 farmers in ELM agreements. Under the SFI, 800,000 hectares of arable land are being farmed without insecticides, 300,000 hectares of low-input grassland are managed sustainably, and 75,000 km of hedgerows are being protected and restored, which is a huge success for nature. I thank all farmers involved and reassure them that all existing SFI agreements will be honoured. Farmers will continue to be paid under the terms of their agreement for its duration. If they entered into a three-year SFI agreement earlier this year, they will be paid until 2028. If they submitted an SFI application but this has not yet started, that will also be honoured. All farmers who took part in the SFI pilot will be able to apply for an agreement. With the high uptake of the scheme, however, the fact is that it is now fully subscribed. This Government inherited SFI with no spending cap, despite a finite farming budget, and that cannot continue. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models including through the thousands of existing SFI agreements over the coming years and a revamped SFI offer. But this is an opportunity to improve how we do that under a fair and just farming transition, which supports farms to be profitable businesses in their own right through fairer supply chains, better regulation and greater market access, and directs public funding in a fair and orderly way towards the priorities that we have set out on food, farming and nature. We will be strategic in how we design our schemes, and responsible within the available budget. This is about using public money in a way that supports food production, restores nature and respects farmers as the business people they are. SFI can and must work better for all farms and for nature, and I will set out the details of the revised SFI offer following the spending review, including when it will open for applications. We will work closely with the sector to design an improved scheme so that they can tell us what works best for their businesses. We will also put in place strong budgetary controls so that SFI is affordable to the public purse. The revised offer will align with our land use framework to better target SFI actions fairly and effectively, focusing on helping less productive land contribute to our priorities for food, farming and nature. The underlying problem facing the sector, however, is that farmers do not make enough money. The Government are changing that. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh but businesses do need to make money; they might need to know that. We announced a new set of policies at the National Farmers Union conference last month aimed at improving farm profitability, securing our food security, and protecting nature. Through our farming road map, we are creating the conditions for farmers to run profitable businesses that can withstand future challenges. This decision is about investing in long-term stability. It is about a future where farmers are supported to run profitable businesses, and where public money is used in a better way to better restore nature and to secure long-term food security.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I do not share his pessimism. There are real opportunities, but it is up to us to make sure that they are realised. He makes an important point. The Government absolutely recognise that there are specific challenges and opportunities that make rural communities and economies distinctive, and we acknowledge the need for direct support through programmes such as the rural England prosperity fund, which provides targeted support to rural businesses and communities. We recognise that community-owned businesses play a particularly important role in rural areas by providing opportunities for communities to come together and access services, but we also recognise that there are significant challenges facing rural community businesses and that the Government have a role to play in overcoming them. A number of my hon. Friends have talked about rural transport, which is key to those living and working in rural communities. We know that a prosperous rural economy requires improvements in rural transport and, of course, digital infrastructure. The availability of affordable housing is key, as are affordable energy and access to a healthy and skilled workforce, so a complex mix is required to get the growth that we so want to see. We also recognise that the need for rural residents to travel further to access work, education and training, and essential services such as healthcare raises additional challenges. We know that it can be more costly and time consuming for them, and we recognise their frustrations. I was struck by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland about what happens when services are withdrawn. We know all too well the problems that that creates for our constituents, so this Government are determined to deliver better bus services. We have set out a plan to achieve that in our Bus Services Bill, which will give local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities they serve. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to raise the issue of digital access, particularly for those in ultra-rural areas. Digitisation is at the heart of this Government’s agenda, and we are committed to ensuring that rural communities and businesses are not left behind or disadvantaged. Through the shared rural network, which has helped to deliver 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK a year ahead of target, we will continue to deliver 4G connectivity to places where there is either limited coverage or none at all. However, we are aware that rural parts of the UK still lag behind when it comes to mobile coverage, and we will continue to work with the industry to deliver new coverage to such communities via the shared rural network, enabling them to thrive. Our ambition is to go further and for all populated areas to have higher-quality stand-alone 5G access by 2030. Project Gigabit is the Government’s programme to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to UK premises, many of which are situated in rural communities that are not included in suppliers’ commercial plans.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Draft Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024. It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. The regulations were laid before the House on 12 September and provide the powers necessary to implement and enforce the live exports ban in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024. They create a robust enforcement regime that builds on existing requirements for animal welfare in transport, while ensuring that the impact on industry is minimised. The regulations apply across England, Scotland and Wales to ensure a uniform, consistent approach to implementation and enforcement of the ban across Great Britain. The regulations give powers to the Animal and Plant Health Agency, as the regulator for animal welfare during transport, and to local authorities, which are responsible for enforcement. A key feature is that they strengthen the pre-export controls that the APHA already undertakes for livestock. Transporters of cattle, sheep, pigs and goats to a third country are already required to submit a plan of the journey—the journey log—for approval by the APHA before the journey commences. They will now also be required to provide evidence of the purpose of the export or transit journey. Before approving the journey log, the APHA will need to be satisfied that the consignment will not be exported for slaughter or fattening—I am sure that that will be welcomed across the House. The intention is to minimise circumvention of the ban and any need for enforcement action. We have worked with the National Beef, Sheep and Pig Associations and with the British Pig Association to set up a process through which they will assess and verify evidence provided by journey organisers. This will be a recognised and straightforward route for journey organisers to supply the APHA with the required evidence. We are doing this because industry is familiar with working with the national associations, particularly on breeding exports, and we believe that that will encourage engagement and compliance with the new requirement. It is important to be clear that these pre-export controls do not apply to horses. Given the more varied nature of horse movements, the situation is more complex. We are therefore working closely with stakeholders, who know their industry best, to find the most effective solution to prevent horses from being exported for slaughter. We have established a co-design group and expect to present specific measures on horses for consideration by the House next year. In addition to pre-export controls, the regulations give the APHA and local authorities regulatory and enforcement powers, which may be used in relation to livestock and horses should investigative or enforcement action prove necessary. The APHA will be able to suspend or revoke a transporter authorisation where evidence exists of non-compliance with the live exports ban. There will be an appeal route, first through reconsideration by the APHA and then, if that is unsuccessful, to the first-tier tribunal. The regulations create a power to prevent the movement of animals by issuing a hold notice where inspectors suspect that the animals may be exported for slaughter. Local authorities are given a power of entry and inspection in relation to premises, including vehicles, vessels and dwellings, in cases where inspectors believe that an offence is being, has been or is about to be committed or where there is believed to be evidence of an offence on the premises. That includes a power of entry to private dwellings, subject to the obtaining of a warrant. Exporters of livestock and horses must retain export records for three years and provide them to an inspector upon request. Failing to keep such records will be an offence, as will failing to comply with a hold notice or obstructing an inspector. The penalty will be an unlimited fine in England and Wales or a fine limited to level 5 on the standard scale in Scotland. In conclusion, we are taking a risk-based approach to regulating trade in order to minimise the burden on industry while preventing circumvention of the live exports ban. The regulations are vital to enforce that important animal welfare measure.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Budget: Implications for Farming Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Lady should wait a bit longer to see transport improvements—it has only been a week. The level has been set by the Treasury based on the figures that we have, to try to make sure it is fair. As I said, the vast majority will not pay anything. I hope she will find that reassuring.