Question follow-through · 28145
Poultry: Animal Welfare
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will consider introducing mandatory restrictions if voluntary measures to move away from fast-growing meat chicken breeds do not deliver adequate improvements in animal welfare.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
- Tabled
- 8 Sept 2026
- Target answer date
- 10 Sept 2026
- Answer
- 18 Sept 2026 · 10 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 4 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 2 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
8 Sept 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will consider introducing mandatory restrictions if voluntary measures to move away from fast-growing meat chicken breeds do not deliver adequate improvements in animal welfare.
10 Sept 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
18 Sept 2026
Answer published
The Government will continue supporting voluntary efforts to move away from the use of fast-growing meat chicken breeds and is not currently considering a ban on these breeds.
Official data retrieved 25 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.