(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate to give a voice to the voiceless here in Parliament.
The treatment of farm animals in the UK is a reflection of our values as a society, yet millions of animals endure lives of confinement, pain and neglect. I am proud to have convened this debate on an issue that has been very close to my heart since I was old enough to understand: animal welfare. The debate could not be more timely, with a number of grotesque infringements of legal and accepted norms exposed in recent undercover footage. From the mistreatment of piglets to the rampant impunity found in a few of Scotland’s salmon farms, shocking incidents have rightly caused public outrage.
However, we must be clear: these are sadly not isolated incidents, but a symptom of policy and enforcement failings in our food and farming systems. The way we treat farmed animals is not only the biggest animal protection issue we face here in the UK, but deeply entwined with the climate crisis, nature loss and the viability of our food systems. It speaks to a moral failing, a disconnection from the suffering hidden behind supermarket shelves. Ultimately, we need a food system that recognises the need to reduce demand, raise legal baselines and support better farming systems.
I am pleased to note that today’s debate has been linked to the petition titled “End the use of cages and crates for all farmed animals”, which has now surpassed 100,000 signatures and calls on the UK Government to
“ban all cages for laying hens as soon as possible”
and to extend the ban to all cages and crates “for all farmed animals”, including farrowing crates for sows, individual calf pens and cages for birds. Despite the ban on barren battery cages in 2012, about 10.6 million hens —28% of the UK laying flock—are still confined in so-called enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours such as wing flapping, perching and dust bathing, and contribute to frustration, bone weakness and chronic protection issues.
I congratulate the petition sponsor, Dame Joanna Lumley, and commend her courage and compassion. Her lifelong dedication to humanitarian and environmental causes is matched in this case by her powerful advocacy for animals, who cannot speak for themselves. I also want to recognise the tireless work of the many non-governmental organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the Humane League, World Animal Protection, FOUR PAWS and others, represented in the Chamber today, that have been campaigning for decades to end the cruelty of cages, crates and inhumane farming systems. Thanks to their persistence, these issues are finally being heard in Parliament with the seriousness they deserve.
However, accountability is woefully lacking. Prosecutions for animal welfare violations in farming are extremely rare. Between 2011 and 2021, only 28 such prosecutions were brought—fewer than three per year, despite tens of thousands of inspections and numerous breaches. The regulatory system is led by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is under-resourced and overly reliant on industry self-reporting. We need independent inspections and meaningful penalties for breaches.
Many people believe that labels such as “Red Tractor” or “RSPCA Assured” guarantee good welfare, and consumers want to trust that such schemes deliver in good faither. It is the Government’s job to ensure that those labels mean something. Sadly, far too often that is not the case, as we have seen from many investigations on certified farms that still use crates, cages and other cruel practices.
One such practice that must be urgently reviewed is the use of farrowing crates on pig farms. A recent poll commissioned by Humane World for Animals found that 73% of people in the UK had either never heard of farrowing crates or knew very little about them—a stark reminder of how this suffering is hidden from the public eye. Yet in the UK, approximately 50% of sows are confined in these small metal cages, which prevent them from turning around or expressing natural maternal behaviours. Compassion in World Farming describes farrowing as among the most extreme forms of confinement. Pigs are widely regarded to be highly sentient animals, but they are forced to give birth and nurse their young while virtually immobilised. The European Union has committed to phasing out cages for all farmed animals by 2027, but a recent letter from the National Pig Association suggested another 20 years of suffering to phase them out.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have already indicated this to you, Mr Vickers, but I apologise to colleagues now for the fact that I will have to leave before the end of the debate, which is why I will not make a speech—a constituent is coming to see me, and the votes in the House have screwed up the timing.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I entirely share his view; I guess that probably everyone who will speak in this debate does. One of the supposed advantages of our leaving the European Union was that we would be able to control what came into the country in the form of food. It would be quite wrong, would it not, if, while seeking to drive up animal welfare standards in this country, we disadvantaged our own farmers and at the same time allowed into the country products from other countries where those standards are lower? Therefore, does he agree with me—I am the patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation—that we need to call upon the Minister to ensure that that does not happen, and that our farmers are not disadvantaged while we improve our standards?
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I always enjoy hearing his thoughtful remarks and strongly agree with his words today, which show the cross-party concerns on this issue; I will come on to the issue of international trade later on.
On the issue of farrowing crates, I urge the Minister to set out a clear and swift timetable for the banning of farrowing crates; I hope he will address that issue specifically in his remarks at the end of the debate.
We must also speak to the plight of broiler chickens, which are the animals most intensively farmed in the UK today. Around 90% of chickens reared for meat in the UK—nearly 1 billion animals per year—are fast-growing breeds, often referred to as “Frankenchickens”. These birds have been selectively bred to grow up to 400% faster than chickens did in the 1950s, reaching slaughter weight in just 35 to 40 days. To put that in perspective, if a human baby grew at the same rate, they would weigh nearly 300 kg—the size of a fully grown tiger—by the time they were two months old.
Such rapid growth causes immense suffering, including chronic lameness, organ failure, respiratory problems and open burns, as these chickens spend their final days lying in their own waste, often with broken bones, too heavy to stand. That cannot be right and I hope the Minister directly addresses that point as well. There are alternatives—slower-growing breeds, with significantly improved protection outcomes—but without Government leadership, market incentives will continue to favour the cheapest and cruellest options.
On the subject of pigs and chickens, many campaigners will have rejoiced at the rejection of a new mega-farm at Methwold in Norfolk; I know the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) was heavily involved in campaigning against it. The sheer scale of the Methwold proposal was staggering—up to 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs, confined in barren indoor sheds. Chickens would have been packed into high-intensity units, with barely any space to move, no access to daylight and no environmental enrichment. Animal protection groups raised serious concerns about the dangerously low staff-to-animal ratio, which would have made it almost impossible to monitor suffering or to intervene in time.
Methwold is not an isolated case. There are many applications around the country, including a growing number in my constituency, for new or expanded intensive livestock units. That is deeply worrying for constituents, who are concerned not only about animal protection, but about air and water pollution, odour, and the long-term impact on communities and our countryside. The proposed Cranswick farm at Methwold was rightly opposed by the local council because of its cumulative environmental risks and wider ecological impact.
We should not be pursuing this model of farming, yet World Wide Fund and AGtivist.agency report that the number of US-style megafarms in the UK has increased by 21% in about a decade. That is going in the wrong direction, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government will address it.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that, through the Government’s programme of planning reform, we must not create any loopholes that could be exploited to facilitate the destructive, large-scale farming operations that he refers to?
Adrian Ramsay
I strongly agree. As we all closely scrutinise the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we need to look carefully at whether loopholes are creeping in that will allow horrific developments such as more mega-farms to happen at a greater scale.
Mega-farms are bad for animals, bad for nature and bad for people, and not at all necessary for food security—that is a key point. The UK already meets 100% of its recommended protein needs, so these mega-farms are surely being developed with exports in mind. UK pigmeat exports have grown by 4% in the past year, driven by increased shipments to China. Methwold was a line in the sand, a signal that local communities will not accept industrial so-called farming that sacrifices everything for profit. To stop its unchecked proliferation, we need the Government to put their own line in the sand and say, clearly, that this must stop.
To pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), as we debate domestic welfare standards, we must also remain vigilant about how international trade could undermine them. Since leaving the European Union, the UK’s rating in the World Animal Protection index has been downgraded, reflecting growing concern that our historical leadership on animal protection is under threat. In upcoming trade deals with the US, India and the Gulf, there is a real risk that our markets will be opened to products produced in systems that would be illegal in the UK.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to undertake a strategic review of UK border controls to ensure that UK food security is protected from the introduction of diseases such as foot and mouth, as we have had on the continent, or any other exotic disease?
Adrian Ramsay
I agree with the hon. Lady, who speaks with first-hand experience of the farming sector.
Around 6 million breeding sows in the US are confined in gestation crates, which are banned in the UK. More than 70% of laying hens are still kept in barren battery cages. US beef can be produced using growth-promoting hormones, and antibiotic use in livestock is up to five times higher than in the UK. Such practices not only cause immense suffering, but undermine our farmers and our food safety standards. That is why we must commit to banning imports produced to standards that would not comply with those in the UK. We must also defend the hard-won ban on live animal exports, a recent step forward that must not be weakened under trade pressure. Our values do not end at our borders, and neither should the protections that we afford to animals.
Let us not forget that cruelty is not limited to land-based farming. Investigations by Compassion in World Farming and others have exposed horrific conditions in offshore salmon farms. Our high-end salmon from romanticised Scottish fish farms often has deeply unpalatable origins: salmon are cramped into cages where they suffer from lice, disease and injury, mortality rates are shockingly high and immense pollution pours into once-pristine marine environments, threatening wild fish populations. The farms are intensive by design, prioritising scale and profit over animal protection and environmental sustainability. We need a moratorium on new intensive aquaculture permits and a rapid transition to higher-protection, lower-impact systems. I hope the Minister will address that point in his response.
That brings me to the last substantive area that I want to discuss before concluding: the less-visible consequence of industrial farming. Due to cramped and unhygienic conditions, disease outbreaks are controlled with routine antibiotics, but evidence shows that that fuels antimicrobial resistance in consumers and presents a dire global health risk. The World Health Organisation has warned that antibiotic resistance could become a bigger killer than cancer by 2050, and farming practices are fuelling that trajectory.
Animal protection in farming is not a niche concern, but a public health issue, a climate issue, a biodiversity issue and a moral issue. Polling consistently shows strong public support for ending cages, crates and other cruel practices, which are unnecessarily barbaric, tragically wasteful and entirely avoidable. The public are ahead of the Government on this issue: more than 80% support a ban on cages for laying hens. The number of Members here shows the force of support for legislation to catch up.
This debate is about system change, not demonising farmers. We must bring farmers with us through clarity, fair incentives and certainty about the direction of travel. They should be supported to make adjustments on their farms, which is another reason why I strongly defend the preservation of the environmental land management schemes’ animal protection grants, and I urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to commit to that being a core part of the sustainable farming incentive, not an add-on. The Welsh Government’s animal health and welfare framework sets out the admirably worthy ambition that all animals should have a good life, even if a short one.
As we look ahead, I urge the Minister to recognise that real leadership on animal protection requires action on multiple fronts, including banning farrowing crates and cages, mandating method of production labelling to inform consumers, and strengthening enforcement through higher penalties, independent inspections and proper resourcing. It means defending our domestic standards in international trade and ensuring that imports produced using sow stalls, barren battery cages or hormone-treated beef are not waved through in deals that betray British values. Above all, we must confront the fact that more than 70% of farmed animals in the UK are reared in intensive conditions. That is not sustainable, ethical or inevitable.
The Government should set procurement targets to reduce meat from industrial systems, promote more plant-rich diets and reward farmers who are working with, not against, nature. In aquaculture too, we need environmental impact assessments, legal protection at slaughter, mandatory CCTV and protection standards equal to those for land animals. Those are not radical demands; they are practical, evidence-based steps towards a kinder, fairer and more resilient system that reflects the compassion of the public, supports responsible farmers and enhances the UK’s position as a global leader in animal protection.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, which, due to the delayed start, will now conclude at 4.31 pm, subject to there being no further Divisions. We will start with a four-minute time limit on speeches, which may have to drop if there are many interventions.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I want to focus on import standards, which the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) began to talk about.
Farmers in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire play by the rules and abide by the regulations. For example, since 1999 they have stopped using sow stalls because UK law rightly declared those cramped conditions cruel. But every day, when my constituents go to local supermarkets, the shelves are stocked with bacon from overseas farms that still use those banned methods. I think everyone agrees that that is unfair both for animal welfare and for our farmers.
The recent weeks have been historic for British trade. The Government secured groundbreaking agreements that will boost our economy while, crucially, remaining firm on our higher food standards. When we negotiated with the US, we held the line on hormone-treated beef, delivering on our manifesto promise to protect farmers and consumers alike. This is Labour in action, proving we can expand trade without compromising our values.
We now need to address the inconsistency still visible on supermarket shelves across Britain. Nearly 50% of pork imports come from countries where pregnant pigs remain confined in narrow sow stalls, unable even to turn around. Lamb imports from Australia, where farmers practise mulesing—cutting skin from live sheep without pain relief—have surged following the Conservatives’ flawed trade deal. Such practices were banned here because they do not align with British values or public opinion.
British farmers follow our welfare regulations—no battery cages, no sow stalls and humane transport conditions—yet we continue to allow imports that undermine those standards. Instead of preventing cruelty to farmed animals, the effect of many of our laws is to simply offshore that cruelty to other countries, sometimes those with standards far lower than our own. Imports should meet our domestic animal welfare standards. If certain practices are too cruel for our farms, they should also be too cruel for our borders.
We already have a precedent for this approach—for example, current UK legislation requires that all meat imports comply with our slaughter standards. We now need to extend that principle to how animals are kept throughout their lives, not just how they are killed. That would mean legislation requiring that imported animal products meet UK standards on key welfare issues, which means no eggs from barren battery cages, no pork from farms using sow stalls and no lamb from farms practising live lamb cutting.
The European Union is already moving in that direction, with proposals to end caged farming by 2027 and extend that rule to imports. Aligning our policies would improve our trade relationship with our largest partner, further benefiting British farmers. That change would directly improve animal welfare, aligning both with our values and with public demands. For our farmers, it would right a wrong, preventing grossly unfair competition from low-welfare imports and allowing British producers to uphold higher standards while remaining competitive. That would also complement the £5 billion support package we have already delivered in that space.
That is also what the British public want: recent polling has shown that around 84% of people, including a significant backing among rural communities, support applying our animal welfare standards to all imports. The policy is not controversial at all, and it is fair for farmers, animals and people. It builds on the trade successes that we have already achieved while closing a loophole that undermines our farmers and our values.
Alongside our trade successes, it is time to show that our approach to trade is both principled and practical. We can grow our economy while standing firm on the standards that matter to British people. I hope that the Government will consider some legislative interventions on this issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I commend the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for setting the scene so well. He mentioned some graphic things that get under many people’s skin. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, although we do not farm the land any more—the neighbours do that for us.
To illustrate the matter, I will say what my neighbours do in relation to it. The people I know who farm close to me—and many others too; it is not exclusive to where I live—love their animals. They have a commitment to their beef and dairy cattle and to their sheep. Last year, or perhaps the year before, they got a robotic dairy. For those who do not know what that means—I did not really know until I visited—the cattle are much calmer and they have access to food every time they want it.
Usually when you walk through a field of cattle, they scatter in all directions. I walked into those cattle along with the boys who own the farm and the cattle did not even budge out of the road. There was music going in the background as well—I cannot remember whether it was Tchaikovsky, Elvis Presley or whatever—and the cattle seemed incredibly calm. Was that their choice of music? I am not sure that they had any input into that, but they were the best looked-after cattle that I have seen for some time. The farmers that I see strive hard to do it right. I know the hon. Gentleman recognises that, but others do not, so it is important to say it.
I want to comment on the dreadful Windsor framework. Issues arose recently and the Ulster Farmers’ Union expressed serious concerns about the implications of the recently announced UK-US trade agreement. In other words: we keep the standards and do things right, but then they are going to produce some stuff in the USA where they do not have the same standards that we have. There will be a serious impact on our livestock and high standards. The Ulster Farmers’ Union president, William Irvine, said
“This is not a traditional free trade agreement and we recognise that it is an early-stage framework. But the fact remains—UK agriculture, including sensitive sectors like beef and cereals, is again being asked to shoulder the burden of securing trade wins for steel, aluminium and cars. That sets a worrying precedent.”
It also sets a worrying precedent for our standards, which I am very concerned about, but unfortunately I do not have the time that it needs to go into it.
US beef is produced on a scale and in a system that gives it a cost advantage. If the UK Government open the door further, we must be ready to protect our standards to ensure a level playing field. On the bioethanol element of the deal, Mr Irvine said that the Ulster Farmers’ Union will be seeking urgent clarity from the Government on the expected impact on Northern Ireland’s arable sector. In a conversation before the debate started, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to bovine TB.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Bovine TB across the UK is not just a farming issue, but an animal welfare one, and is causing a financial crisis. Thousands of healthy cattle are being culled and wildlife remains trapped in a vicious cycle of infection. The cost to the public purse in Northern Ireland is now sitting at £60 million a year. In England, there has been a science-led approach. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister needs to engage with England and do exactly as has been done here, with a wildlife intervention project that culls badgers, so that we improve animal health and protect our wildlife?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is wise in her intervention. In fairness to the Minister, he regularly visits Northern Ireland. We have had been fortunate to have him twice at Colin McKee’s in my constituency, because he loves the scones and the coffee. He also loves seeing how a farmer can look after his animals better than others. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of bovine TB, and perhaps the Minister could tell us if he has had engagements, correspondence and discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland.
The Ulster Farmers’ Union is calling for the UK Government to provide greater transparency about how sensitive sectors will be protected in future. It is important to get that right. Northern Ireland farmers are proud to produce food to world-leading high standards of animal welfare, traceability and environmental care, but those standards must be reflected in trade deals. We should not be held to an example of European overreach. The effect of the US trade deal may be another example of how the special circumstances in Northern Ireland are especially difficult rather than especially beneficial.
There must be standards in place for animal welfare, and we must remove the EU overreach and have UK-wide standards. I ask the Minister to take that back to the Cabinet. We must all do better to support farmers in the same way throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe the Minister does that and I look forward to his response.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for enabling us to speak on this important topic.
I will start by sharing how valuable it was to spend a day of last week’s recess at Staffordshire’s county show. As always, I came away full of admiration for our farming community. I am a little biased, but Staffordshire is a shining example of some of the best of British farming, and everybody at the show seemed to agree. That is not just in terms of productivity and innovation but in the deep care many of our farmers have for animal welfare.
That brings me to the complex and often uncomfortable balance we are trying to strike in this debate between raising animal welfare standards and the environmental, financial and logistical realities of making that happen. When we talk about moving away from practices such as caged systems—a move that, for the record, I absolutely support—we are also talking about the need for more barn space, more land use and more infrastructure, all of which mean higher running costs for farmers and sometimes greater greenhouse gas emissions.
To be clear, those are not reasons for rejecting higher animal welfare standards, but they are reasons to approach the issue with farmers in mind. That must be our starting point, because farmers are not charities and, more than ever, they have to look at the bottom line, which all too often is dwindling. Let us be frank: supermarkets will always demand higher welfare, but they are not always willing to pay more for it. That is disingenuous to consumers and squeezes producers even further, pitting welfare against farm viability.
An area where we could make a real difference is animal welfare labelling, which is being looked at by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member; I am glad that the Committee’s Chair is present. For the average shopper, labelling is a minefield. Information on nutrition and the country of origin has been simplified in the past decade, but in the animal welfare space we have statutory minimum standards and the “Red Tractor”, “RSPCA Assured”, EU organic and Soil Association organic labels, all representing different standards.
Consumers need to understand what labelling means in practical terms and how to interpret it when they shop. That will not be easy, but I believe that is a challenge that we can and should take on. However, in doing so, we must make sure producers have a say, alongside consumers and animal welfare organisations, so that they can realise the benefits of clearer labelling too. The lack of coherent and clear information on welfare on the shelf is a concern for farmers who are producing to higher standards because they do not have a clear way of differentiating their products for consumers. They therefore do not reap the rewards from the quality of their goods that should incentivise higher welfare standards. Research indicates that the current systems of farm assurance, regardless of the label, are not working as best as they could for farmers, consumers and, most importantly, animals.
Sir Roger Gale
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. Does he also agree that there is a significant error in not properly labelling animals subjected to non-stunned slaughter?
Josh Newbury
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that that is a perfect example of where stronger, more consistent animal welfare labelling would give consumers that kind of information. In other countries, such as Germany, systems take that into account, and consumers should have access to that information.
On farm assurance, for example, the campaign group Animal Rising has uncovered failings in “RSPCA Assured” farms and abattoirs.
We also have to ensure that fairness for the farming sector is paramount. I raised that in Select Committee sessions and it has been raised today, but it bears repeating: we cannot ask our farmers to invest in higher standards and then leave them exposed to undercutting by imports. We are all in favour of better welfare. In fact, a 2022 poll revealed that 71% of the British public want the Government to pass more laws to improve animal welfare, but we cannot hold our farmers to a gold standard while turning a blind eye to imports that are produced to far lower standards. Trade deals without adequate safeguards will negatively impact the UK’s animal welfare standards for decades to come, undermining our farmers and the hard-won animal welfare improvements that we need to build on. That risks putting more farmers out of business, jeopardising our food security and offshoring animal cruelty.
To put it simply, if it is too cruel to produce here, it should be too cruel to import. If it is not good enough for our farms, it is not good enough for our shelves. Ultimately, we need to get the balance right by supporting our farmers to raise standards, making sure that consumers understand what they are buying and ensuring that the whole system—domestic or international—reflects our values as a nation of animal lovers.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers.
Britain has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We should take real pride in that, but we must also protect it, both for the sake of the animals in our care and the farmers who work hard to uphold those standards every single day. Pride alone is not enough. If we want consumers, both at home and abroad, to understand and support the standards we have set, we must clearly communicate them. That is why I would strongly support the introduction of a standardised mandatory animal welfare labelling scheme on meat, eggs and dairy—not voluntary but mandatory. Such a scheme would allow shoppers to make informed choices about the products they buy and to support British farmers, who uphold some of the highest standards in the world. Data from the Labour Animal Welfare Society suggests such a scheme could boost profits for British farmers by over £40 million per year, and improve the welfare of up to 110 million chickens, 700,000 hens and half a million pigs annually. That is not a marginal improvement; it is transformational.
While we rightly lift our own standards, we must ensure farmers are not undercut by imports produced in inhumane conditions abroad that would be illegal here in the UK. Our farmers are proud to meet high standards, but they should not be punished for having to compete against cheap imports raised in low-cost, low-welfare conditions abroad. Phasing out low-welfare imports within five years and requiring all imported food to meet our domestic standards would level the playing field for British farmers and end the silent support of animal cruelty abroad, which I know many of our constituents have contacted us all about over the years. Humane slaughter rules already apply to meat imports—as we have heard—so why should welfare standards afforded to animals during their time on the farm be any different? That is not protectionism; it is moral leadership. As one of the world’s largest economies, and with a particularly large amount of our food imported, we must use our influence and privileged position to encourage others to rise to our standards.
Across the North sea, Denmark has already launched an animal welfare labelling scheme, and we have its eight years of experience to draw on. Under the slogan, “A hold on your heart”, that welfare labelling scheme has seen knowledge of animal welfare conditions skyrocket among the populace and has led to a profound change in shopping habits for the better, for consumers and animals alike.
Animal welfare is not a niche concern. According to a poll conducted by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board last year, 84% of shoppers think animal welfare is important, yet they are currently given little information about the standards involved in the products they buy.
Labour has pledged to boost animal welfare in a generation. Let us make good on that promise while shoring up the competitiveness of our struggling farmers. By introducing animal welfare labelling, we can reward those who work hard to treat animals well. We can empower consumers to reject low-welfare imports and encourage countries that wish to access our large and lucrative market to rise to our standards—a win for all.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
Much of what I was going to say has already been raised, so I will make just a few brief points, because I care deeply about this subject. First, I should declare an interest: right after the debate, I am hosting an event in the Jubilee Room with Humane World for Animals about ending the use of cruel mother pig cages. At the event, there will be a life-sized replica of a farrowing crate to show just how confined mother pigs are when they are kept in them for weeks and weeks. I encourage hon. Members to come along.
As we have heard, every year in the UK 200,000 sows are confined in farrowing crates. Those sows can spend almost a quarter of their adult lives in crates where they do not even have enough room to turn around. That is unacceptable. The vast majority of Scots care as deeply about this issue as I do. When polled earlier this year, 84% of Scots said that farrowing crates should be banned, either immediately or at least within the next five years. I know that the Government are looking carefully at the issue, alongside ending the use of enriched cages for hens, and I very much welcome that. It is important to be aware that around 8 million laying hens live their lives in tiny and cramped cages, in what must be a somewhat miserable existence followed by, ultimately, a sad death.
I think most of us here would agree that Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and that we should be proud of the many high animal welfare standards that we currently have. In fact, 95% of the UK’s 88 trading partners have lower animal welfare standards than our own domestic requirements, and we have heard quite a lot about that already. For example, over half of UK pork comes from countries that have sow stalls, which, as we have heard, have been banned in the UK since 1999. UK sheep production is at a 39-year low while Australian imports surge; we heard about that earlier.
Phasing out low animal welfare imports that do not meet our own animal welfare standards is urgently required. Additionally, mandatory animal welfare labelling —for example, of eggs, chicken and pork—could help consumers make more informed choices. We have heard about that already. DEFRA proposed a mandatory method of production welfare label in a public consultation that closed in March 2024, and I think the discussion so far today suggests people would like that to go ahead.
Another area that has not been raised yet is that of male chicks. In the UK, between 40 million and 45 million male chicks each year are culled in a process called “hatch and dispatch,” as they cannot lay eggs or be grown for meat. Sometimes chicks are crushed with rollers or minced with blades while they are fully conscious. However, in France and Germany, this practice is banned. In-ovo sexing technology allows the sex of the egg to be identified before the chick can feel pain and it is estimated that implementing this technology in the UK would add less than the cost of 1p per egg. That is definitely worth considering; there is a whole lot to consider today.
Finally, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for introducing the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on all the points and ideas that have been raised so far.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this important debate. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have always championed the highest standards in animal welfare, not just because it is the right thing to do but because it reflects the compassion and integrity of our society.
Our Welsh farmers take pride in producing food to some of the highest welfare standards in the world. However, that proud tradition is under threat—not from our own farmers but from the last Conservative Government’s careless approach to trade. Take the UK-Australia free trade agreement: that deal, which was rushed through, without proper scrutiny, allowed tariff-free imports of beef and lamb from Australia, despite serious concerns about the farming practices there. In Australia, about 40% of beef cattle are reared in intensive feed lots in barren, crowded environments, where animals are fattened on grain, not pasture. Those conditions would be unthinkable here in the UK. Even worse, growth-promoting hormones are still used in Australian beef production, a practice banned in the UK for decades. Meanwhile, the painful mutilation of sheep through mulesing remains common; again, that is something we rightly prohibit here. Let us not also forget that Australian hens can still be confined to barren battery cages, which are long banned in the UK and across the EU.
Those double standards are indefensible. Our farmers are being undercut by products that would be illegal to produce here. That is not just unfair; it is a betrayal of Welsh farmers, of animal welfare and of the trust of the British public. Polling consistently shows that the British people support stronger laws on animal welfare and oppose low-welfare imports. In Wales, where our agricultural communities are close-knit and values-driven, the issue matters deeply. That is why the UK Government must act to ensure that if it is too cruel to produce in the UK, it is too cruel to import.
We are calling on the UK Government to ban cages and crates for farmed animals, to require all imported meat, eggs and dairy to meet UK welfare standards, and to introduce clear, mandatory labelling so that consumers can make informed, ethical choices. All new trade deals should be put to a vote in Parliament, and we should ensure that they are all subject to impact assessments across every nation and region of the UK. We have a moral duty to protect the welfare of our animals, and to ensure that our farmers are rewarded, not punished, for doing the right thing.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), my constituency neighbour, for securing this much-needed and timely debate. It is one that I called for in the Chamber several weeks ago, so I am pleased to be here today.
There was recently outrage and shock about footage from a Lincolnshire farm, where the abuse of animals was caught on film. I was glad that supermarkets took a stand, suspended their trade with that farm and confirmed that they regard such abuse as unacceptable. However, it is particularly saddening and concerning that that was not a one-off case or an outlier. Sadly, we see such animal abuse time and again at various locations across the country, including in my own county of Norfolk.
It has been made clear today that animal welfare comes in various forms, from imports to labelling and intensive farming, a subject I am passionate about. It is clear that we need to rethink animal welfare policy, and intensive farming is a particular concern for me. Freedom of information requests that I have submitted to the Environment Agency have shown that in the past decade, industrial farms have breached regulations more than 7,000 times. That is 7,000 breaches of regulations in less than a decade. It is clear that the whole regulatory system is currently completely toothless. For example, one farm operated by a large corporation has been found to be stocking more than 400,000 animals, instead of the permitted 357,000. Evidence suggests that regulatory nonconformity is the norm, yet regulators are taking enforcement action only in a tiny minority of cases. Rather than feeling the pressure to comply, intensive livestock companies are being invited to wield significant influence over public policy.
Intensive farming practices are on the rise. Between 2016 and 2023, there was a 20% increase in the number of intensive livestock units in the UK. Now, about 80% of broiler chickens are reared in fully housed, intensive systems. A process of consolidation and industrialisation of farming has seen more than 100,000 livestock and poultry farms go out of business between 1990 and 2016. It is no wonder that so many small farms in my constituency are nervous about speaking out against the big boys.
The Minister might be pleased to know that I did not intend to mention the Methwold mega-farm today. However, seeing as it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, I will bring it up. I am delighted that it was rejected due to what was very much a joint effort among local residents, charities and elected representatives, from councillors to myself, as an MP. It is true that it was rejected in part over animal welfare concerns, but importantly, the effect on the environment and climate played a role as well. In Norfolk, the environment is crucial to our economy. It is suggested that if I am against intensive farming I am anti-growth, but tourism is worth more to us in Norfolk than it is in Cornwall; it is crucial to local jobs. Intensive farming impacts jobs in our county—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
As a result of the Division in the House, the debate’s revised end time is 4.44 pm. I will call the shadow Minister and the Minister to wind up at 4.06 pm. I know that we have two speakers to come and that Terry Jermy is coming to the conclusion of his speech.
Terry Jermy
Unfortunately, Sir John, you have missed the first 80% of my speech. I was coming on to how crucial the environment in Norfolk is to the local economy and the threat that intensive livestock farming poses to the environment. It is also a threat from a disease and an animal welfare point of view.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
On the subject of disease, the 2023 national risk register states that the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and the presence of exotic diseases, such as foot and mouth disease, represent a threat to our food sustainability. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming calls from the National Farmers Union for the Treasury to fund a cross-Government plan to tackle such diseases?
Terry Jermy
I absolutely support that proposal. Intensive farming presents a significant risk from a disease point of view, so we need to heed such calls.
I will quickly conclude. Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, introduced under the previous Labour Government. Last year, I was very proud to stand on a manifesto to further strengthen animal welfare legislation. As we have heard today, frankly, that cannot happen quickly enough.
In my constituency, farming is our lifeblood, as is the environment, and therefore we must have a serious conversation about what sort of farming we want in future. I sincerely hope that it is one that protects our communities, our agriculture and our nature, while also furthering our animal welfare standards.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this debate.
Around one third of my constituency is agricultural land, so it is no surprise that animal welfare in farming is a big issue for many of my constituents, as it is for me. As the Minister and the Shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), no doubt remember, we had long debates in Committee in the previous Parliament on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Although that Bill had its faults, it would have been a step in the right direction. Sadly, it was unceremoniously dropped by the last Government after the Committee stage, which stalled progress on these issues.
I know that the Minister has picked up on these issues since being re-elected, and I was proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that made clear commitments to improve animal welfare. These are not fringe concerns; they reflect the values of people across the country who want to see animals treated with decency and respect. Animal welfare must be at the heart of farming, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because people deserve to know where their food is produced and that it is produced to standards that they can trust.
We have photographs on cigarette packets that show the harms of smoking. If we had similar images that showed the harms caused to animals by the ways in which they are kept, I imagine that the sales of the products we are discussing today would fall through the floor. The reality is that many animals are still kept in conditions that fall far short of the general public’s expectations. Hens are confined to cages that, as we have heard, are barely larger than an A4 piece of paper, and pigs are kept in farrowing crates and are unable even to turn around. These are not isolated cases; they are widespread practices that cause real suffering.
Animals kept in such systems experience chronic stress, frustration and pain. That is not just outdated; it is indefensible. The science is clear and the public are clear that we must legislate to ban cages in farming, and without delay if possible. We also need to support farmers through that transition. Many farmers are already doing the right thing, often at financial cost. They deserve a system that rewards higher welfare standards, not one that pits them against cheaper, lower standard imports. I know the Minister will agree with that.
This issue is not about choosing between farming and welfare; it is about recognising that the two must go hand in hand. A fair and sustainable food system depends on both.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this debate.
I last spoke about eggs in a debate just before Easter, but eggs are not just for Easter; they are for all year round. As other hon. Members have already said, we are still in a situation where the space that many hens have to live in is the same size as a piece of A4 paper. That is just not good enough. Such cages are known as “enriched cages”. The marketing people really earned their stripes that day, because I think that if we started calling them “confinement cages” we would go a long way towards stamping out this horrible practice.
I am very keen to hear from the Minister about the recent EU reset, because some of our European friends and neighbours already have better standards than us; indeed, some of them, for example Germany, are thinking of introducing even higher standards. Does that mean that there is now a real need for us to catch up? I would be keen to hear the Minister’s views.
I am also concerned about the welfare of lobsters—the first time that lobsters have got a mention today. I did a bit of googling last night and found out that it is possible to buy fresh lobsters on the open market. The advertisement that I saw said:
“Upon receipt of delivery, store your live lobsters in the fridge until ready to cook. Lobsters can be boiled, poached, grilled or barbecued.”
Imagine that referred to any other kind of animal. Imagine saying, “A live chicken or lamb will arrive; put it in the garden and then, as an amateur, smash its skull in and boil it alive.” Is that the kind of situation that we want to see, in a country that talks about being a nation of animal lovers? I would be keen to hear from the Minister whether that is something that he wants to get his claws into.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
We are moving ahead with alacrity, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for allowing us to do so. Without more ado, I call Sarah Dyke, the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate. It is also a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
Glastonbury and Somerton is synonymous with farming. I have spoken many times about how Thomas Hardy described Blackmore vale, where I call home, as the “Vale of Little Dairies”. My connection with farming runs deep, so I know that farmers have a deep and complex bond with the animals they rear, shaped by the daily care, emotional attachment and professional responsibilities they have towards them. Farmers form concerned attachment for individual animals and feel empathy, even though the animals are part of their livelihood.
Hundreds of farming businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton take great pride in the high animal welfare standards they implement. Take the Slow Farming Company near Castle Cary, for example: it produces beef, pork and eggs to the highest welfare standards, as certified by A Greener World, and recognises the value of doing so not just for the animals that are reared, but for human health. This weekend, the Slow Farming Company is hosting an open farm weekend to celebrate Open Farm Sunday and showcase the concept of slow farming and slow food.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to improving standards of animal health and welfare in agriculture. We know not only that it is important to support British farmers to implement such measures, but that we must not punish farmers by importing animal products with low welfare standards from abroad. Given the Government’s flurry of recent trade deals, this is an opportune time to remember why we must continue to keep high animal welfare standards at home and must not allow the Government to offshore poor animal welfare practices.
The new report from Animal Policy International, Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals notes that 95% of potential UK trading partners have lower animal welfare standards. The Liberal Democrats are aware of the threat that new trade deals could pose, and there is the ongoing risk that the deals will further undermine British farmers by allowing in animal products that simply would not be produced in the UK, such as foie gras and food produced with antibiotic growth promoters. We are clear that we must not allow that to happen. The Liberal Democrats want to ensure that all imported food meets UK standards for health and welfare, while introducing robust food labelling that is simple to understand. That is paramount, because maintaining high food standards supports environmental sustainability and public trust in farming practices.
Last month, the Government announced a trade deal with the US. The deal included £180 million-worth of beef, and UK tariff exemptions on US beef expanded from historical levels of 1,000 tonnes to 13,000 tonnes. At the time, many right hon. and hon. Members demanded reassurance that British farmers would not be undercut by the deal. Although the sanitary and phytosanitary aspect of the deal is in line with UK standards, animal welfare concerns remain because US beef is produced to lower standards.
Last week, I attended the Royal Bath and West show and spent a morning with the National Farmers Union, speaking to local farmers. We were all horrified to learn that Asda is now stocking Uruguayan beef under labelling that could be described, at best, as misleading. I am not suggesting that the meat is of a lower standard, but it calls into question the wonderful work that Asda is doing on sustainability in its beef supply chain and in supporting British farmers, including the work it does to make UK suppliers jump through various sustainability hoops.
World Animal Protection has given the US an animal protection index rating of E for protecting animals used in farming, highlighting the stark contrast between the UK and the US. Therefore, as further details of the agreement are finalised, it is critical that the Government ensure that US—or any—beef entering the UK has been produced not only to equivalent food safety standards, but to animal welfare standards. Not to do so would be a betrayal of British farmers and the British public. Some 84% of the British public support restricting or banning low-welfare imports that do not meet UK standards. As a country, we are proud to support our farmers, who produce food for our tables to the highest animal welfare standards in the world, so we must make sure we do not kowtow to foreign Governments who want us to open the floodgates and fill our supermarket shelves with low-welfare animal produce. We must not stand by and expect our farmers to compete on an unlevel playing field. The Liberal Democrats are clear: we must instead lead the way to raise standards around the world, while continuing to raise them at home.
The previous Conservative Government signed trade deals that undercut our farmers. The CPTPP agreement—the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—could allow Mexican farmers who use battery-cage production to export to Britain large numbers of eggs produced in a manner that would be illegal in the UK. A former Environment Secretary criticised the free trade agreement with Australia that he helped to secure, stating that the deal was not good for the UK and
“gave away far too much”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
We must not let that happen again.
The recent EU-UK agreement is a positive step in beginning to reverse the damage caused by the Conservatives’ deal with Europe and so was welcomed by the Liberal Democrats. We are committed to deepening our trading relationship with the EU and called for a comprehensive veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. However, half the pork sold in the UK comes from countries that permit sow stalls—a practice that we banned, as we have heard, in 1999. Most comes from EU countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Poland. The requirement in the common understanding that exceptions to dynamic alignment must not
“negatively affect European Union animals and goods”
could prevent welfare-based restrictions on those imports. The fear is that that provision could systematically prevent the UK from applying its higher standards across the market. The UK must preserve its sovereign right to maintain and enhance domestic animal welfare standards for all products entering the market. The Government’s trade strategy is expected soon, and it is clear that that must ensure that animal welfare standards are not undermined by the Government’s approach to trade.
The Liberal Democrats also recognise the need to work on standards domestically. That is why we want to introduce a new comprehensive animal welfare Bill that would ensure the highest standards possible. In the UK, 11 million egg-laying hens, representing 18% of the egg-laying industry, are kept in “enriched” cages; and, although we banned sow stalls in 1999, farrowing crates are still legal and used for up to 60% of sows in the UK. Therefore we still have further to go if we are to continue proudly leading the world in animal welfare.
The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates for pigs, and to end the use of cages for farm animals. However, I worry that some recent policy decisions might limit farmers’ ability to make progress. DEFRA transferred support for farmers looking to convert to organic out of the countryside stewardship scheme and into the sustainable farming incentive months before its abrupt closure, meaning that for the first time in 30 years no Government funding is available for farmers looking to convert to organic farming. Cuts to the nature-friendly farming budget, expected to be outlined in the forthcoming spending review, will limit farmers’ ability to improve animal welfare standards further. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the impact that these measures will have on farmers across the country. Farmers have a huge role in hitting the Government’s environmental and climate change aims, but short-sighted decisions will make those aims impossible. The Liberal Democrats instead have pledged to add an additional £1 billion a year to the farming budget, which will help farmers to keep standards high while producing food for the country.
We must improve the UK’s food labelling with regard to animal welfare. Under the last Conservative Government, DEFRA, to its credit, undertook a consultation on introducing mandatory methods of product labelling. The assessment for that found that food labelling could improve animal welfare standards. It found that the policy would improve the welfare of 110 million meat chickens, 510,000 pigs, 250,000 beef cattle, 180,000 dairy cattle and 1 million sheep, while also financially benefiting farmers by around £40 million a year. The Liberal Democrats have called for labelling that includes the locality that the animal was reared in, the conditions they were kept in, the methods of slaughter and the environmental impact of the product. We can improve the lives of farmed animals while helping farmers increase their profitability.
The future of animal welfare standards in farming and farming businesses are intertwined. As a country, we are proud of our standards, but we can and should go further. This must come with a firm commitment not to undercut British farmers through trade deals, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss this critical matter further. We have heard powerful contributions from right across the House. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in animal health and welfare as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
In the United Kingdom we have brilliant farmers, who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that fact. In that regard, we have heard today that we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. I am extremely proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on improving animal welfare standards in farming and right across the board. That includes the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which enshrined animal sentience into UK law and established the Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare; and the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences affecting the health and welfare of farmed animals, zoo animals and pets.
Furthermore, in 2023, the Conservative Government launched the animal health and welfare pathway—a partnership between farmers, vets, the wider industry and the supply chain that supports continual improvement in farm animal health and welfare. It includes access through funded vet visits to testing for priority diseases and to advice, to continually improve the health, welfare and productivity of farmed animals.
His Majesty’s official Opposition support banning cages or close-confinement systems if there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal or bird health and welfare. For example, the keeping of calves in veal crates was banned in 1990, the keeping of sows in close-confinement stalls was, as we have heard today, banned in 1999 and the use of battery cages for laying hens was banned in 2012.
The market itself has also been trying to drive the move towards alternative systems for laying hens—primarily towards free range and barn—and away from the use of cages. That transition to non-cage egg production has been accelerated in recent years by the major supermarkets that pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by 2025. Some supermarkets extended that to products containing liquid or powdered eggs.
Egg producers and consumers should rightly take pride in the quality of British eggs, with around 75% coming from free-range, barn and organic production systems. I hope the Government will continue to work with our farmers, supermarkets and other retailers to help ensure that that figure increases in the years to come.
Positive action taken by the previous Conservative Government is ensuring that animals are slaughtered domestically in high-welfare UK slaughterhouses, which have been fitted with CCTV since 2018. However, Members will be aware of the challenges facing the small abattoir sector, including a shortage of skilled workers, primarily because the jobs are relatively low paid and many people do not consider it an attractive industry to work in.
In 2007, the UK was home to almost 100 small abattoirs. Now it is estimated that only 49 small red meat abattoirs remain in England, Wales and Scotland. If closures continue at the current rate, it is estimated that none will be operating by 2030. It is important to mention that small abattoirs make a significant contribution to supporting the rural economy, enabling farmers to sell their meat locally in farm shops. Importantly—this goes to the point of this animal welfare debate—that maintains good animal health and welfare by reducing journey times to slaughter. The last Government launched the £4 million smaller abattoir fund to support small abattoirs. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what action the Labour Government will take to ensure the long-term viability of the small abattoir sector so that we can reduce journey times for animals to slaughter.
Following our departure from the European Union, the last Government prioritised ensuring that we had some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We must ensure that we do not row back on those standards. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will not weaken any of our high animal welfare standards as part of any shift towards dynamic alignment? Where we have higher standards than the EU—for example, with our ban on live animal exports for slaughter and fattening—does the Minister agree that we should use our influence to encourage the EU to adopt those higher standards?
Furthermore, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for breeding animals and birds that are protected from contracting harmful diseases. That could, for example, mean that birds are resistant to avian influenza, and we have seen the scourge of avian influenza across our country in recent years, devastating some of our poultry flocks. It could also mean developing pigs that are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. This technology can be a win for animal and bird health and welfare, in addition to protecting the environment and public health and—as we have heard today—mitigating antimicrobial resistance by reducing the usage of medicines. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the Government intend to lay the secondary legislation that will enable precision breeding in animals and birds, as they recently did—with cross-party support—for plants and crops? Can he also confirm that, as a result of the recent UK-EU summit, vital legislation on precision breeding will not be repealed or derogated?
We have heard a lot today about negotiating trade agreements, and it is important that within those agreements we uphold our high animal welfare standards. The last Government secured vital animal welfare chapters in both the Australian and the New Zealand trade deals. The UK Government must establish clear red lines in any trade deal with the USA and other countries, ensuring that products such as chlorine-washed poultry, hormone-treated beef and ractopamine-fed pork, or products in which antibiotics have been used as growth promoters, are not permitted to enter the UK market.
Just last year, when the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), served as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade negotiations with Canada due to its insistence on including hormone-treated beef in the agreement. That decisive action sent a strong message that the UK will not compromise on its ban on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork and chlorine-washed chicken products, which are illegal in this country. Standing firm on those standards demonstrates our commitment to animal welfare and signals to the world that if other countries want to trade with us, they must meet our values and our standards. I hope that the current Government continue to follow that Conservative example.
To have and maintain high animal welfare standards on farms, and to ensure the viability and resilience of the sector, the Government must prioritise biosecurity—I have deep affection and respect for the Minister, and he knows where I am going with this. The official Opposition recently supported the statutory instrument, which we laid the foundations for, that removed the 16-week derogation period. As a result, free-range egg producers and packers can label and market eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, as called for by the chief veterinary officer in response to avian influenza, however long that may last.
We have heard a lot today about labelling. The last Government ran a consultation on food labelling, which considered proposals to introduce clearer labelling requirements on the country of origin and the method of production for certain foods. Those proposals sought to improve transparency and consistency around food labelling, making it easier for consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing food and allowing them to choose products that align with their values. The current Government are yet to respond to that consultation, so I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on where they are with that.
In addition, will the Minister please clarify when the Government will close the loophole in the Government buying standards for public procurement, whereby public bodies can deviate from high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost? To set an example to the world, we must get our own house in order, so I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on that.
To have high animal welfare standards, we need healthy animals, and for that we need strong biosecurity. I have long called on the Government to rapidly redevelop the Animal and Plant Health Agency headquarters is in Weybridge, in Surrey. We are extremely grateful for all that it does to keep us safe and for its vigilance in terms of disease surveillance and management on the frontline. It is pivotal in protecting against devastating diseases such as foot and mouth disease, seen this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, and African swine fever, which is advancing up the continent of Europe. Will the Government finish the work the Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion in 2020 to redevelop the APHA headquarters? Labour has repeatedly reannounced £208 million. That is a start, but when will it commit the further £1.4 billion for that critical national infrastructure, for the sake of UK agriculture and our national security?
I pay tribute to all our farmers, growers and producers and to everyone else involved in producing food in our country. Food security is paramount for us, and we must uphold high animal welfare. We owe the people working on the frontline a debt of gratitude; thanks to them, we in this country enjoy a wide range of high-quality meat, poultry and dairy products that have been produced in high welfare standard conditions.
Sadly, farmers face an array of challenges because of the Labour Government’s punitive decisions, from the family farm tax to the closure of the sustainable farming incentive scheme. For the sake of our food, national security, animal health and welfare, and rural mental health, I strongly urge the Minister to consider the consequences of those policies and to stand up for farmers and animals in this country.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I ask him to leave a little time for the mover of the motion to sum up the debate.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
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.
Carla Lockhart
The Minister will be aware that access to veterinary medicines is key for animal welfare. He will know that Northern Ireland continues to face a cliff edge with regards to access to veterinary medicines. Will he commit to update hon. Members interested in this issue quickly, given its impact on the industry?
Daniel Zeichner
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.
Adrian Ramsay
Sir John, I believe that I have two and a half minutes, under the updated timings for this afternoon.
Adrian Ramsay
Thank you Sir John, Mr Vickers, and everybody who has contributed this afternoon on this important topic. We have seen how much interest there is across the House in driving up the animal welfare standards and I very much appreciate the Minister’s response, which set out the plans he already has in train.
I want to respond briefly to some of those points. On the Minister’s plans to review farrowing crates and cages, I look forward to seeing the outcome of that—I think everyone here today does—and I hope there are some big steps forward as a result. I was pleased to hear the answer in relation to maintaining standards in trade, but I did not quite hear the Minister go so far as to say that the Government will not allow imports of products that do not meet UK standards. I would invite him to do that. On enforcement, I did not quite hear the Minister address the need for higher penalties, independent inspections and proper resourcing of agencies for when standards of welfare are breached. That is critical.
Lastly, on size: I take the Minister’s point that it is not the only factor, but look at the size of the Methwold application—it would have involved 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs. How could welfare be maintained at that size, with a tiny handful of staff and a huge impact on sewage and pollution? Given the proliferation of mega-farms, those issues must be tackled.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming.