Support for Pig Farmers

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. We do not hear about pig farming as much as we hear about other farming sectors, but it is essential to our food system and rural economy. While this debate concerns the UK sector, I want to focus on the pressures facing producers in Scotland.

As we have heard, the Scottish pig sector is under enormous strain from low market prices, rising costs, processing constraints and competition from imports. Many farmers are now selling pigs well below the cost of production. NFU Scotland estimates that Scottish members of the United Pig Co-operative lost around £2.7 million in the first four months of this year alone. Some producers were losing up to £37 per pig, while a typical 500-sow unit could face annual losses approaching half a million pounds. Those figures are unsustainable for family farming businesses.

The consequences extend beyond individual farms. Scotland’s pig sector contributes around £300 million to the economy and supports around 2,200 jobs, as well as haulage firms, feed merchants, vets, processors and other rural businesses. Once that critical mass is lost, it will be exceptionally difficult to rebuild. In my constituency, farmers such as Adam Marshall in Berwickshire have spent decades investing in high-quality Scottish pork and adding value through local enterprises, including Reiver Country Farm Foods and Oink. That entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged, but even innovative, well-run family businesses cannot absorb sustained losses indefinitely. If businesses such as Adam’s are struggling despite doing everything right, that should alarm us all.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition of the crisis through their £2 million emergency package for independent producers, but the industry is clear that it does not go far enough; the losses being sustained are far greater than the support on offer. Further assistance will be needed to protect Scotland’s pig sector, rural jobs and domestic food production.

The UK Government must act too. Ministers should urgently convene an industry roundtable and resume regular engagement with the National Pig Association. It is concerning that no bilateral meeting has taken place since November 2024. The Government should review whether the fair dealing obligations are providing the protection that producers were promised, and farmers must not be left carrying an unfair share of commercial risk. We should also strengthen country-of-origin labelling, particularly in food service, so that consumers can support Scottish and British pork produced to high welfare and environmental standards.

Finally, biosecurity must remain a priority. African swine fever poses a serious threat, and robust border controls and disease preparedness are essential for protecting food security and the rural economy. Our pig farmers are resilient and innovative. They are asking not for special treatment, but for fair markets, sensible regulation, meaningful engagement and support proportionate to the crisis. I hope the Minister will listen and act.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to support pig farmers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

This Government are backing the vital British pig sector by delivering fairer supply chains and stronger protections for producers. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025 are ending unfair contract practices, with all pre-existing contracts required to be compliant by 13 August. This will give farmers greater certainty, transparency and confidence to invest, grow their businesses, and strengthen the long-term resilience of the sector.

[John Lamont]

Will the Minister join me in praising all of our fantastic pig farmers—including Adam Marshall from Berwickshire—who do an incredible job in very difficult circumstances? The National Pig Association believes that independent pig producers are currently losing as much as £50 per pig, which is clearly not sustainable for any business. What consideration has the Minister made of the adequacy of the 2025 Regulations, especially regarding imbalances in power and price abuse?

[Stephen Morgan]

I pay tribute to all those who work in the pig sector across our country. I recognise the challenges that pig farmers are facing. This Government are taking action to strengthen protections for pig farmers, particularly where there are severe losses and disruption, as the sector has been facing in recent years. We will ensure fairer, more transparent contracts to build a resilient and profitable industry.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I was at the Royal Highland Show last week and farmers from across the UK were in their usual high spirits, but there is a real concern about the profitability and the future of farming. The SPS agreement, the price of fuel, red tape, the family farm tax and fertiliser are all big concerns. What specifically are the Government doing to address those concerns?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the show. I was not able to attend, but it is good that he and other Members were there. We are addressing all those different issues. On the SPS deal, as I said to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), we are very aware of the concerns of the NFU and, indeed, the farmers’ union in Scotland. I engaged with them only last month. We cannot give a running commentary, but I do want to see a smooth transition so that farmers are ready for that change.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

The Solicitor General was asked—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

1. What steps she is taking to increase prosecution rates for grooming gang perpetrators.

[The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)]

This Government remain absolutely committed to stamping out the appalling crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse. The national inquiry chaired by Baroness Longfield is due to start in March. The Crown Prosecution Service has seen a 25% increase in child sex abuse prosecutions over the past three years. In December, it secured convictions against two men in Bury for crimes during the 1990s, resulting in sentences of 28 and 30 years. We are dedicated to ensuring that victims continue to receive the justice they deserve.

[John Lamont]

Baroness Casey’s audit of group-based child sexual exploitation found

“a collective failure to properly deter and prosecute offenders or to protect children from harm.”

These crimes happen across borders and in every part of the United Kingdom, so what more can be done to ensure that prosecution services, including the CPS and Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, take a joined-up approach to bringing these vile offenders to justice?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Many of the local services under review in the national inquiry starting in March, particularly child protection and policing, are devolved responsibilities in Scotland and Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the Scottish Government have finally ordered a national review of the evidence on the operation of grooming gangs in Scotland. All parts of the UK must work together to protect children and bring perpetrators to justice.

Food Inflation

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of food inflation on the cost of living.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which I requested in October last year, and to those colleagues who are here today to speak in the debate and supported the application to the Committee.

We know that, whatever our political persuasion, politics at its best is about values. I came into politics to do everything I could to ensure that every single child in every single family has the best possible start in life. How do we measure that? How do we track progress on this fundamental principle, so crucial to who we are as a society? We know that the cumulative effect of inflation meant that UK food prices rose by a total of 38.6% between November 2020 and 2025. An element of that, of course, is linked to energy inputs into food processing.

I hope there is a consensus, right across the political divide, that the most basic indicator of whether every child has the best start in life is whether every single family, whatever their circumstances, can afford decent, nutritious food. Without first applying that most fundamental of benchmarks, how on earth can we even begin to think about ensuring that every young person has the chance to thrive in school, in work and in life?

Surely we can all agree, across the political spectrum, that the existence of food banks for families in 2026 is a stain on our conscience. I pay tribute to the great work of the Middle Lane food bank and all the other food banks in my constituency, with wonderful volunteers—faith groups, charities and local grassroots people, doing their best every day to ensure that every family has access to quality, nutritious food—but why are we having to do that?

I will be asking the Minister to commit to ending the need for food banks for families by the end of this Parliament, to work with colleagues on the possibility of an essentials guarantee in our social security system, to ensure that local housing allowance keeps up with the reality of rental costs and to investigate a publicly backed food hub or wholesale platform that could create more inclusive local communities.

I am so pleased that the two-child cap on universal credit has now been scrapped—a decision made since I lodged the request for this debate. From April this year, that policy change will go to the heart of what we need: a society where everyone can thrive, and the change that people voted for in July 2024.

Why do we not have an economy that works for everyone? Maybe we need to start by looking back into history. During the second world war, as all kinds of items became scarce, the rationing system tried to ensure an equitable distribution of all the essentials, but there was one exception: eating out was off the ration. So long as people could afford to go to the Ritz, the Carlton or another nice restaurant, they did not need to give a second thought to rationing. The Government then, working hard to at least give the impression of equality, decided in 1942 to cap restaurant meals at five shillings—I am told that is £21.70 in today’s money—and limit them to three courses.

Much has changed, of course; in 1945, the Labour Government rebuilt the country, introduced the national health service and built the welfare state. However, if we are to make any honest and thoughtful assessment of how far we have come since 1945, the first thing we need to look at is whether every family can afford nutritious food, without having to make the choice to go without it.

The Trussell Trust’s second “Hunger in the UK” report found that, in 2024, 14.1 million people, including 3.8 million children, lived in food-insecure households. In the borough of Haringey, of which most of my constituency forms a part, 3,938 households are likely to be facing food poverty. The report also found that the risk of hunger can be a lottery, depending where people live; households in the most deprived areas in the UK are three times as likely to be food insecure as households in the least deprived areas.

Some groups of people also face much higher risks of hunger and food bank use than others. In the Trussell community in 2024, three in four people were disabled. One in three children under the age of five are now growing up in a food-insecure household.

There has also been a growth in the number of people in working households being referred to food banks; they now represent nearly a third of referrals. More than two thirds of those working households are on incomes so low that they are also in receipt of universal credit. Most alarmingly of all, hardship is becoming normalised; the report says that 61% of people who experienced food insecurity did not consider themselves to be facing hardship, meaning that they did not really want to turn to a food bank for support. Families going without food no longer even consider themselves to be in hardship.

How did we get here? It is an income problem, a poverty problem and a structural problem, and we need to have an honest conversation about that. Over half of people receiving universal credit experienced hunger last year and 87% of people referred to food banks were in receipt of means-tested benefits. Families struggling to afford food also generally struggle to afford other essentials. For example, people referred to food banks in the Trussell community in 2024 on average had just £104 a week to live on after housing costs—just 17% of what the average household across the UK has. Ultimately, the need for food banks is about incomes, not food; it is an inability to afford food and, of course, other essentials such as rent, clothing and toiletries.

We need to recognise the issues that bring households to a point where they cannot cover the cost of both food and other essentials. Real median household incomes have fallen and wage growth has failed to keep up with the cost of living. Meanwhile, private rents have also risen at record rates, made worse by the failure of housing benefit and the failure—for quite some time now—to have sufficient housing supply to reduce the cost of rent. In 2024, half of all private renters receiving social security for housing costs experienced food insecurity and those households on the lowest incomes have suffered the most. The Food Foundation estimates that since April 2022 the price of a typical basket of food has increased by nearly a third.

We also know that the prices of cheaper food rose at a much higher rate than the prices of more expensive food.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She is right to highlight the issue of inflation, especially food inflation, but does she also recognise that although the price of food is going up, the food producers, predominantly farmers, are not seeing a similar rise in the income they get for producing that valuable food?

[Catherine West]

Indeed; if the hon. Gentleman is a listener to “Farming Today”, which I listen to in the mornings, he will know that the price of milk goes up and down, which makes it very hard for dairy farmers to survive. I agree that there is something there, and I am sure the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been looking at it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate, throughout which we have heard valuable contributions from Members rightly raising concerns on behalf of their constituents. We all know that food inflation significantly impacts the cost of living by eroding household purchasing power, and that it disproportionately affects those in low-income households, leading to food insecurity. Just last November, 61% of adults in Great Britain reported an increased cost of living compared to the previous month. Much of the reason for that was linked to the inflation of food prices.

I join Members across the House in thanking those who are going out of their way to support those who need it in their own constituencies, not only with advice but through operating food banks and providing comfort and support. Imogen and her team in the Salvation Army in Keighley, who I have met many a time, do fantastic work to help families not only in Keighley but across the wider Worth valley area in my constituency. I pay particular tribute to her and her team.

[John Lamont]

During this debate, much discussion has been about food banks. It is important that we also recognise food larders—I have a number in my constituency —where large shops and supermarkets donate their food at the end of the day or before the sell-by date. They minimise food waste and enable people to access low-cost or free food that they would otherwise have to pay for.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point about county lines. The CPS has significantly increased its provision of early advice for county lines cases, working with law enforcement to ensure that all cases are as strong as possible. The CPS has prosecution guidance on county lines, which provides an overview of the approach to be taken in criminal investigations and prosecutions, as well as practical advice on decision making in gang-related offences and on building the strongest possible case. The Crime and Policing Bill will introduce two new offences that are relevant in this area: those of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Rural and farm crime is a big problem in my constituency in the Scottish Borders which operates across the border between Scotland and England. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with authorities in Scotland to ensure higher prosecution rates for those operating cross-border?

[The Solicitor General]

I set out some of the measures that this Government are taking to tackle rural crime, but I am happy to take up that issue with the Secretary of State for Scotland to see what more cross-border work can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, that payment has outraged customers, and I have asked Ofwat to assess its legality as a matter of urgency. I will not tolerate any company attempting to circumvent this Government’s ban on unfair bonuses through exorbitant salary increases, secret bonuses, payments through parent companies, or any other deception. If Ofwat finds that the rules have been broken, companies will face sanctions, including fines imposed at a level that will deter future abuses.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

State-owned Scottish Water is responsible for the water supply across Scotland. Last week, thousands of residents in the Scottish Borders were left without water for days, and terrible communication by Scottish Water made matters worse. We were facing a public health crisis, as well as an animal welfare crisis. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government should undertake a full investigation into what happened and ensure that Scottish Water executives are held to account for their failure to act?

Independent Water Commission

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is a vocal champion for his constituents. He is quite right to demand more compensation when outages happen, and an ombudsman. That is what the Government will provide, so that we can give better support to customers who are let down by the water companies. We are on the side of bill payers and the environment; the previous Government were on the side of neither.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Between 2018 and 2022, untreated sewage was released just over 58,000 times from Scottish sewer overflows, and more than half of wild swimming spots in Scotland contain unsafe levels of sewage, so whatever model the Government decide to adopt for the regulation of the water industry in England, will the Secretary of State assure me that they will not follow the Scottish Government’s failed model?

[Steve Reed]

I completely agree with the hon. Member, who accurately pointed to the failures of both the SNP Government in Scotland and the nationalised model, which does not fix the problems.

Global Plastics Treaty

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. I voted in favour of that initiative when it came before us, and the banning of disposable plastic vapes was very welcome.

Too much waste still ends up in incinerators. Sometimes, what we think will be repurposed or recycled is in fact burned. The number of incinerators in the UK has risen from 38 to 52 in the last five years. This is the dirtiest form of energy production, releasing more greenhouse gases than any other method.

While my constituents may have been enjoying their ice creams at Seaton or walking the south-west coast path during the recent heatwave, these hotter summers are a stark reminder of our collective failure to tackle climate change. If we can increase the amount of plastic we reuse and create the circular economy that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, we can use less disposable plastic and less single-use plastic, and therefore reduce carbon emissions.

Germany is the leading recycler of municipal waste in the European Union, which is partly down to its deposit refund scheme. Recycling rates on plastic bottles have reached an outstanding 98% in Germany. I have to acknowledge that it is thanks to the measures the Government introduced in January that a deposit return scheme for plastic and metal containers will go live in the UK in 2027. This scheme, which will offer a small refund for returning bottles and cans in the UK, is a practical step towards reusing plastic.

Although national action is welcome, we need to match our own UK action with international action, and the UK can be a real leader in this space. We can press for our ambition to be matched by other countries in the global plastics treaty negotiations. We must push for legally binding targets to reduce plastic production elsewhere, not just voluntary pledges. We offshore a lot of our production—including to China, which accounts for 40% of the world’s plastic production. We know that the carbon emissions produced as a result are staggering, and we must do something about them. If the Government are serious about deepening ties with Beijing, they must also be serious about holding it to account, and that starts with applying pressure at the global plastics treaty negotiations next month.

As we know, the US President has never been a great advocate for tackling climate change or reducing plastic waste. He made that abundantly clear in his attention-seeking stunt in February, when he proudly brought back plastic straws. At the heads of delegation meeting earlier this month, the US backtracked on its previous position. It walked away from earlier commitments on control measures and financing, and came out firmly against plastic production caps. The Prime Minister has explicitly cited family values as a foundation of his strong relationship with the US President. Could the Minister urge the Prime Minister to leverage that personal connection, and ask the President to consider not just global leadership, but the world that his own family will inherit? We have to consider young people in this picture, and for that we will need serious and concrete commitments at the global plastics treaty negotiations.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, much of which I agree with. I am sure that he, like me, visits many schools. Does he agree that when he visits them and speaks to young people, they are very, very concerned about the environment, and in particular plastic pollution? In many ways, our great hope is that their laser focus on this issue will be reflected in the policy of future generations and that plastic production is reduced.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Gentleman is dead right. Children from Sidmouth primary school wrote to me earlier in the year, urging me to advocate for reduced plastic use and for cutting down our plastic use. I quoted them in a debate and the Minister for Nature, who is no longer in her place, summed up the debate with their words.

Let us be honest: voluntary efforts have failed. The World Wildlife Fund reports that in the past five years plastic pollution has increased by 50%, despite a 60% rise in national and voluntary initiatives. The treaty must therefore tackle the source of the problem—the production of plastic—and confront the power of the fossil fuel lobby, which is desperately trying to water down the talks. At last year’s round of negotiations, 220 fossil fuel lobbyists were present in Busan. Their goal was to protect their own profit, not the planet. We cannot allow short-term commercial interests to derail the long-term health of our oceans and communities. Plastic production is forecast to triple by 2040. If we do not act, no recycling scheme will be enough.

I will hand my last paragraph to the children at Sidmouth primary school. They want to see “deeds, not words”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. Let me highlight one point that he made about the circular economy. He said that if we get the regulation and the incentives right, it would be good not only for the environment, but for business and the economy. That is an important point to keep emphasising.

I would like to use the short amount of time that I have to talk about how we can connect this global issue to our local communities. Let me start with the global problem. Every year, more than 12 million tonnes of plastic are dumped in our oceans—I did hear 11 million tonnes from my right hon. Friend. Whichever it is, it is obviously on a huge scale. This is not just a statistic; it represents an utter crisis—one that affects marine life, ecosystems, and, ultimately, us as well.

To many people, a UN treaty might seem a bit abstract and remote. Some will even go as far as saying that it is not worth the debate time in this Chamber because it is too hard to imagine the average person bringing it up on the doorstep. However, I do not think that is right, because it matters and the population have shown that they care about this issue.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the popularity of Attenborough’s TV documentary and how that has ignited people’s interest. I certainly have this issue raised time and again with me. People have also noticed the impact on their local environment. Unlike my right hon. Friend, I do not have oceans anywhere near my London constituency, but I have a beautiful chalk stream that runs all the way through it. People see the litter and they care about it, and they see the plastic damage in particular. We have introduced new monitoring systems to understand the damage that some of these microplastics can do. People are incredibly proud of their local surroundings, and it is not too big a step for them to think about the oceans across the world when they are thinking about their local area.

As has already been mentioned, not just adults are starting to care more. This is a totemic issue for the next generation. I recently received a bundle of passionate letters from a year 4 class at Culvers House primary school. I say passionate because, at times, I think they were a little harsh on me. I will not take it personally, because I think they were directing their anger at politicians in general. They were at pains to point out that we were not doing enough or moving fast enough. They were quite clear about their demands, and they went into a lot of detail. They told me about their concern for our oceans, for the turtles and fish that are harmed by plastic, and for the future of the planet. Reading their letters one afternoon, I found them pretty powerful and it reminded me of the duty that we all have to act now.

When we talk about the global plastics treaty, it is important that we keep making it relevant to our local communities. It is clearly a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a legally binding agreement that tackles plastic processing at every stage of the lifecycle. For the agreement to work, it has to be ambitious, enforceable, and supported by everybody. Taking the public with us on this issue is going to get more difficult. There are people even in this Chamber who will push back against it, saying that it is a waste of time, that it is a problem to be solved by others elsewhere, but we will have to keep building that support.

In doing so, we have to reverse where the pressure is brought to bear. For a long time, the pressure has been on all of us to be more responsible consumers. Consumers have played their part. They have been willing to put up with recycling yoghurt pots, washing them out in the sink. They have taken on wooden forks and spoons. They have even put up with paper straws. They have done so, despite the pain that all of those things can be compared with what we had before. They have played their part and now it is our turn in this place to put the pressure back on to producers to make sure that they play their part as well. That does not mean that we should not listen to producers when they highlight problems with the schemes we create—for instance, the Government’s extended producer responsibility schemes, which are meant to introduce financial responsibility across the full lifecycle of products. There are sometimes issues with the implementation of schemes. I am hearing from pubs and the hospitality industry about the undue burden that can be placed on small businesses, and we need to work out mechanisms for correcting unintended consequences of such policies.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is making a very good speech. I agree with him about the need to take the public and business with us. In Scotland we had a real challenge with the deposit return scheme that the Scottish Government tried to impose, because business was up in arms about it, and it was going to impact on the internal market. Does he agree that that is an example of where it can go very badly wrong if we do not take the public and business with us?

[Bobby Dean]

I do agree; if we close our ears, we will miss these problems, frustrate the public and lose their support. If we listen hard, we can fix the schemes and rescue the action we want to take in this place to help the whole environment. If we do not do that, the other side will win the argument and shut down the sort of initiatives we need to see. We need to keep listening as we introduce these schemes and make sure that the public and small businesses do not feel fatigued by them.

I hope I am making clear that this is not just about treaties and targets but about protecting our rivers and oceans across the world. It is about linking to our communities and maintaining their support and listening to the voices of young people, like those in year 4 at Culvers House primary school. I want to end with something that I have definitely stolen from a work experience student this week. She said to me that we are burdening future generations with plastic debt, and it is about time we started paying it back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Of course—absolutely. We are always working in collaboration, and we will do everything we can to ensure that. It is an important principle that has been established, and I am determined to ensure that it is successful.

Next month, at the resumed fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, we will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious and effective international agreement to end plastic pollution. We want a treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a circular economy. The UK has been a key advocate for an effective treaty throughout and is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution—a coalition of nearly 70 countries from across all regions of the world.

At INC5, the UK joined over 80 other ambitious countries to make clear the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. Recently, at the UN ocean conference in Nice, we joined nearly 100 countries in signing the Nice wake-up call for an ambitious international treaty to end plastic pollution. Those demonstrate the commitment to reaching an agreement at INC5.2 in August and the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. I am proud of the leadership role that the UK has taken in the negotiations, and we continue to take significant action to drive ambition and demonstrate leadership.

[John Lamont]

The Minister is right to highlight the leading role that the UK has played in this matter, under both the current Government and, in particular, the previous Government. The last negotiations and progress towards the treaty came to a halt because Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia basically imposed a time limit, which meant that the treaty could not be agreed. What discussions are taking place behind the scenes to ensure that countries like those three will not do the same and stall our agreement on the treaty this time?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s well-informed intervention. I assure him that negotiations and discussions are ongoing, and we are determined to ensure that we get a good outcome.

As well as leading early work to develop criteria for problematic plastic products since the second negotiating session, INC2, the UK is co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design, and co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic.

Driven Grouse Shooting

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700036 relating to driven grouse shooting.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I have been asked to open this debate, and it is my duty to present the petition reasonably and fairly. After doing so, I will share other views on the issue of driven grouse shooting, particularly those from the rural communities where grouse shooting occurs.

I begin by thanking the various organisations and individuals I met ahead of the debate, including petitioner Chris Packham, Wild Justice, the British Association for Conservation and Shooting, the Countryside Alliance, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—I see many of them in the Public Gallery. I should also mention the many people who spoke to me about shooting and this debate during my recent visit to the Royal Highland Show. I also thank the amazing team at the Petitions Committee for setting up many of my meetings and discussions.

I know this issue generates strong opinions on both sides of the debate. The petition states that,

“driven grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife…grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s extensive uplands.”

The petition seeks to ban driven grouse shooting. I note that it is the third petition by the creators, who are concerned about wildlife persecution, environmental impact and ethical issues. I question their position and will probe the validity of many of their conclusions, but I thank them for bringing the issue forward for debate.

The petition received 104,000 signatures, which reflects the strength of feeling that some people have on this issue. However, I must present alternative views and a fuller picture of the reality of grouse shooting. Although the petition is welcome, its proponents unfortunately do not seem to have a real grasp of the activity or a clear understanding of the benefits it brings to communities up and down Scotland, and indeed the whole United Kingdom. I do not doubt the petitioners’ sincere and good intentions, but I note that, regrettably, there is often a great deal of misinformation surrounding grouse shooting.

Having spoken to many organisations that hold different views, and having canvassed a wide range of opinions, I am pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight by sharing the realities of grouse shooting. I do so as the Member of Parliament for the Scottish Borders. Mine is one of the country’s more rural and remote constituencies, and grouse shooting occurs there and provides great benefit to our economy, environment and communities, as it does in many other areas the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Let us consider the economic realities of grouse shooting. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has conducted research showing that grouse shooting contributes £23 million in gross value added to the Scottish economy. The wider shooting sector is worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy every year. The economic benefits of grouse shooting are crystal clear. All that funding contributes to local economies, particularly in rural and remote areas where jobs are already scarcer.

Activists in favour of a ban claim that the industry has small economic value. They should tell that to those managing the land who have a job because of the industry. They should tell that to those running the hotels and bed and breakfasts that are sustained by it. They should tell that to those who run the small shops and stores that get by because of it. They should tell that to those working in the tourism industry that grouse shooting supports. They should tell that to the extended network of restaurants and bars that survive because of it. And they should tell that to the United Kingdom Treasury, which receives the tax revenues generated by the workers who pay income tax and by the businesses that pay myriad taxes because of the industry.

The economic reality of grouse shooting is clear: it provides jobs, supports small business and sustains the rural economy. Let us look at the facts: grouse moors in England and Scotland alone support around 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs. That figure focuses on people directly employed in the industry, not the vast numbers of jobs that rely on it in some other way.

In my discussions with various groups, including the League Against Cruel Sports, it is accepted that a ban would mean job losses, but how would those jobs be replaced? Activists seeking a ban must answer that question, and not with fantasy and fanciful wishes of jobs that will likely never come to fruition. They must outline clearly what happens to those workers. How many would lose their jobs if a ban went ahead? What happens to those small businesses, and how many would shut up shop? What happens to rural economies? How many people would be forced to leave rural areas in search of a better livelihood if a ban occurred, and what would that mean for rural areas already suffering from depopulation?

I put some of those questions directly to the activists in several meetings with them prior to this debate. The responses were, to put it mildly, not encouraging. Vague and hazy ideas that there should be a more sustainable economic model, without any proposals for what should be done, have no merit. Some activists, although not all, have a brazen disregard for these jobs and businesses, and for the economic damage a ban would cause. Some even brazenly state that the money should be spent on other rural activities, as if the state could or should direct exactly how to use private land, or how citizens should spend their own money. Those are not serious suggestions, and we should not treat them as such.

As the Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation have made clear, grouse shooting underpins rural economies, jobs and land management—without it, investment and employment would decline sharply. I know that a small number of people argue that the economic benefits should be ignored because of grouse shooting’s supposed cost to the environment. I value jobs, businesses, livelihoods, economic growth and tax revenue too highly to agree with that argument. But for a moment, I will play along and set aside those important considerations. Even doing so, ignoring all of the industry’s economic benefits, the position of activists in favour of a ban is fundamentally flawed.

It is the contention of activists that grouse shooting somehow harms the environment, the countryside and biodiversity. They are fundamentally and conclusively wrong. This sector does not harm the environment; it protects it. It does not damage the countryside; it maintains it. It does not risk biodiversity; it enhances it. Studies have shown that grouse shooting scores highly not just on the economics but on environmental sustainability grounds too.

Before I return to the positives for wildlife and biodiversity, let us look at the benefits for the land itself —for maintaining the countryside’s beauty. The Country Land and Business Association has shown that grouse moor owners in England spend £52.5 million every year on moorland management. Grouse moors account for up to 1.8 million hectares of the uplands. All of that land is preserved only by the hard work of land managers, and they do so for the benefit of not only themselves but the country—for the benefit of our environment and countryside.

BASC cites research that shows that grouse moors have restored 27,000 hectares of bare peat in the last 20 years. Those moors store between 11% and 35% of England’s total peatland carbon, but emit only between 1% and 5% of total peatland carbon emissions. The evidence shows that grouse shooting lowers carbon emissions and helps to tackle climate change.

As I heard in many discussions, grouse shooting happens on UK uplands, which are home to 75% of the world’s remaining heather moorland. Heather is an emblem of Scotland and Britain. It is a great symbol of our country’s natural beauty. These heather moorlands have been described as Britain’s rainforest. They are a natural feature that we should cherish and celebrate, but they are not maintained by some stroke of luck. They are protected only by the efforts of land managers and the practice of grouse shooting.

Organisations told me that grouse mainly eat the young shoots, seeds and flowers of heather, so moors must be managed properly or they could be eroded. The Country Land and Business Association says that the managing of moors for grouse maintains heather-dominated habitat better than other uses of the land. As it rightly pointed out, if gamekeepers were not present to preserve the land, it would have to be protected at significant cost to taxpayers.

As I have mentioned, grouse shooting is important not only for the maintenance of the land itself, but for the wildlife that inhabits it. It is estimated that two thirds of shooting activity controls pests and predators to protect wildlife, and around half manages woodlands, covers crops and puts out feed for songbirds over the winter months. The CLA has also demonstrated that in areas where grouse moor management has ceased, such as Dartmoor, populations of ground-nesting birds have reduced.

A study of upland breeding birds in parts of England and Scotland found that densities of golden plover and lapwing were up to five times greater on managed grouse moors compared with unmanaged moorland. Curlew doubled in number on managed moorland, with redshank also found to be more abundant. Hen harrier numbers increased seven years in a row, hitting a record high in 2023. The BASC also says that predator control of foxes, corvids and mustelids protects many threatened nesting species, such as curlew and lapwing. These birds are five times more common on managed grouse moors than elsewhere in the uplands. Where predator control is stopped, their numbers crash.

Our countryside would not only be less beautiful without grouse shooting; it would be much quieter and less biodiverse. We would lose the idyllic sounds that captivate so many birdwatchers and bring enjoyment to everyone who spends time in the British countryside. Despite claims to the contrary, grouse shooting protects a wide range of biodiversity and wildlife, in part because the industry is regulated effectively and because crimes are prosecuted.

I know that some groups, including the RSPB, would like to see tougher punishments for offenders. That is worth exploring for people who break the law, but that does not apply to the overwhelming majority of gamekeepers and land managers. Shooting organisations have a zero-tolerance policy on unlawful acts, and anyone convicted will face a large fine or potentially jail time. The issue is devolved, meaning it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government in Scotland. They have introduced a licensing system for the shooting of red grouse, which has its flaws but works adequately in other respects.

I conclude by reiterating what the consequences would be if the grouse shooting industry were banned: jobs and businesses at risk, rural economies ruined, lower tax revenue for public services, increased land management costs for taxpayers, more wildlife at risk and less biodiversity, the environment harmed and the countryside damaged. That is why, despite what a small number of activists would like to do, I oppose a ban on this crucial sector.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

Mrs Harris, you will be relieved to hear that I will not take the remaining hour to conclude the debate. I thank the petitioners; I thank the Petitions Committee for facilitating the debate; and I thank the 104,000 people who signed the petition. I suspect those people will be a little surprised by the lack of balance in this debate. I will come on to that shortly, but I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak); my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith); the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon); the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke); the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore); and the Minister. I thank them all for their remarks.

I think we all agree that any illegal behaviour should be dealt with very severely, including any killing of birds that is against the law. Part of the challenge is about police resourcing. Whether it is in my constituency, which is very rural and remote, or in other parts of the United Kingdom, ensuring that the police have sufficient resources to take action against those who act illegally is a real challenge, and that is a point of agreement on both sides of this debate.

I was struck by the personal experiences of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who spoke powerfully in favour of grouse shooting, and I pay tribute to him for sharing that with us. The reality is that those of us who represent rural constituencies—as many of us do— understand the importance of grouse shooting to our communities. Whether it is for jobs, wildlife, the environment, biodiversity, shops and businesses or the sustainability of our rural communities, grouse shooting plays a key part.

With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam, her constituency presents a unique challenge in its proximity to the moors. The reality is that, for those of us living and working in those communities, it is an essential part of our life and of maintaining our environment and biodiversity. I am therefore pleased to hear that the Labour Government have no plans to ban grouse shooting, which is a policy that I wholeheartedly endorse.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 700036 relating to driven grouse shooting.