Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Clauses 2 to 5 stand part.

Amendment 1, in the schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) In subsection (2), omit “(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)”.

(3B) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless—

(a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or

(b) it is within sight of a person and the person—

(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and

(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.””

This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.

The schedule.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a director of a veterinary business.

I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee to consider this important Bill, which will do so much for animal welfare and supporting our farming communities. The Bill was initially introduced in the last Parliament. I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to see it progress, and I welcome the new Government’s continuing the support for the legislation.

I have spoken to farmers in Chester South and Eddisbury who have seen their livestock brutally attacked. I have heard at first hand the very real impacts, both emotionally and financially, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will set out why the Bill is vital to help better protect livestock, support farmers and enable more effective enforcement and efficient use of police time.

The financial impacts of livestock attacks are substantial. The National Farmers Union estimates that UK farm animals worth approximately £1.8 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2024. But it is not just the financial cost to which I wish to draw attention; there is also an animal welfare cost to livestock worrying.

I represent a largely rural constituency, where the predominant mode of farming is beef and dairy. I met a farmer from Kelsall, a rural village in my constituency, who showed me pictures of his cattle following a livestock attack. A dog had broken into a barn where calves were resting and had attacked them in their pens. I am sure the Committee does not need me to go into detail about the extent to which the calves were injured. Needless to say, it was a horrific attack. That is just one example, but there can be other horrific consequences. If attacked, pregnant livestock often miscarry, and there are instances of mothers being separated from their young, leading to hypothermia and starvation.

Let us also not forget the human toll of a livestock attack. I have only seen pictures of the aftermath—thankfully, I have never seen an attack unfold before my eyes—but for farmers witnessing it, it can be extremely emotionally distressing. Of course, we want and need to see dog owners behaving responsibly in the countryside, but we must recognise that there is a gap in existing legislation to support a more effective and efficient collection of evidence following an attack, and to implement the necessary deterrents to better encourage responsible ownership and handling of dogs around livestock. It is for those reasons that I have introduced the Bill, and why we must pass it. I will now set out the Bill’s clauses and explain why they are necessary.

Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule, which sets out amendments to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, relating to scope and the consequences of an offence. Times have changed since the 1953 Act came into force. The number of livestock farmed in England and Wales has doubled, bringing agriculture closer to those of us who use the countryside recreationally. The Bill is intended to tackle the issue of livestock worrying in a way that constructively strengthens existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying and attacks.

In doing so, the Bill focuses on three key areas. First, it will modernise the definitions and scope of the 1953 Act and extend the locations and species in scope—to include roads and paths, and to cover species such as camelids. Secondly, important changes will be made to strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs and the collection of evidence where samples and impressions can be taken from dogs and injured livestock. Finally, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent.

Clause 2 will amend existing powers available to the police to seize and detain dogs suspected of having attacked or worried livestock. Existing legislation allows the police to seize an unaccompanied dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock, to identify the owner of the dog and to detain it until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses.

The Bill will go further, providing greater clarity and confidence to farmers. The proposed reforms extend the powers so that the police can seize and detain a dog that they have reasonable grounds to believe has attacked or worried livestock and may attack or worry livestock again, for the purpose of preventing repeat incidents. Extending the police powers is crucial, and it is appropriate that the deterrent properly reflects the significant consequences of an attack. Clause 2 addresses the limited scope of current powers at the disposal of the police and strengthens deterrence, helping to address the issue of reoffending.

Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act explain that a police constable may seize and detain a dog that they believe to have

“attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and nobody present…admits to being the dog’s owner or in charge of it.”

Building on the current power in section 2(2) of the 1953 Act, proposed new subsection (2) sets out for how long a dog seized under subsection (1) may be detained, namely

“until the owner has claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by reason of its seizure and detention.”

To give greater clarity, subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to explain that seized dogs may be disposed of if the owner does not claim the dog and pay the associated expenses of seizure and detention within seven days. They clarify that if the police gift or sell the unclaimed dog to someone, that person becomes the dog’s owner.

Subsections (5) and (6) explain what kind of register is to be kept of seized dogs. The register must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and, if the dog is disposed of, how. The register must be available for inspection by the public and free of charge.

Subsection (7) explains that the disposing of a dog under proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act includes:

“causing it to be disposed of, and destroying it or causing it to be destroyed, but does not include disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.”

Subsections (8) and (9) explain that a dog may be seized and detained until the end of court proceedings if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog may otherwise pose a risk of attacking or worrying livestock again. Quite often, the dog owner has shown no signs of taking preventive measures against attacks or worrying following previous incidents, such as by putting their dog on a lead near livestock when the dog has previously shown signs of being dangerously out of control or has attacked or worried livestock. Both those factors could be considered relevant to a constable’s assessment of whether they believe that a dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock could do so again.

Finally, section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906—so far as still in force by virtue of section 68(2) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—will be repealed, as it is no longer needed in consequence of the provision made by clause 2.

Clause 3 will introduce new powers to improve the police’s ability to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock by enabling the collection of samples and impressions. This concern was raised directly with me by farmers in my constituency. Farms are businesses, so when a livestock attack takes place, it is understandable that farmers should seek justice. If there was an arson attack on a shop, for instance, I am sure we would all agree that the perpetrator should be held to account for their actions. Attacks on livestock too often go unprosecuted because collecting evidence takes too long and the powers afforded to the police to do so are limited.

Subsections (1) to (4) of proposed new section 2ZA of the 1953 Act will enable a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog believed to have attacked or worried livestock, or from livestock, where this might provide evidence of an offence having been committed under section 1 of that Act. Crucially, subsection (5) explains:

“If taking a sample or impression…would amount to veterinary surgery, it must be done by a veterinary surgeon.”

Subsection (6) explains how long samples or impressions may be retained:

“A sample or impression taken…may be retained until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 1 has been committed…or if proceedings are brought…until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.”

Veterinary bodies, forensic specialists and the police have been consulted on this new provision, affording them the opportunity to feed into its development.

Lastly, subsection (7) defines the meaning of the words “sample”, “veterinary surgeon” and “veterinary surgery” for the purpose of clause 3. These are all important steps to increase the effective collection of evidence following an attack.

Clause 4 will enable a justice of the peace, also known as a magistrate, to authorise the police to enter and search premises where they believe there is a dog that has attacked or worried livestock. Currently, the police can enter and search premises with a warrant from a justice of the peace to identify a dog that is believed to have worried livestock. It is proposed to extend this to allow the police also to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize and detain the dog, as outlined in clause 2; to take a sample or impression, as outlined in clause 3; or to search for and seize evidence of an offence.

Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2A of the 1953 Act will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to identify, seize and detain, or to take samples or impressions from, a dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. Subsections (3) and (4) will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to seize any evidence of an offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act. Examples of such evidence could include a bloody collar or towel. Subsection (5) sets out that the warrant may authorise the police to use reasonable force, if necessary.

These new powers are needed to allow the police to gather evidence to investigate these crimes effectively. I have already touched on the frustration that farmers feel when an attack goes unprosecuted, and this Bill will help to increase the chances of a just outcome.

Clause 5 includes a standard provision on the extent, commencement and short title of the Act, once it receives Royal Assent. The Act will extend to England and Wales. I felt it was important to speak to people on both sides of the border to better understand the situation in Wales; I put on record my thanks to Rob Taylor, the Welsh wildlife and rural police and crime co-ordinator, for his work in this field over many years, and for taking the time to meet me to talk through livestock worrying in Wales and offer his support for the Bill.

The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed. Clause 5 also includes transitional provision to clarify the availability of the new powers in clauses 2 to 4 in relation to any, or any alleged, incident of livestock worrying or attack that takes place before the Bill comes into force. The Act’s short title will be the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025.

The schedule to the Bill will make several amendments to the 1953 Act to extend its scope. It also provides clarity on offences, the applicable penalty and court powers. Specifically, paragraph 1 brings incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock on roads or paths within the scope of the offence in section 1 of the Act. This will provide greater protection for livestock in instances where they are moved along a road or path to another field or a milking parlour, for example.

For clarity, paragraph 1 also updates the terminology used in relation to attacks. “Attacking” livestock is dealt with separately from “worrying” livestock. The term “worrying” may dismiss the severity of some offences. Adding the word “attacking” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. The provision will not create a new offence, but will clarify the language throughout the 1953 Act. Both attacking and worrying are already covered in that Act; however, that is not clear throughout.

Paragraph 1 also sets out the penalty for the offence in section 1 of the 1953 Act. It is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. It is worth noting that the level of fines will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive, and farmers can still seek compensation through civil claims. Paragraph 1 will amend the 1953 Act to exempt a dog owner from liability for an offence under section 1 where they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person at the time without the owner’s consent, such as if the dog had been stolen.

Paragraph 1 will also empower a court to order a convicted offender to pay expenses associated with the seizure and detention of a dog, irrespective of whether the court imposes a fine for the offence. Any sum that a person is ordered to pay will be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were compensation payable under a compensation order. Paragraph 2 expands the definition of “livestock” in the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas, as they are commonly farmed.

I will take a moment to address the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank her for agreeing to sit on this Committee and for her support. We are often in rural affairs debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall together, and her contributions are always well informed. As a farmer herself, I am sure she will agree that the Bill is necessary and welcome.

The hon. Lady’s amendment would require that a dog be kept on a lead of 1.8 metres or less in a field or enclosure containing sheep, or in sight of the person in charge, who should be confident that the dog will recall on command. Although I understand why she tabled the amendment, it is worth noting that the 1953 Act already makes it clear that a dog is “at large” if it is

“not on a lead or otherwise under close control”.

That approach places certain requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, and it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was under close control. Such evidence does not need to be limited to proving specific elements.

Setting out the meaning of “close control” also risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. Furthermore, the countryside code highlights that it is best practice

“to keep your dog on a lead around livestock”,

including sheep. Because there are existing provisions and guidance, and because there is flexibility for judgment in the courts, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her amendment.

I hope I have laid out clearly why the Bill is necessary to support our farmers, reduce livestock attacks and better equip the police with the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and deter livestock attacks. I hope the Committee will support the progress of this important Bill.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. It is a Wednesday, so this must be another private Member’s Bill on animal welfare; I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing us this important Bill. It is not often that we get such clear and wholehearted support from farmers and animal welfare groups, so I congratulate her. It is good to see animals such as alpacas and llamas mentioned specifically. It gives me flashbacks to meetings of the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, at which we discussed at great length how llamas and alpacas are an increasing part of farm life in the UK these days. I am pleased to see that they are included.

We know that the law around livestock worrying is outdate, and needs updating to reflect current challenges. As the hon. Member outlined, the animal welfare impacts of livestock worrying can be devastating for the animals concerned; those that are not killed are left in agony, with serious injuries, and often have to be euthanised. I am pleased to support the clarification provided by the Bill she has introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

The shadow Minister is right; I meant to fold that into my previous answer. As he would expect, this new Government are taking stock. By supporting these private Members’ Bills, we are effectively finishing the work of the previous Parliament before we move on to our exciting new measures, and our approach to responsible dog ownership will form part of that.

[Aphra Brandreth]

Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mr Western; it has been a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the Minister for his support for the Bill and those who have worked incredibly hard on it behind the scenes. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have served on the Committee for taking the time to listen to why I and others feel the Bill is necessary, and for all their thoughtful contributions.

At the heart of this Bill are farmers and livestock. The Bill will give farmers greater confidence that livestock attacks will be dealt with in a timely, effective and appropriate manner, reflective of the damage an attack can do. It is our hope that deterrence in the form of greater penalties and powers for the police to investigate livestock attacks will reduce the number of those attacks. The fewer farmers who witness an attack, deal with severely injured animals in the aftermath and face the economic costs as a result, the better. They deserve this Bill, and I am sure that they, like me, are incredibly grateful to all who have given their support today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendment proposed: 1, schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) In subsection (2), omit ‘(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)’.

(3B) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless—

(a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or

(b) it is within sight of a person and the person—

(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and

(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.’”—(Ann Davies.)

This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Question negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[Dr Hudson]

May I thank everyone involved, behind the scenes and front of house, in passing this important piece of legislation? Thank you, Mr Western.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

I think this is the first time I have served under your guidance, Sir Jeremy; it is a pleasure to do so. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for using his private Member’s Bill to shepherd this vital legislation through the House and for inviting me to be part of the Committee. The Bill is deeply welcomed. I have campaigned on animal smuggling for a decade, and those hon. Members around me have been campaigning on it for just as long. It generous of him to let us see the Bill through what is hopefully the final phase.

My constituents often write to me expressing their concern about this vile, exploitative practice and urging legislators to take meaningful action. They are frustrated by how many animals experience unnecessary suffering, which so often could be stopped with a stroke of a pen in this place. But let me be clear: these measures should have been acted on years ago. I urge the Committee to use this momentum to push for the strongest protections possible and support the Bill.

The puppy smuggling trade is worth billions in the UK. The Naturewatch Foundation found that an estimated 80% of dogs and puppies in the UK still come from unknown sources, including unlicensed breeders, illegal puppy farms and puppy smuggling operations. There are huge welfare concerns for puppies being transported long distances at such a young age having been taken from their mothers too soon, which hampers their development and often leads to illnesses and lifelong conditions. There is a human risk, too, with imported dogs leading to serious biosecurity concerns. I did not know, but in 2022 we had the first case of Brucella canis transferring from an imported dog to an owner. It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly support the Bill’s actions, with 83% backing stronger rules to stop puppy smuggling.

Cats face similar mistreatment. Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlighted that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. It is unclear whether they received health and welfare checks or what conditions they were subjected to during travel. Without proper regulation, cats likely arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health, carrying infectious diseases that they would inevitably pass on to other cats.

I therefore strongly support clause 1(3) and (4), which increase the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens from 15 weeks to six months. They also introduce new measures to prevent the import of mutilated animals. For years, puppies and kittens have been imported into the UK, completely legally, with painful mutilations, including docked tails, cropped ears or having been declawed or debarked. Continued importation normalises these practices and makes it near impossible to enforce a ban in the UK.

The abhorrent declawing procedure, is, I am sorry to say, the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip to the first knuckle. The 2024 PDSA “Animal Wellbeing” report stated, alarmingly:

“4% of cat owners who acquired their pet from abroad told us they did so because they wanted them to be declawed”.

That equates to 15,000 cats whose owners want them to be mutilated. To end such an appalling practice once and for all, I urge the Committee to maintain the strength of the Bill’s core provisions. In so doing, we will answer the public’s long-standing call for reform, protect our beloved dogs, cats and ferrets from ill treatment, and entrench the UK’s leadership on animal welfare.

Finally, if you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy, while I appreciate that the Bill looks at a very specific area of animal imports, I want to take the opportunity to reflect the strong feelings of the animal welfare and conservation sector about the decline in cross-border movements of zoo animals between the UK and the EU. Those movements are often part of essential conservation breeding programmes, and I share the hopes of the sector that, as the Government address dog, cat and ferret imports, they will soon address cross-border animal movements for zoos and aquariums.

I fully support the Bill. I wish it well with its progress, and I hope that it has the Committee’s support.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK.

As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few.

It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health.

Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill. I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk.

I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health.

I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals.

As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

I am delighted that we are here to discuss this Bill. I was the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884. Now, vets in the Commons are a little bit like London buses: you wait 130 years and then another five years, and then another one comes along. I am delighted to support my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester. Vets in the House of Commons are now a bit of a danger: we are breeding like rabbits. At this rate, we would probably be able to fill a car by the end of the century. But under this new legislation there would be a maximum of five vets per car.

I strongly support the Bill and cannot say how pleased and relieved I am to be here today opposite my friend the Minister. We served together on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee and have now swapped places. I am delighted that this Bill is now getting over the line with cross-party support. Can I also offer a shout out? This legislation was started under the Conservative Government: the clauses were in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and then the former Conservative Member of Parliament for North Devon, Selaine Saxby, had a private Member’s Bill identical to this one. I pay tribute to her. We are here today to push that work forward.

I, too, acknowledge the important work of the charitable sector and organisations in the animal space including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust—its former chief vet, Paula Boyden, spearheaded the campaign—Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which the hon. Member for Winchester and I visited yesterday in the light of this Bill, the RSPCA, FOUR PAWS and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Marc Abraham, a fellow veterinary surgeon, has also done a lot of work on this issue.

In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, did a number of inquiries on this issue, one of which was on the movement of animals across borders, and we looked at a lot of the situations that are highlighted in these clauses. Our inquiry on pet welfare and abuse highlighted some of the issues that clauses 1, 2 and 3 set out and made important points about biosecurity. I welcome the measures in the clauses to increase the minimum age to six months, which will be important for the health and welfare of these animals.

I note—the Minister is well aware of these issues because we have been discussing them for many years—that some measures are not included in the Bill, and I hope that he will keep them under review and consider introducing future secondary legislation. They include the institution of pre-importation health checks for animals, the reinstatement of rabies titre checks, and an increase of the wait time after a rabies vaccination to 12 weeks. That would help to enforce the change to a minimum age of entry of six months.

I very much welcome the commitments in the clauses on the stage of gestation for cats and dogs coming into this country. The EFRA Committee heard harrowing evidence about heavily pregnant animals that are smuggled in, give birth and are then smuggled out, often with fresh suture wounds from caesarean sections. They are just shipped in and out, so hopefully the Bill will close that loophole. The requirement for import not to take place in the last third of gestation is very important. It is currently banned in the last 10% of gestation, but it is very difficult to judge the stage of gestation, so that is an important change.

We have talked about mutilations. The Bill will tighten the requirements and, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, bring down the smokescreen. People are importing dogs that have been horrifically mutilated.

[Aphra Brandreth]

Ear cropping in dogs is a cruel and clinically unnecessary procedure, and is illegal in the UK. The shadow Minister has long campaigned to raise awareness of that. Does he agree that images of dogs with cropped ears have been normalised, and that many owners are still unaware of the cruelty of the practice, so we must continue to highlight its impact?

[Dr Hudson]

I very much agree. Ear cropping has been normalised in popular culture, but a recent survey by Battersea found that 50% of respondents had no idea that it is illegal. The fact that it is normalised in the media and popular culture means that people, sometimes unwittingly, try to source one of those animals.

Ear cropping is an absolutely horrific procedure, and it is increasingly prevalent. There is absolutely no clinical indication to crop a dog’s ears—it is just a barbaric practice. The EFRA Committee has taken evidence on it, and it is suspected that it is unfortunately taking place in the United Kingdom illegally, potentially with online dog cropping kits, which are still available, and without analgesia. If a veterinary surgeon were to perform that procedure in the United Kingdom, they would be struck off and would not be allowed to be a veterinary surgeon, but unfortunately it still goes on.

One of my favourite films, which I have watched many times with my family, is the Disney Pixar film “Up”. It is a wonderful and very moving film, but some of the dogs in it have had their ears cropped. If families see these films, it normalises the practice: people say, “That’s a lovely dog. I’d like a dog that looks like that.” As recently as a couple of years ago, the lead character in the film “DC League of Super-Pets” had cropped ears.

As recently as this year, the “best in show” winner of the Westminster dog show in the United States was Monty, a giant schnauzer with his ears cropped. The show was reported on the BBC website with a picture of the winning dog, but with no disclaimer explaining that the procedure is illegal in the UK. Anyone looking at the website would have thought, “What a wonderful dog—he’s won the prize!” It needs to be pointed out.

Conservative MPs have written an open letter to film studios and media outlets, calling on them to be responsible in their portrayal of dogs in the media. When studios make films with dogs, they should not have them cropped—it is very simple. When the media publish reports on such dogs, they should include a health warning.

Sadly, it is still possible in this country to buy ear cropping kits online. We are calling on the Government to close that loophole and put pressure on online advertisers so that we can stamp out that practice. I am delighted that the Bill will help to address that, because we have to stop the importation of cropped dogs, stop normalising them in popular culture and stop making cropping possible in this country.

As the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South and for Rotherham mentioned, it is also very important that the legislation should cover the declawing of cats, an issue that Cats Protection has highlighted. It is a horrific procedure, with no clinical indication for cats whatever. Amputating at the level of the fingernails means that cats are no longer able to express themselves, use scratching posts or climb trees. People are sourcing declawed cats so that they can protect their furniture. That needs to stop.

The recommendations that have been made about stages of gestation and about age will help to address issues with biosecurity and specifically with rabies. The importation of dogs carries zoonotic risks, including risks of rabies and brucellosis, so it is important to keep that under review. Many dogs that are rehomed from eastern Europe have brought diseases in with them. People bring them in unwittingly, thinking that they are helping, but actually it is putting dogs and people in this country at risk. I urge the Minister to consider secondary legislation to add pre-importation health screening.

As we debated when considering the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, we should potentially reinstate the tick and tapeworm treatments that stopped in the EU in 2012. A few years ago, in Harlow, Essex, there was a case of babesiosis in a dog that had never left the country. Another dog must have come in and dropped a tick that the Essex dog then picked up, leading it to contract the disease.

It is important to be cognisant of animal and human health. The hon. Member for Winchester is a huge advocate of the concept of “one health” for animals and humans. We give a lot of affection to the pets we love and nurture; they give us a lot in return, and it helps our physical and mental health.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear me push the Government to ensure that Bills like this one protect our biosecurity. In this context we are talking about a small animal setting, but the Animal and Plant Health Agency is pivotal in protecting not only against canine brucellosis, rabies and babesiosis, but against diseases such as African swine fever and foot and mouth disease. As I did at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on Thursday, I will push the Government to make sure that they rapidly redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge, Surrey.

His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition stand firmly—125%—behind the Bill. We wish it well.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

If we are to establish a sustainable fishing industry that is fair to UK fishermen, it is important that the industry is reviewed on its merits and on the basis of science, not on political horse-trading with other countries. I strongly accept that point.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Given the debate we are having and the risk that our fishing communities could be used as a bargaining chip, does the hon. Member agree that, as the Government have said, food security is national security, and we cannot have our fishing communities and fishing stocks traded against defence in any way?

[Andrew George]

These negotiations are difficult at the best of times. We need to make sure these decisions are made on the basis of merit. Of course, we wish to re-establish UK fishing entitlement out to the 12 mile limit and to ensure that foreign vessels are not able to use their historic entitlements to fish within the 6 to 12 mile zone. Relative stability within the common fisheries policy left the UK, particularly in the western approaches, with a significantly poorer deal in comparison with many European countries, and that is the basis of a great deal of disquiet within the industry.

Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to have secured a debate on the vital and pertinent issue of mental health in farming and agricultural communities.

It is sadly no exaggeration to say that we have a mental health crisis in our rural and agricultural communities. In January 2021, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution launched a large research project called the big farming survey. The audience of the survey was 15,000 farmers, contractors and their households, and its aim was to achieve a better understanding of the health and wellbeing of the farming community in England and Wales. The report found that the farming community has lower than average mental wellbeing compared with the wider UK population. A point of concern is that over a third of those who completed the survey had significantly low mental wellbeing scores. Worryingly, a similar number said that they were probably or possibly depressed, according to NHS thresholds.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and congratulate her on securing this important debate. The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution’s big farming survey also found that 52% of farmers experience regular pain and discomfort, while one in four has mobility problems. Does she agree that we must recognise that physical health has an impact on mental health, and ensure that the NHS, GPs and mental health services are joined up?

[Aphra Brandreth]

The hon. Member, who is an excellent champion for farmers in her community, makes an important point on physical health.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady, to whom I spoke beforehand, on securing the debate. The Ulster Farmers Union runs its “Mind Your Head” campaign every February to bring down the stigma attached to poor mental health in the farming sector. That is so important because research shows that 95% of young farmers in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have concerns about their mental health. Does she feel that this matter should be considered not just in England and Wales, but across this great nation?

[Aphra Brandreth]

The hon. Member makes an important point: this issue impacts every part of our Union. I will refer to the impact on young people later in my speech.

To go back to the RABI survey, the report found that the farming community has lower than average mental wellbeing compared with the wider UK population. A point of concern is that over a third of those who completed the survey had significantly low mental wellbeing scores. Worryingly, a similar number said that they were probably or possibly depressed. Nearly half of respondents said that they were experiencing some form of anxiety. Tragically, one in five respondents knew someone who had attempted to take their own life. I remind the House that the survey had 15,000 responses, so that is a shockingly high statistic, and I hope that its gravity hits home with Members across the House.

Since the report was launched in January 2021, things have not become any easier for farmers and the rural community. Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and its consequences for energy and fertiliser prices, and for the flow of commodities such as grain and oilseeds, have caused farmers a great deal of concern. Economic factors such as inflation have also hit farmers hard, and like several places across the country, we in Cheshire have had a particularly bad year with regard to rainfall. Those problems all compound existing challenges, thereby putting a significant strain on farmers who are already under huge pressure.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for giving way. Just last Friday, I visited a farm in my constituency. It is a family farm: David runs the construction side of the business, Robert runs the farm, and their sister Sharon runs the books. By any measure, it is a successful farm. That family has owned the property for a long period of time, but when they spoke to me, they talked—as my hon. Friend has said—about high energy costs, high interest rates, tougher international competition, tougher regulations on pesticides and the use of chemicals, and a volatile climate. Then, to raise the issue that was the subject of our last debate, they talked about the new rules on inheritance tax. Is it any surprise that many people in the farming industry feel stressed and under pressure, considering the policies introduced by this Government?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The sector faces a wide range of challenges, and of course, the decisions that the Government are making will contribute in part to some of those challenges. Some are outside the control of all of us, the weather being one example.

I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a constituency with a large rural area. Because of the nature of Cheshire’s ground and topography, dairy is the predominant mode of farming locally. That brings additional challenges through the risks of animal disease outbreaks, and their financial and emotional consequences.

I would like to take a moment to share some of the very real stories that demonstrate why I have asked for today’s debate, because behind every statistic is a personal story. There are families, loved ones, friends and communities who are deeply affected. Those of us who represent rural and agricultural communities know that the suicide rate among farmers is tragically high. Sadly, even in the short time that I have had the privilege of representing Chester South and Eddisbury, I have had examples in my constituency that have caused a great deal of pain to the families and the surrounding area. When something like this happens, it rocks a tight-knit community to its core, and the impact is felt by many.

Only last week, I heard of a tragic incident where a daughter found her father after he had taken his own life in one of the barns on their family farm. In a tribute, the daughter wrote of how her father worked so incredibly hard, and how proud he was to have increased the acreage and yield of the family farm during his stewardship. He was immensely proud of the operation he had built. His daughter summed up the vocation of farming in her online tribute:

“Farmers work harder and longer than most other trades and earn significantly less. We love what we do, or we wouldn’t do it. We feed the nation to the best of our abilities”.

I cannot begin to imagine what the families of those two farmers are going through, but as I said earlier, such cases are too common. Members from right across the House will have heard other stories like these in their own constituencies.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for securing this important debate. On the vital issue of the tragedy of suicides among the farming community, I have met several farmers in my constituency who have felt that pressure—the common theme is that everybody knows somebody who has felt that pressure at some point, or sadly has even taken their own life. Does the hon. Lady agree that right across the House, we should agree to support farmers in whatever way we can?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s comments, and I am sorry to hear about the tragic instances in his constituency. We very much need to be collaborative to improve things for the farming community.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Will she join me in paying tribute to farmer-initiated and farmer-led organisations, such as We are Farming Minds in my constituency? They do such important work to support their colleagues in the farming sector and to tackle mental health challenges head-on.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning those excellent organisations; I will note others later in my speech.

For all those reasons, this debate and the actions and commitments from the Minister are important. Women are an often overlooked group when we talk about rural mental health, particularly young women. There are inspiring examples of women who run farms and contribute a great deal to the agricultural sector. Of course, women are almost always involved in a farming operation, even if they are not always hands-on in the yard or fields.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. When I visited Pierrepont farm in my constituency, which has just been taken over by a new young female farmer, she talked about the stresses and problems that she is facing. They do not just affect young women, however, but families too; Mathias & Son Nurseries in my constituency equally has those problems. The issue that my hon. Friend is talking about affects established family farms and the new younger generation, and the policies of the new Government are hitting both equally. Does she agree that we need to look after the new young female farmers as well as our established family farms?

[Aphra Brandreth]

Absolutely; we know that mental health issues have an impact on people across the community. It is not just the individual who is directly affected, but those around that person.

The RABI survey found that women aged 24 to 35 had the worst mental health scores across the sample, so I ask the Minister to think about how policy can address that and how we can raise awareness of the mental health challenges facing all those in farming and rural communities.

I stress that there are some wonderful organisations, locally and nationally, that work hard to support our rural and agricultural communities and to provide support for mental wellbeing. I mention again the RABI and the role it plays in supporting farmers, and others such as the Farming Community Network and the Yellow Wellies’ “Mind Your Head” project, which help farmers when they need it most.

Those organisations, as good as they are, are not the long-term solution, nor can they find and prevent every tragic occurrence and consequence of suicide in the rural community. Any good doctor would say that prevention is better than cure. The cause of a significant amount of stress for farmers, particularly recently, has been Government policy.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I have just got off the telephone to a constituent from Yarcombe in Devon, who is a tenant farmer and is particularly anxious about agricultural property relief and the Government’s proposed inheritance tax changes. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is an appalling proposition?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that. The impact of APR will be felt across the community. Unfortunately, in a community that is struggling with mental health, it is an extra blow.

Later, I will offer some thoughts on how we might better prevent mental health problems, but I will briefly mention a few other reasons why mental health issues are disproportionately higher in rural areas. First, there is the issue of isolation, which is multifaceted. It can be attributed to literal isolation, because farmers live in sparsely populated areas far from the nearest village; digital isolation, as they are without broadband or mobile coverage; and physical isolation from a lack of transport links. That issue keenly felt in my constituency, where many rural areas have little or no public transport connections.

A mixture of those forms of isolation means that people in rural areas, such as farmers, often suffer from loneliness. It is not easy for people to go to the local pub or café to talk to friends and neighbours when they live in the countryside. It is harder to get to those places, and harder to make time to socialise due to the demands of farming.

There is also the issue of rural reticence. There has historically been a stigma surrounding mental health; sadly, although we have made good progress in breaking down barriers and encouraging people to talk, there remains a reticence in rural and agricultural communities to talk about problems or feelings. It is not because of hubris or arrogance. Rather, the “I’ll manage myself” culture comes from a desire not to burden neighbours and friends who are also in the community, and will no doubt be facing the same challenges. I am confident that we can do more as a society to break down this barrier and encourage farmers to talk honestly and openly with one another.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend personifies the Conservative commitment to farms and farming, and she does so with style and acumen. The fear that she has described is exacerbated by the way farmers now face their customers: supermarkets are ruthless in how they deal with farmers. It is the fear that dare not speak its name; our farmers cannot speak, for those are the people to whom they sell their goods. Will my hon. Friend implore the Government to take a tougher line on the sharp practice of the big retailers in the light of its effect on farmers?

[Aphra Brandreth]

My right hon. Friend always makes such pertinent points. I know the importance he places on issues surrounding food security: he works extremely hard to highlight the challenges that farmers face all around them, and to ensure that they get a fair price from suppliers.

Mental health problems are also more prevalent in agricultural communities because of the volatility of farming. Farmers do not enjoy the luxury of stability and are vulnerable to shocks such as adverse weather and flooding, health issues within herds, such as bovine tuberculosis, and economic problems. Agricultural policy ought to create stability for farmers, not more uncertainty. I will speak more about that issue shortly.

There are many reasons why rural mental health is disproportionately worse, but I hope that the three I have mentioned give the House an idea of why I secured this debate. I have three asks of the Government; I hope that the Minister will be receptive and will commit to working alongside colleagues across the House and within Government to make real progress.

My first request is that the Government take an integrated approach. I humbly suggest to the Minister that that has been an issue with recent Government policy, particularly in relation to agricultural property relief. Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should have been in the room when the decision was made to change APR. If they were in the room, their priority and their plea to the Treasury should have been the impact on family farms, food security and the local economy.

DEFRA Ministers should also be involved in many cross-governmental discussions. We need a joined-up approach whereby farmers and the rural community are consistently represented by Ministers who have their best interests at heart. Only then can we hope to see a policy that does not cause the agricultural community more concern, leading to further uncertainty and exacerbating the challenges. The decision on APR has once again brought rural mental health to the forefront. We have seen too many tragic stories in the papers. I hope that this is a wake-up call to the Government to start taking rural policy seriously, and not see farmers as a community to exploit.

My second ask of the Minister is that a specific strategy be put in place for young people who live in rural communities. Statistics show a significant uptick in mental health problems among young people, particularly after the pandemic, but many of the problems that I have outlined as compounding factors making rural mental health worse are even more prominent among younger people. Research conducted by Yellow Wellies shows that 95% of farmers under 40 believe that mental health is the biggest hidden problem facing farmers today. That is a shockingly high statistic.

We know that there is a shortage of young people entering the agricultural sector. That shortage is very often driven by the isolation of rural areas and by the lack of opportunity. If we want the countryside to thrive and farming to be a successful and attractive sector, we must do more to support young people. An important part of that is making sure that their mental health is in as good a place as it can be, so I ask the Minister to reassure the House that this will be a priority for him, and to meet me and representatives from the Cheshire Young Farmers’ Clubs to discuss how the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can better understand the mental health pressures on young people in rural areas.

My final ask is that we make sure that farmers are at the centre of policy decisions that relate to rural areas and the agricultural sector. The ask is simple but very necessary. When the Government are formulating policy, I urge them to think of its implications and consequences. I ask them to think about the motivations behind the policy, and to remind themselves of the motivations behind our farmers’ work. They are motivated by service to our country, by providing food and caring for our countryside, and by being part of their local community, supporting friends and family, and working to support the local economy.

Farmers are part of the fabric of our country, the backbone of local economies and stalwarts in our communities. When Ministers feed into policy, I ask that they remember that and reflect the values of the rural and agricultural communities. If Ministers do that, we can go a long way towards improving mental health in areas where that is so desperately needed.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for introducing this very serious debate in such a calm and measured way befitting the seriousness of the subject. Let me start by extending my sincere condolences to all those who in recent times have lost loved ones, and to their friends, families and communities. Every suicide is a tragedy that has a devastating and enduring impact on families and friends. I absolutely recognise that farmers face challenges on many fronts, and we will do everything we can to safeguard the mental health of people working in the sector.

In recent years there has been a growing awareness of the importance of mental health in the sector, which I absolutely welcome; I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about the impact on women, and we will continue to work with the full range of farming charities. I particularly echo her comments about amazing organisations such as the Farming Community Network and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, and I very much recognise the points about the survey; indeed, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and I were on a panel discussing this very issue with Yellow Wellies last year. We are supporting the mental health and wellbeing of our farmers, and in the coming weeks I will invite charities and other stakeholders with expertise in this area to discuss how we can grow a better national support system for farmers.

I do not have much time, so I will not go into a whole range of detail, but extreme weather events, such as floods, and the pressure of disease clearly put additional stress on people; we fully appreciate that. We will continue to seek out opportunities to support people. Today I have agreed to continue the funding for the Farming Community Network, which supports communities affected by bovine tuberculosis; we are putting in place a three-year contract, starting on 1 December. That support began back in 2009, and it provides TB-affected farmers and their families with a national, free-to-access business and pastoral advice service. It has been successful, and we are very pleased to continue it.

Furthermore, we continue to provide funding for several organisations that will deliver projects to address these issues. The Farming Community Network, Lincolnshire Rural Support Network, the Farmer Network and You Are Not Alone are all in receipt of funding this year, and we will continue to work with third-sector organisations to keep delivering support into the future.

On suicide prevention, we are working across government to improve mental health and access to services. I pay tribute to everyone who is working to raise awareness, and I encourage those who are struggling to reach out for help. We recognise the points about isolation and difficulty in asking for help, so we are giving mental health the same attention and focus as physical health. We want everyone to be confident about accessing high-quality mental health support when they need it. I am pleased that we have announced that we will recruit 8,500 new mental health workers, who will be trained to support people at risk of suicide. The £10 million suicide prevention grant fund, which runs until March 2025, continues to provide funding to a range of voluntary and community organisations to support their work on suicide prevention.

The hon. Lady made good points about loneliness and isolation. Suicide is a complex, multifaceted issue, and loneliness and isolation are particular risk factors for people in rural areas, such as farmers and agricultural workers. We are committed to tackling loneliness, including by providing advice on loneliness as part of the “Better Health—Every Mind Matters” campaign. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport also supports organisations that can play a role in reducing loneliness stigma among men in particular, through the Tackling Loneliness Hub. That online platform connects professionals from across sectors working to reduce loneliness. I conclude by thanking the hon. Lady for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I appreciate the Minister’s constructive comments, and some of the policies he mentioned that he put in place. As I noted, I want to raise the importance of the impact on young people in the farming industry, so will he meet me and Cheshire Young Farmers’ Clubs, so that young farmers can hear at first hand from the Minister and put questions to him on this issue?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s commitment to supporting young people. It is certainly one of my passions to ensure that we transform the system to make it easier for young people to come into farming and prosper. I am on a perpetual tour of the country, and I am sure that I can find a time and opportunity to meet her and her young people. I look forward to doing so.

In conclusion, the Government are committed to supporting farmers and agricultural workers in accessing the support that they need to protect their mental health and wellbeing. We will work to tackle loneliness and isolation in rural areas. We will ensure provision of high-quality, accessible mental health support. We are determined to support farmers as they do the vital work of producing food and looking after nature and the environment.

Question put and agreed to.

Food Security

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Pope Benedict said that

“food security is an authentically human requirement. Guaranteeing it for present and future generations also means safeguarding ourselves against the uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources.”

It will not have escaped your notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, or that of other Members of the House, that I represent a rural constituency with a preponderance of agricultural employment. Many of my constituents are employed in agriculture, horticulture, the food industry and related jobs. Lincolnshire boasts some of the best growing land in the country. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Lincolnshire is responsible for 30% of the nation’s vegetables, producing 19% of its poultry and 20% of its sugar beets, not to mention 90% of its ornamentals and flowers. I mention that last section because horticulture—the ornamental sector—is an important employer in my constituency. By the way, Lincolnshire, as hon. Friends from further north in the county will know, also processes 70% of the UK’s fish. Horticulture and potato crops use 6% of the farm area in greater Lincolnshire, and Lincolnshire has a total agricultural output of more than £2 billion, representing 12% of England’s total agricultural output.

The critical point in all this is the quality of the land. Again, it will not have escaped the notice of the House that much of that land is alluvial. The silt, and the peat further inland, makes it prime growing land. Grade 1, 2 or 3a land predominates in the Fens. Other Lincolnshire colleagues in the House tonight will recognise why that matters so much not only to the local economy and to local society, but to the national interest. Food security is not merely an indulgence; it is critically important to the common good.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for being such an eloquent champion on the issue of food security. My constituency, like his, has a large rural community, and when I speak to farmers it is clear that food security is national security. The previous Government did a great deal on this issue, from the farm to fork summit to the food security index. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to see more from this Government on food security—for instance, legally binding food security targets?

[Sir John Hayes]

With the perception for which my hon. Friend is already becoming known in the House, she anticipates the next part of my peroration. She represents an area that I know well; it is glorious, and I know now too that it has a glorious new Member of Parliament. The point she highlights is that over recent events, particularly the pandemic and the war in Europe, food security has gone from being a marginal matter—one that people like me raised regularly, but that was seen as rather self-indulgent, because people know I represent an area of the kind I describe and they felt I was merely championing those domestic interests—to a matter that goes well beyond the domestic to one of profound national importance.

Recent events have shown us the salience of economic resilience. We need to be sure that not only in times of crisis, but in other times, we can withstand the shocks that are the inevitable consequence of human circumstances and human frailties. Making our country more resilient in those circumstances has become a national imperative. I am delighted to say that, in what I hope we can all agree is a post-liberal age, the issue of food security, far from being marginal, has become mainstream. The Minister is an old parliamentary friend, having shadowed me—with great style, if I may say so—when I was a Transport Minister. I happen to know that he shares my view about salience; I therefore anticipate his response with enthusiasm bordering on glee.