Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(2 days, 18 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 5 June and which will protect the availability of retail goods in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, to maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market. It will do so by providing the Secretary of State with a targeted power to implement “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain.
I will first set out the background to the policy. The Windsor framework, which was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023, replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol. A key component of the framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland by removing the requirements for costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This also allows goods to move on the basis of UK food safety standards. The scheme operates alongside other schemes and flexibilities that smooth the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework.
To benefit from those simplified arrangements, business operators must label certain retail goods as “not for EU”. Such labelling requirements are being introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July 2025. At that point, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland relative to that in Great Britain, certain businesses may decide that it is not commercially advantageous to label their goods exclusively for the Northern Ireland market. This runs the risk that businesses would have to remove their goods from sale in Northern Ireland rather than make the necessary changes.
That is not an acceptable outcome for this Government. We believe that the smooth operation of the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme is essential to ensuring product supply in Northern Ireland. We will therefore ensure that no incentive arises for businesses to avoid placing goods on the Northern Ireland market through this legislation.
That brings me to the purpose of the draft regulations, which will empower the Secretary of State to issue a notice requiring that certain retail goods be labelled as “not for EU” when placed on the market in Great Britain. To make this determination, he will need to be satisfied that the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland will be seriously adversely affected. He will also need to be satisfied that this is a direct result of the requirement to mark a product as “not for EU” to move into Northern Ireland via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme.
The Secretary of State will consider a variety of evidence, including information on the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, the way in which goods are moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and representations made by UK businesses on making goods available in Northern Ireland. He will also consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, in recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter. He may engage the Windsor framework independent monitoring panel, which was established through the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, for its advice.
Once a notice is enforced, relevant business operators in Great Britain will need to ensure that goods in scope of a notice are labelled “not for EU” before they are placed on the market in Great Britain. By extending the labelling requirement to the much larger GB market for certain products, we will take away the incentive for businesses to stop supplying goods to Northern Ireland. The extended requirement will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive for businesses to label their goods. This will ensure continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and uphold the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper.
The timing of the draft regulations is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must legislate now to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter businesses from taking decisions to remove their products from the market. We must have the tools to act, should it appear likely that products may no longer be available in Northern Ireland.
I will outline the key provisions of the draft regulations. The Secretary of State must issue a marking notice specifying which goods must be labelled in Great Britain and from what date. He should do so after making a determination that the supply of certain retail goods
“is, or is likely to be, seriously adversely affected”
as a result of the “not for EU” labelling requirement. The notice must be published in the London Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette and must be accompanied by a written statement to Parliament explaining the rationale. Separately, we will publish the notice on gov.uk, as well as promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses. The obligation would fall on the relevant business operator that first places the goods on the market in Great Britain; this is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging.
Exemptions will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, in line with this Government’s commitment to support growth. Enforcement powers will be delegated to local authorities, with a regime of improvement notices and fixed monetary penalties for non-compliance.
Together, these provisions will ensure that there is a clear deterrent for businesses that may choose to withdraw supply from the Northern Ireland market, as well as an active tool that will be deployed in that event. That will protect consumers in Northern Ireland, as well as trade within the United Kingdom internal market, thereby reinforcing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. This will also support our relationship with the European Union. Through our common understanding, which was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, we and the EU have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Once finalised, that will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agrifood requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that it may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.
Achieving such benefits, however, relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in future. We therefore expect that the draft regulations will maximise compliance with labelling requirements from 1 July and will prevent the movement of unlabelled goods onwards into Northern Ireland.
We believe that the draft regulations are a pragmatic and proportionate response to a material risk. They will support the continued flow of goods across our United Kingdom, protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland and reinforce our commitment to the Union. I commend them to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy.
The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden.
I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.
Jim Allister
That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?
Daniel Zeichner
The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets.
We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations.
We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
Draft Marking of Retail Good Regulations 2025
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(2 days, 18 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 5 June and which will protect the availability of retail goods in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, to maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market. It will do so by providing the Secretary of State with a targeted power to implement “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain.
I will first set out the background to the policy. The Windsor framework, which was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023, replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol. A key component of the framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland by removing the requirements for costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This also allows goods to move on the basis of UK food safety standards. The scheme operates alongside other schemes and flexibilities that smooth the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework.
To benefit from those simplified arrangements, business operators must label certain retail goods as “not for EU”. Such labelling requirements are being introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July 2025. At that point, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland relative to that in Great Britain, certain businesses may decide that it is not commercially advantageous to label their goods exclusively for the Northern Ireland market. This runs the risk that businesses would have to remove their goods from sale in Northern Ireland rather than make the necessary changes.
That is not an acceptable outcome for this Government. We believe that the smooth operation of the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme is essential to ensuring product supply in Northern Ireland. We will therefore ensure that no incentive arises for businesses to avoid placing goods on the Northern Ireland market through this legislation.
That brings me to the purpose of the draft regulations, which will empower the Secretary of State to issue a notice requiring that certain retail goods be labelled as “not for EU” when placed on the market in Great Britain. To make this determination, he will need to be satisfied that the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland will be seriously adversely affected. He will also need to be satisfied that this is a direct result of the requirement to mark a product as “not for EU” to move into Northern Ireland via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme.
The Secretary of State will consider a variety of evidence, including information on the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, the way in which goods are moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and representations made by UK businesses on making goods available in Northern Ireland. He will also consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, in recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter. He may engage the Windsor framework independent monitoring panel, which was established through the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, for its advice.
Once a notice is enforced, relevant business operators in Great Britain will need to ensure that goods in scope of a notice are labelled “not for EU” before they are placed on the market in Great Britain. By extending the labelling requirement to the much larger GB market for certain products, we will take away the incentive for businesses to stop supplying goods to Northern Ireland. The extended requirement will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive for businesses to label their goods. This will ensure continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and uphold the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper.
The timing of the draft regulations is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must legislate now to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter businesses from taking decisions to remove their products from the market. We must have the tools to act, should it appear likely that products may no longer be available in Northern Ireland.
I will outline the key provisions of the draft regulations. The Secretary of State must issue a marking notice specifying which goods must be labelled in Great Britain and from what date. He should do so after making a determination that the supply of certain retail goods
“is, or is likely to be, seriously adversely affected”
as a result of the “not for EU” labelling requirement. The notice must be published in the London Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette and must be accompanied by a written statement to Parliament explaining the rationale. Separately, we will publish the notice on gov.uk, as well as promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses. The obligation would fall on the relevant business operator that first places the goods on the market in Great Britain; this is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging.
Exemptions will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, in line with this Government’s commitment to support growth. Enforcement powers will be delegated to local authorities, with a regime of improvement notices and fixed monetary penalties for non-compliance.
Together, these provisions will ensure that there is a clear deterrent for businesses that may choose to withdraw supply from the Northern Ireland market, as well as an active tool that will be deployed in that event. That will protect consumers in Northern Ireland, as well as trade within the United Kingdom internal market, thereby reinforcing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. This will also support our relationship with the European Union. Through our common understanding, which was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, we and the EU have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Once finalised, that will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agrifood requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that it may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.
Achieving such benefits, however, relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in future. We therefore expect that the draft regulations will maximise compliance with labelling requirements from 1 July and will prevent the movement of unlabelled goods onwards into Northern Ireland.
We believe that the draft regulations are a pragmatic and proportionate response to a material risk. They will support the continued flow of goods across our United Kingdom, protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland and reinforce our commitment to the Union. I commend them to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy.
The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden.
I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.
Jim Allister
That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?
Daniel Zeichner
The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets.
We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations.
We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
Oral Answers to Questions
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(6 days, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Good morning. Can I start by acknowledging the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the House? We are investing in the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and have committed more than £200 million to the next stage of rebuilding our biosecurity facilities at Weybridge to enhance our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond to and recover from outbreaks. That is in addition to supporting farmers through the animal health and welfare pathway, which includes veterinary visits to improve livestock health, welfare, biosecurity and productivity.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for his comments. The recent National Audit Office report was hugely concerning, and it was clear that the UK is at high risk of, and unprepared for, a major animal disease outbreak. Post-Brexit checks mean that only 5% of animals are physically checked as they come into the UK. We know that a lot of illegal meat is coming in through the ports, and our farm animal veterinary workforce is overstretched. Also, climate change and antimicrobial resistance are putting us at a higher risk of disease outbreaks. If a disease such as foot and mouth hits again, it will devastate British agriculture and rural communities, and have an impact on our food security. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are treating the issues that the report raises as a strategic national threat, and that its warnings will not be ignored until it is too late?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We take this matter extremely seriously. Sadly, it is not a new problem. We have had similar reports in the past, and I can assure him that we are giving careful consideration to this report. We will develop a plan to address it. He will be aware that there are a range of threats, and it is important that we balance our work. We have taken strong measures to restrict personal imports, given the threats on the continent.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
As the House will know, sadly the epicentre of the UK bluetongue outbreak was in my South Norfolk constituency, so biosecurity is a huge issue for my farmers. Will we look to lower our biosecurity risks by returning to checking products at the Bastion Point inland border security centre at the White Cliffs business park, which is closer to the border point, instead of products having to travel nearly 17 miles before they are checked?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend and relatively near neighbour. He is right to raise the bluetongue issues, which have been dealt with effectively by our officials. His points about border controls and checks are under close consideration, partly as a consequence of our new arrangements with the European Union.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Many Welsh farmers in mid-Wales depend on being able to move their livestock back and forth over the border with England. Indeed, 550 farms straddle the border. The imposition of a veterinary hard border between England and Wales will be damaging for the farming community in my constituency and the local economy that they support. Farmers simply cannot afford to pay £70 a beast for testing, and apparently there is not even enough testing capacity for all the livestock that cross the border anyway. What steps is the Minister taking to address the situation, and to prevent Welsh farmers from losing out?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask that question. As I just referenced, the bluetongue issue has been serious and difficult. We have made a sensible decision for England, and the approach we have taken has managed to control the spread. The decision in Wales is obviously a matter for the Welsh Government, and I am sure that he would understand that I respect that decision. We are talking about how we can resolve the difficult issues that he has raised.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am deeply distressed that the Government are planning to extend the badger cull, because the evidence shows that with good testing and biosecurity, we can bring down rates of tuberculosis. I heard what the representative from Gatcombe farm said when they visited Parliament just a couple of weeks ago. Will the Minister look at the evidence? Before moving forward with a badger cull, will he look at biosecurity measures that could ensure that we really get on top of bovine TB?
Daniel Zeichner
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not extending the badger cull. We have a clear commitment to ending the badger cull in this Parliament, and I will visit Gatcombe with others in the weeks ahead. We are taking an evidence-based approach. We also have to make sure that we help farmers tackle a distressing and difficult disease.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
This month, the National Audit Office’s “Resilience to animal diseases” report laid bare the startling reality about our biosecurity, stating:
“Defra and APHA would struggle to manage a more severe outbreak or concurrent serious outbreaks”,
and the risk of site failure at the APHA site at Weybridge is at its maximum rating. As I have raised 16 times in this Parliament, a fully funded and urgent rebuild of APHA in Weybridge is critical. It got no mention at all by the Chancellor in the spending review; it merely has repeated partial funding from the Department. When will the Government wake up, get a grip, and press on with this vital project as soon as possible, before disaster strikes?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman knows that I take this issue very seriously. I gently point out to him that this exact situation was pointed out by the National Audit Office during the last Parliament. The previous Government had 14 years to get the principles in place, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives. I can tell him that we have a £208 million investment this year; that is what was asked for. I can assure him that there will be funds in future, because we take biosecurity very seriously.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
On 11 June, we committed to the largest ever investment in nature. Funding for the environmental land management schemes will increase to £2 billion per annum by 2028-29, and we now have more farmers than ever in nature-friendly farming schemes, which we should all be pleased about. We are reforming the sustainable farming incentive to target funds fairly and effectively, and to ensure that, in those schemes, the user experience is absolutely prioritised.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Farmers in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset have had to deal with constantly changing information regarding the sustainable farming incentive. We welcome the news that the Government have allowed those who started their application between January and March to submit it now, but when it comes to sustainable farming and nature recovery, what support is in place for those who have not submitted or started their application?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady will appreciate that we inherited a scheme that did not have proper budgetary controls. Once the money was spent, none was available to people who had yet to come into the scheme. We have dealt with the administrative problem of those who had expected to benefit when they applied. We are planning to make an announcement in the next few weeks, in which we will explain the future scheme for people who are interested. We very much want to get more people in.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Lord Don Curry’s recent report on a sustainable farming model for the future was sent to the Secretary of State earlier this month. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister read it yet? Do they agree with me and Lord Curry that the UK is in a dangerously precarious position, given that we produce domestically only 55% of the food we need, and that we are therefore not food secure and need an urgent plan for food security? Will he meet me and the noble Lord to examine this industry-wide report, and start the process of putting Britain on the path to food security?
Daniel Zeichner
I think the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that when a report from Lord Curry arrives in my inbox, I read it. I did so, with great interest. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not food secure—the food security report produced at the end of last year explained this very carefully—but I am always willing and happy to discuss these issues with him and Lord Curry.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The fruit and vegetables aid scheme is an EU legacy scheme, and it closes in England on 1 January 2026. It is available only via producer organisations —that was an EU requirement—and only 20% of growers are benefiting from it; 80% get no benefit. All growers will continue to benefit from the farming innovation programme’s £63 million of grants, and the five-year extension to the seasonal workers visa scheme that we have announced.
Dr Evans
In my constituency, I have Busby, the biggest strawberry and raspberry farm in Leicestershire. It uses the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, which is due to run out at the end of 2025, in order to invest and innovate. The Government have been in power for one year; they wrote to me in May, saying they had
“plans to simplify and rationalise agriculture grants”,
but we have six months to go before the scheme ends, and Busby still does not know what its future funding will look like. What is replacing the scheme, so that Busby can carry on growing the finest strawberries and raspberries in Leicestershire?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise our fruit-growing sector. It has been known for a long time that this scheme is coming to an end, and I am afraid the truth is that it did not provide very good value for money. We will replace it as part of our new food strategy, and announcements on that will be coming down the line. However, I am slightly surprised to hear that he is so keen to preserve an EU-based scheme. Who knew that there were Opposition Members still hankering to be in the EU?
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
We have a strong ambition that half of all food purchased across the public sector should be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards. The new national procurement policy statement requires Government contracts to favour products that are certified to higher environmental standards, which we believe British producers, operating to higher standards, will be well placed to supply.
Rachel Hopkins
Both beef and crop farmers in my constituency tell me how important it is to produce high-quality food and contribute to UK food security. Can the Minister outline what conversations he has had with public bodies to encourage them to prioritise purchasing local British produce, and to maximise the social value of UK food production?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend and relatively near neighbour for her question. We are in constant dialogue to achieve exactly that objective. She will have noticed last week’s announcement on the extension of free school meals to everyone on universal credit, which is a key plank of our food strategy. It is exactly those kinds of initiatives that we think will benefit British producers.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Many GB-based horticultural companies, as well as other companies, want to supply British produce into Northern Ireland, but have difficulty with the bureaucracy and paperwork required by the procedures implemented some years ago. Will the Minister operate in concert with his colleagues in Cabinet and Government to eliminate the bureaucratic problems that are preventing those companies from supplying UK citizens in Northern Ireland?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is exactly why we wanted to improve our relationship with the European Union. We have negotiated and are undertaking further negotiations to improve those systems to very much help people to achieve that. We genuinely believe there are real opportunities here if we can eliminate some of the unnecessary bureaucracy.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The National Audit Office report says that the Government really need to step up their border checks. As the Government have admitted in answers to me, 72,872 kg of illegal meat imports were seized between January and April this year, close to the 92,000 kg seized in the whole of 2024. With foot and mouth disease and African swine fever on our doorstep in Europe, I shudder to think how much potentially infected meat is slipping in undetected. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Will the Government act urgently to strengthen our biosecurity and our border checks before it is too late?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have acted with speed and haste to make sure that we are protected. We have banned personal imports, and we are absolutely committed to giving the Weybridge facility the support that it requires—we have given it what it asked for. The question is why we were in that position in the first place when we came into Government. What were his Government doing for all those years? These are not new problems.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Daniel Zeichner
I am delighted to hear that news. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking very closely at how we can use the co-operative model to boost the rural economy, particularly in respect of farming profitability, as we know that access to new private market opportunities is not always straightforward.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The gamekeepers employed by the military shoots on Salisbury plain are an essential resource in preserving that rare and special habitat, but DEFRA has given the rights to award licences to the shoots to Natural England, a quango that is ideologically opposed to shooting. Will the Minister take responsibility and ensure that the shoots on Salisbury plain get their licences this year?
Daniel Zeichner
I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman criticising Natural England in that way. It is a very responsible agency that does very good work on behalf of us all. We made the decision not to issue a general licence for gamebird releases in special protection areas such as Salisbury plain. We think it is really important that we help protect our internationally important bird populations from avian influenza, and I am sure he would share that goal.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
UK flour millers, including ADM in my constituency, are already contributing to our food security. However, there are fears in the industry that trade deals could curtail that progress. Will the Minister outline the steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the welcome trade deals struck by the Government do not undermine our food security?
Daniel Zeichner
The UK flour sector is really important. I very much welcome the work that that sector does for us. It is right to raise the point about trade deals. We are determined to make sure that we do nothing to undermine a very successful sector that helps keep food security at high levels in this country.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It was reported today that the Treasury may be planning to siphon money off from the water restoration fund for “unrelated purposes”. What assurance can the Secretary of State provide that money in the restoration fund will be used to clean up our waterways, not to cover rising Government debt interest?
Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I join others in thanking the Petitions Committee, and in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for not only introducing the debate but bringing her usual thoughtfulness and passion to the subject. I also join others in thanking all who signed the petition, which meant that we were able to debate this important issue.
This is the third consecutive week that we have debated farm animal welfare issues, and that brings home just how much both the public and this House value how animals are treated. We are genuinely a nation of animal lovers. We are also a nation that needs to eat, so I thank all who are involved in the farming process and the food production sector, who help to keep us fed.
The issue of confinement and the use of cages in farming is a long-standing subject that has been brought to Members’ attention several times over recent years, and it is a topic that has consistently come across my desk since I became a Minister. As a nation, we are rightly proud of high welfare standards. On confinement, veal crates for calves were banned in 1990, sow stalls for pigs were banned in 1999 and barren battery cages for laying hens were banned in 2012.
I will reiterate what I said in the debate on animal welfare standards in farming on 3 June. We are determined to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection that they rightly deserve, in whatever farming system they are kept.
In addition to this e-petition, there have been a number of campaigns urging the Government to publish consultations on banning the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. I assure my hon. Friend that I am keen to act and certainly do not want to fall behind the EU countries that have already banned, or are in the process of banning, cages and crates. I am acutely aware that these are complex issues that need careful consideration, particularly with regard to food security and trade. I want to work closely with the sectors and bring them with us to improve animal welfare standards together while maintaining a thriving, sustainable and competitive industry.
The petition calls for a ban on cages for laying hens as soon as possible. Enriched colony cages are a significant welfare improvement on barren battery cages as they are required to have nest boxes, litters and perches, but they do not fully provide for the birds’ physical and behavioural needs. The colony cage system restricts the hen’s choice, preventing her from running, flapping her wings, dust bathing or foraging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) has said in detailing the concerns raised by his constituents.
The UK laying hens sector has already made significant progress in moving away from enriched colony cages. The transition has been supported by the major supermarkets, which pledged in 2016 to stop selling shell eggs from caged hens by the end of 2025, with some retailers extending that pledge to products containing liquid or processed egg. I am pleased to say that the percentage of eggs from enriched colony cage systems continues to fall. The current level is just 18% of the total UK throughput in the first quarter of 2025, with free-range eggs now accounting for 70% of the total.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) detailed, the retailer pledge in response to consumer demand is to be welcomed, but not all supermarkets have committed to cage-free. I am afraid that real-world considerations around affordability for consumers are clearly at the fore in some of those decisions. Although the retailer pledge is significant, it does not raise welfare standards across the whole laying hen industry. While the retail element is the largest part of the market at 65%, the food service and egg processing elements are not insignificant, and they represent 18% and 17% of the market respectively. The focus needs to be on addressing the welfare of laying hens producing eggs for retailers that have not signed the pledge, and for the food service and egg processing markets.
To help the sector, the Government are providing financial assistance to laying hen and pullet farmers in England with flocks of 1,000 birds or more, with £22.5 million of allocated grant funding via the animal health and welfare pathway to refurbish or replace existing housing, including for those who are looking to make the transition from enriched colony cages to high welfare non-cage systems.
I turn to the pig sector. We already have a significant outdoor pig sector, as we have heard, with 50% of the national sow breeding herd giving birth freely on outdoor units with no confinement. But 50% of breeding sows are kept indoors, with approximately 42% of them confined in farrowing crates for around five days before they are due to give birth and until the piglets are weaned at approximately 28 days of age.
When the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, now known as the Animal Welfare Committee, reviewed the welfare of pigs in farrowing crates, it recommended that
“in considering which farrowing system to adopt or support, farmers, the pig industry as a whole and other stakeholders such as retailers should consider the welfare of both sows and piglets, and be aware that they are not necessarily benefitted by the same things.”
A range of hon. Members have made that point. The committee’s considerations included sow comfort and freedom to nest build; nest-building material being made available in the period before and after farrowing; the avoidance of sow injuries from interaction with the floor, pen, furniture or piglets; floor design being given more priority in the design of farrowing accommodation; the protection of piglet welfare, including prevention of injury or death; and an environment in which they can thrive, along with the promotion of hygiene and avoidance of disease in both sows and piglets.
There is consensus that farrowing crates restrict a sow’s movement, preventing her from turning around and performing normal behaviours such as nest building, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) has pointed out. Animal welfare non-governmental organisations such as the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have campaigned for a long time for the Government to ban farrowing crates. I am also well aware that the British Veterinary Association and the Pig Veterinary Society have recently called for a gradual phase-out of farrowing crates, and for them to be replaced with a system that maximises sow and piglet welfare and ensures human safety. I welcome those organisations’ contribution to the ongoing debate. The National Pig Association has recognised that the direction of travel is moving away from farrowing crates, and it has done a lot of work in that area. Indeed, some producers have already made a move towards alternative farrowing systems.
As mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who spoke as usual with great knowledge and sensitivity about these issues, industry estimates that around 8% of the British indoor pig herd are now flexibly farrowed, where the sow can be confined on a temporary basis and for a limited period to protect her piglets in those crucial early days of their lives. Flexible farrowing, also termed temporary crating or adaptive farrowing, is where the sow is confined without the ability to turn around on only a temporary basis—for a few days around farrowing in the initial suckling phase—before movable restraining bars are opened to give the sow the space to turn around.
The other alternative to farrowing crates is a move directly to free farrowing systems, where there is no confinement of the sow when in farrowing and lactation accommodation, allowing the sow to freely turn around and have the opportunity to more fully perform nest-building activities. A significant part of our consideration around alternative systems is the evidence around sow and piglet welfare and stockperson welfare, and I was very struck by the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) about the dangers facing stockpeople.
We recognise that moving away from farrowing crates requires a fundamental change for producers and, as we have heard, significant investment. On that note, it is encouraging to see the investment commitment some retailers have made to improve the farrowing experience for pigs.
The shadow Minister asked how we would go forward on this. As the Government bring forward proposals, we will subject them to a full consultation. We absolutely recognise that the industry will need time to adapt. Farrowing accommodation will need to be considerably adapted, and potentially rebuilt and extended to allow for a larger pen footprint, and that will clearly impose significant costs on the indoor pig sector. It will also require communities to recognise that the planning system will have to accommodate changes to allow better welfare, so we need to get specifications right. Training will also be essential for stockpeople to adapt to a brand new system and ensure both human and pig welfare.
Members have mentioned trade, and I am mindful of what happened in 1999 when the UK unilaterally banned sow stalls. Although it was the right thing to do in animal welfare terms, it did, as has been said, contribute to a reported 40% decline in the pig breeding herd in the following decade, sadly opening the door to more pig meat imports from countries still using sow stalls. It is therefore essential that we carefully evaluate the implications of potential cage and crate bans on trade. We need to carefully consider the potential for unintentionally replacing UK production with lower welfare production overseas.
We know that the European Commission is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) mentioned, considering proposals to ban cages and crates. It has said that the first legislative proposals on cage reforms will be announced in 2026. We do not yet know what phase-out periods it will propose or how long it will take it to get agreement among member states. We are acutely aware of and concerned about imports produced using methods that are not permitted in the UK, and I can reassure the shadow Minister that we will use our trade strategy to promote the highest food production standards and protect farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals.
Charlie Dewhirst
Is it the Minister’s ambition to align as closely as possible with the European Union’s plans to phase out cages, and farrowing crates in particular, given the symbiotic trading relationship—especially on products such as pig meat—between the EU and the UK, so that we do not have a similar situation to that involving sow stalls in 1999, where we ban something that the European Union is still using?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, having made the observation about what happened in 1999, we do not want to return to that situation.
Let me turn to labelling. Considerable work has been done recently to consider the merits of method of production labelling. That, too, was raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who has talked about it repeatedly in this place.
As we have heard, last year the previous Government undertook a consultation seeking views on proposals to improve and extend existing mandatory method of production labelling. I am pleased to say that, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest noticed, we have now published the Government’s response, which is available on gov.uk.
In looking at that, we recognised the strong support of members of the public and many other stakeholders for the provision of clearer information for consumers on the welfare standards of their food. We also heard and understood the views expressed on the detail of the consultation proposals by the many interested parties who responded. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that we are carefully considering the potential role of reform of method of production labelling as part of the Government’s wider animal welfare and food strategies. As he will have appreciated, the Prime Minister has announced that we will announce an animal welfare strategy by the end of the year.
Finally, I turn to game birds. Approximately 40 million of them—30 million to 35 million pheasants and 5 million to 10 million partridges—are estimated to be released each year in Great Britain. Game birds bred and reared for sporting purposes are not subject to the same legislative requirements on welfare as farmed poultry, because they are not regarded as farmed animals. They are, however, protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause any animal under the control of humans unnecessary suffering, or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal.
DEFRA’s statutory code of practice for the welfare of gamebirds reared for sporting purposes provides keepers with guidance on how to meet the welfare needs of their game birds, as required by the Animal Welfare Act. The code recommends that barren cages for breeding pheasants and small barren cages for breeding partridges should not be used, and that any system should be appropriately enriched.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for opening this debate, and I reassure Members that the issue of confinement is one that I take seriously. The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. The Department has initiated a series of meetings with key stakeholders as part of the development of an overarching approach to animal welfare. As I said, the Prime Minister committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this year. That is exactly what we will do, and I look forward to being able to outline more detail in due course.
Non-stun Slaughter of Animals
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. Can I join others in thanking both the Petitions Committee and the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject? I also commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening the debate on this sensitive topic so very thoughtfully, which is very characteristic of his approach.
It is clear from the petition and from today’s discussion that both Parliament and the wider country care dearly for our farm animals and their welfare. I was in this very Chamber at this very Dispatch Box last Tuesday, discussing farm animal welfare standards. I will be returning this time next week to debate another e-petition on cages and crates. I have no doubt that farm animal welfare is an issue the public care deeply about.
I was struck by many of the contributions from hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and others, who made a series of wider points about animal welfare. I hope we can continue that discussion as we make progress through this Parliament on improving animal welfare in general.
The topic of non-stun slaughter is clearly important, but, as we have heard from passionate contributions, it is also a sensitive one that understandably evokes deep convictions on both sides of the debate. I was struck by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan), which I thought was both thoughtful and well-grounded.
Let me be clear from the outset: it is the Government’s preference that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. However, the Government respect the right of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs. We therefore intend to continue to allow the religious slaughter of animals for consumption by Muslims and Jews. We believe that is an important religious freedom, as we have heard; many have spoken passionately about that point.
There is a long history of upholding this freedom, set down in legislation since the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contained an exemption from stunning for religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims. Since then, animal welfare legislation concerning all slaughter methods has continued to develop, with new requirements introduced through EU legislation in 2013 that have now been assimilated into UK law. When animals are slaughtered either by the Jewish method or the Muslim method without prior stunning, there are additional animal welfare rules that apply to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, suffering or distress during the slaughter process.
One important requirement stemming from European legislation is for all ruminants that are to be slaughtered in accordance with religious rites to be individually and mechanically restrained. This has resulted in improvements to sheep handling, because sheep are no longer lifted on to tables to be slaughtered. New monitoring procedures have also been introduced to check for unconsciousness and death among all species.
Our slaughter legislation also provides greater protections than those contained in the EU regulation, which sets a baseline for standards in Europe. For instance, we prohibit the inversion of cattle for religious slaughter, which the EU regulation does not prohibit and some EU member states still allow. This ban followed a 1985 report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which recommended that cattle inversion should be banned.
Our legislation also specifically requires that any animal slaughtered without prior stunning must not be further processed before a minimum length of time after their cut has passed—90 seconds in the case of meat chickens. This adds an extra safeguard to ensure that animals are not dressed while still conscious.
Cattle present particular animal welfare issues due to the time that it takes for them to become unconscious, so additional national rules also specify that adult cattle have to be restrained in a restraining pen that has been approved by an official veterinarian from the Food Standards Agency. Also, following the neck cut, cattle must not be moved until they are unconscious and at least 30 seconds have elapsed.
The Government pay careful attention to trends in slaughter methods. With the Welsh Government, we jointly commission the FSA to undertake a biennial survey of slaughter methods. This survey is carried out over the course of a week and deliberately avoids any major religious festivals. The most recent iteration was carried out in February 2024 and was published last November. It showed that the majority of animals are stunned before slaughter: 97% of poultry, and 86% of animals that produce red meat. The number of poultry and cattle that are not stunned before slaughter actually decreased between 2011 and 2024.
However, I recognise that the rate of non-stun sheep slaughter has effectively doubled over the same period and is currently at 29% of all sheep killed in England and Wales; to some extent, this answers the questions put by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). The data shows that this change is being driven by increases in non-stun halal. However, it is unclear whether those increases are being driven by exports or by the changing requirements of Britain’s Muslim communities. The survey also shows that a considerable proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter. For example, in 2024 88% of halal meat chickens in England and Wales were stunned prior to slaughter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made a very thoughtful speech, in which he talked about the demonstration of life protocol. This is an industry-led initiative. It provides assurance for Muslim consumers that stunning sheep and goats is compatible with halal slaughter requirements while protecting the welfare of the animals involved, and it also supports opportunities for trade. The FSA recently removed its associated fees to promote uptake of this protocol, which the Government support.
I turn to labelling, which a number of Members raised. Concern has been voiced about meat from animals slaughtered without stunning being sold to consumers who do not wish their meat to come from animals that are killed in that way. Clearly, such sales are regrettable. Currently, there are no regulations that require the labelling of non-stunned slaughtered meat. Legally, however, where any information of this nature is provided, it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer.
I think the point was made by a number of Members that it is also worth remembering that the major supermarkets currently have sourcing policies requiring that all their own-brand fresh meat comes from animals that have been stunned before slaughter. Alongside that, they operate limited concessions for halal or kosher food that will clearly be labelled as such. In addition, some farm assurance schemes, such as Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured, also require stunned slaughter, so consumers can look out for such labels. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) made an important point about the out-of-home sector, which is clearly more challenging.
Recently, considerable work has been done to consider the merits of method-of-production labelling. A public consultation on proposals to improve and extend current method-of-production labelling was undertaken last year by the previous Government. The consultation sought views on options for the production standards behind the label, including the period of life that should be covered by the standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase also spoke about the BVA proposals, and the potential for a plethora of information on labels.
In the debate on Tuesday last week, the interest in animal welfare labelling was very clear. We recognise that this is an important matter, and are looking closely at all the responses to that consultation before we decide on the next steps, but there will be a response to the consultation shortly. “Shortly” is quite interesting parliamentary language, but Members will not have to wait very long.
The effective monitoring and enforcement of our animal welfare regulations is key to ensuring that our high standards are maintained. Official veterinarians from the Food Standards Agency carry out that important work at approved slaughterhouses, and religious slaughter can take place only in an approved slaughterhouse. Enforcement action is taken when there are any breaches of animal welfare legislation, and that may involve suspension or revocation of a slaughterman’s licence, the imposition of an enforcement notice requiring that the non-compliance be remedied, or a formal investigation with a view to prosecution.
CCTV is an important tool to assist with monitoring and enforcement for all methods of slaughter, including non-stun slaughter. It provides assurance that it is done in accordance with the regulations to protect animal welfare. All slaughterhouses in Great Britain are required to have CCTV recording in all areas in which live animals are present, and they must make the recordings available to the official veterinarian.
In conclusion, the debate today has been wide-ranging, underlining the complexities involved. I understand the welfare concerns of animal welfare and veterinary groups, as well as of many Members who have spoken today and urged the Government to reform the rules around non-stun slaughter. I can assure the House that I have listened carefully to all the points made. As hon. Members would expect, I will engage with religious communities and other stakeholders on these issues.
I reiterate that the Government will continue to respect the rights of Jews and Muslims to continue to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs, but I am also proud that we have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. The Prime Minister announced last week that we will publish an animal welfare strategy later this year, and I look forward to being able to outline more detail in due course.
Animal Welfare in Farming
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate all those who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate.
We are a nation of animal lovers, as has been made very clear to me since I became an Environment Minister. As Members would expect, animal welfare issues consistently form a significant proportion of the correspondence that comes across my desk. I want to start by saying a bit about people, because I have “food security” in my job title, and I take it very seriously. I am very proud of the people across our country who, at this very moment, whether on land or at sea, are producing the food that we absolutely expect to be available. It is an extraordinarily complicated and sophisticated system; of course it can be improved, and we have heard suggestions for improvement, but it is important that we register just how extraordinary the food system already is. When there are transgressions—it occasionally happens that people in this place transgress—we should not see people as guilty by association. We should celebrate the success of the system, as well as the challenges.
We are rightly proud that this country’s animal welfare standards are very high; in fact, they are one of the selling points of our agricultural sector. They are greatly valued by consumers at home and are part of our sales pitch to people abroad. We want to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection they deserve.
The Labour party has a proud history of improving animal welfare. Next year will mark 20 years since the previous Labour Government introduced the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, which still represents the most fundamental change to our animal welfare law in nearly a century.
All farm animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health and welfare legislation. The Animal Welfare Act makes it an offence to either cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 set down detailed requirements on how farmed livestock should be kept. There is also legislation that sets out specific conditions that need to be met for permitted procedures, such as tail docking, to be performed on certain species of animals.
In addition to farm animal welfare legislation, my Department has a series of statutory species-specific welfare codes, such as the code of practice for the welfare of meat chickens, which farmers are required by law to have access to and be familiar with. That encourages high standards of husbandry. As we have heard, we want to do better, and I absolutely understand that the keeping of farm animals in cages and close confinement systems is a topic that has exercised many of us over many years in this place. It is one that I absolutely assure hon. Members is currently receiving my very careful attention.
I am well aware of recent and long-running campaigns that have urged the Government to publish consultations on phasing out the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. Many Members have spoken passionately about that. I am sure Members are aware that the Petitions Committee has selected a recent e-petition on the use of cages and crates for debate, and many of us will be back here in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) raised a series of points around those issues. She also raised the culling of male chickens. I followed that subject very closely. Clearly, the technology, as she rightly pointed out, now allows chicks to be sexed within the egg. We very much welcome the UK egg industry’s interest in the development of day zero sexing technology. This is one of the areas on which we can move forward.
I also want to address the points on trade, because that has been one of the key themes in this debate. It is very topical and there is a lot going on in the world. Ending the use of these systems is an issue that our European trading partners are also carefully considering. We heard a number of interventions, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake)—she and I have debated these issues on many occasions over the years.
I was also delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), who is a genuine friend. She raised a particular issue around decapod culling. My Department is talking to both the industry and relevant animal welfare non-governmental organisations on potential non-statutory guidance on which methods of killing decapods are or are not in line with the existing welfare at time of killing legal requirements. I hope she will find that encouraging.
As a number of Members have pointed out, with any change to our farming systems we need to evaluate the implications for trade. When considering welfare standards at home, it is crucial that we consider the potential for unintentionally replacing UK production with lower welfare production overseas—that point was well made by my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling). Replacing a UK egg with an imported caged egg would be not only bad for the consumer and bad for the producers, but bad for animal welfare as well.
These are complicated questions. I am not going to go into the fine detail of all the trade points, but I will make a few observations. We have been absolutely clear as a Government that we will use our trade strategy to promote the highest food production standards. We are determined to prevent farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) all raised those points. I will say a little about some of the recent trade deals with the United States, India and, of course, the European Union, which I think are to be celebrated, frankly.
The United States deal does not change our own sanitary and phytosanitary regime. This—and any future agreement—only concerns US food products that have existing access to the UK market. We are absolutely committed to our high welfare standards and high consumer standards. I assure colleagues that chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will remain illegal in the United Kingdom.
On the EU agreement, the European Union has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. It is still subject to negotiation, but we have been absolutely clear about the importance of being able to set high animal welfare standards, support public health and use innovative technologies. The shadow Minister raised the issue of precision breeding. We have clearly been closely involved in that debate over a long time. I am determined to ensure that we protect our position.
On factory farming in general, I do not agree with some of the comments about large-scale production. The key issue is not size but ensuring that every farm complies with comprehensive UK law on animal health and welfare, planning, veterinary medicines and environmental legislation. Stockmanship and high husbandry standards are the key to ensuring appropriate welfare standards for all farmed animals. I appreciate the nervousness about large farms, but I have seen less than wonderful standards of biosecurity on smaller farms—although that has not always been the fault of the people involved. I do not think the issue is size; it is quality, and the ability of that business to carry out its work in a correct and safe way.
On the animal health and welfare pathway, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Epping Forest and his colleagues in the previous Parliament on this important point. Improving animal health underpins the welfare of farmed animals, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, slows the rise of antimicrobial resistance, better protects farmers and the public against the economic impact of disease, and helps to demonstrate a commitment to rising standards of animal health and welfare to our current and future trading partners across the world. It is really important, and we are good at it—we should be proud and celebrate it.
The pathway aims to promote the production of healthier, higher-welfare animals at a level beyond compliance with regulations, and to deliver sustained improvements over time, which address the challenges of the future as well as those of today.
Carla Lockhart
The Minister will be aware that access to veterinary medicines is key for animal welfare. He will know that Northern Ireland continues to face a cliff edge with regards to access to veterinary medicines. Will he commit to update hon. Members interested in this issue quickly, given its impact on the industry?
Daniel Zeichner
I assure the hon. Lady that we are very aware of that issue. I can also assure her in passing that I have regular dialogue with Minister Muir on the issues she raised.
I would like to say something about the funding that has been made available to help farmers. In early 2025, we announced £16.7 million of funding for a new round of animal health and welfare grants delivered through the farming equipment and technology fund. Applications are currently open, with livestock farmers able to apply for funding towards the cost of equipment and technology that delivers benefits for animal health and welfare.
On the poor behaviour that has been referenced, like all of us I have been shocked by some of the things we have seen. I listened closely to my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). He is absolutely right that such unacceptable behaviour must be taken extremely seriously. It is imperative that any suspicion of animal cruelty is reported to DEFRA’s Animal and Plant Health Agency as quickly as possible, so that timely investigations can take place and the welfare of animals safeguarded. I am told that there can be a gap between some of these incidents and the reporting, which makes it difficult to move forward.
More generally on enforcement, the Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors and local authorities conduct inspections on farms to check that animal welfare standards are being met. The vast majority of owners and keepers both comply with their duty of care and follow the law, but there are occasions when some fail to do so. It is absolutely the responsibility of enforcement authorities to use appropriate enforcement tools to ensure that the law is upheld, to protect animals and people and to encourage animal keepers to be compliant now and in future. To ensure that we have a transparent enforcement regime, we are actively working with enforcement authorities to reform the way they collect and publish data of on-farm enforcement activities and the actions they take to support compliance and act on non-compliance.
I am aware of your strictures on time, Sir John, so I will finish by saying a little about the important points made by a number of hon. Members about labelling: my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), and the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest. We are looking at labelling extremely closely. There are so many things that people want to know about, and I am talking to a whole range of stakeholders about how we can get the issue right and take it forward. The points that have been made are very important. There is a real opportunity to improve the welfare side, but there are many other things we can do with it as well.
I am also mindful of the points made about some of the farm assurance schemes. I think they are an extremely important tool and lever, but they are, of course, independent—and that is part of their strength and importance. We need to make sure that we can achieve, with them, the kind of improvements that we wish to see. I reassure the shadow spokesperson that £208 million has been made available to the National Biosecurity Centre; I am sure he would join me in being pleased to hear that. I also assure him that we are working very hard to ensure that the future is secure.
Let me conclude by saying that the Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Our farm animal welfare policy is backed by robust science and evidence, and supported and shaped by input from expert advice groups, including the Animal Welfare Committee, as well as funded research and development. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently undertaking a series of meetings with key stakeholders as part of developing an overarching approach to animal welfare. I very much look forward to coming back to talk to hon. Members in more detail about that in due course.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsWednesday 21st May 2025
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 View all Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 May 2025 - (21 May 2025)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury not just on introducing the Bill, but on her calm and thorough presentation of the issues, which served as an excellent introduction to our discussions.
I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments about the range of organisations that have engaged constructively on the long path to this point. He eloquently outlined the history, including the work of Baroness Coffey, to whom I pay tribute for strengthening the legislation in her version of the Bill. I have a sense of déjà vu from previous debates and from last week’s discussions—we are still working on measures that could have been put in place through the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—but here we are, and we can all celebrate the fact that this is finally going to happen.
Let me reiterate how seriously the Government take the issue. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock have devastating impacts on animals and people. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or even death to the livestock and has a seriously detrimental effect on farmers and on those who work in the countryside.
I am very grateful for the contributions from Members across the Committee. We all know that the issue is important, but there are some wider implications that are perhaps not so immediately obvious, such as lambs being aborted and flocks of birds sometimes smothered.
Let me repeat some statistics. In 2025, a National Sheep Association survey found that 96% of farmers experienced between one and 10 sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. The remaining 4% experienced between 10 and 30 incidents, and one respondent reported 44 sheep killed in a single attack; one of our colleagues conveyed that powerfully in a previous discussion. Those tragic statistics show that it is worth our time ensuring that the Bill is passed.
The Bill takes forward important measures that will extend the locations and species in scope of the 1953 Act, strengthen police powers and increase the penalty from the current £1,000 fine. I am well aware of the strength of feeling among Members across the House, stakeholders and people who live and work across our country.
The main purpose of the Bill is to improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively. It extends powers of seizure and modifies entry powers; it also introduces a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. Obviously, the world has changed a lot since the 1953 Act was passed; the Bill should give the police the tools they need to investigate, collect evidence and, most important, increase the number of prosecutions. It is striking how difficult it is to do that.
The shadow Minister asked about the DNA systems for evidence gathering. DEFRA has part-funded phase 1 of the canine DNA recovery project, which as he said is led by Liverpool John Moores University. The project will support measures in the Bill, and, we hope, facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect the data. We are working with the project team, and I have asked them about how we can ensure the new DNA powers are rolled out effectively with the police.
As we have heard, the Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater outlined so eloquently. That will help to protect livestock when farmers need to move them from place to place.
The changed wording of the offence and the creation of separate offences for attacks on livestock and worrying is really important; the shadow Minister made that point strongly. The term “worrying” can downplay the severity of some of these offences; the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made that point very effectively. Reframing the Act so that “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of the incidents. My hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset and for Stratford and Bow showed that there is widespread understanding of just how serious these issues are. The welcome extension, referenced by a number of hon. Members, of the 1953 Act to include camelids such as llamas and alpacas will allow much greater protection.
The maximum penalty, which is currently a fine of £1,000, will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. The courts will be able to determine an appropriate fine in line with sentencing guidelines that takes account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender.
The amendment was so eloquently spoken to that I was surprised to hear that this is the first time the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin has served on a Bill Committee; I hope she is enjoying it. The procedures are sometimes quite complicated. The 1953 Act makes it an offence to allow a dog to be “at large” around sheep in fields or enclosures, and makes it clear that a dog is at large if it is not on a lead or otherwise under close control. She is absolutely right to say that I have raised similar questions in the past about how to further strengthen the Bill’s provisions on that. However, I have been advised that the current approach is sensible, as it places strong requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, but does not unduly restrict the circumstances in which a court could conclude that a dog was not under close control.
It is important to get the balance right between responsible dog ownership, which I will come back to in a moment, and livestock protection. We know that many responsible dog walkers enjoy the countryside without incident. The countryside code, which I strongly believe we should strengthen and promote, already provides comprehensive guidance for dog walkers and highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. I pay tribute to organisations such as the National Trust that are doing good work to promote and educate on responsible dog ownership. It is important that people understand what it is sensible to do when walking in the countryside.
The amendment would specify in more detail when a dog should be treated as being under close control, but I have been advised that that that is not expected to change behaviour among responsible dog walkers. The advice that persuaded me to change my mind is that setting out the meaning of “close control” risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. The benefit of the current approach is that it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was not under close control, and that evidence need not be limited to proving specific elements such as whether the owner had reason to be confident that the dog would respond promptly to recall. On balance, therefore, I think it preferable not to introduce the more stringent requirement. Although I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, I gently ask her not to press her amendment.
Turning to the wider animal welfare issues, I was delighted to hear the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn and for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who quite rightly did exactly what one would expect of one’s colleagues and urged the Government to move more quickly. I will relay that message to my colleagues. I assure my hon. Friends that the Government are consulting widely. This is the important point: we were elected on a strong commitment to strengthen animal welfare. We are engaged in detailed conversations with all the stakeholders at the moment and will come forward with proposals that will, I am sure, satisfy my most engaged colleagues. I look forward to having that discussion with them as we go forward.
Daniel Zeichner
I will certainly give way. I am sure that my hon. Friend is going to press me.
Adam Jogee
Old habits die hard, Minister. I am grateful to him for acknowledging my comments and those of our hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn. When he speaks to his colleagues at the Department, will he get us a date for the publication of this strategy?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s helpful contribution. I assure him that a date will emerge in due course. I am very happy to offer the Government’s support for the Bill.
Dr Hudson
Before the Minister finishes his remarks, I want to ask him one question. He said he would talk about what the Government are doing on responsible dog ownership. This discrete, and welcome, piece of legislation will do a lot to protect animal health and welfare, but it is part of a package of measures. We need to ensure that people who own dogs source them responsibly, train them responsibly, socialise them responsibly and manage them responsibly. How will this Government continue the work of the Conservative Government, who set up the responsible dog ownership working group? How will they ensure that the medium and longer-term piece of work, which will not be easy, is done in parallel? Legislation has been passed about XL bully dogs in the last couple of years—another discrete piece of legislation —but there must be work in parallel on responsible dog ownership. I would be grateful if the Minister said what his Government will do in that space.
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.
Daniel Zeichner
May I endorse that and thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for the way she has conducted this process? We wish the Bill well, because it is very important to tackle attacks on and worrying of livestock. The Bill will strengthen the 1953 Act, so let us get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsWednesday 14th May 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 View all Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
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.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for promoting this private Member’s Bill; as we have heard from a range of hon. Members this morning, it is an extremely important Bill for animal welfare and the safe movement of our beloved pets. I also thank him for the amendments that he has tabled, which I assure him the Government support.
I echo the witty comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, at the beginning. We have been through a long journey on this issue, and I am delighted that Parliament is at a stage where we can deliver it. The Bill will be welcome. I well remember the discussion of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and Selaine Saxby’s efforts, to which I pay tribute.
Dr Hudson
The measures in clauses 4 and 5 on the delineation between commercial and non-commercial movement of animals are important. The Opposition very much welcome the provision in clause 4 reducing the number of animals to five per vehicle or three per person. I know that many campaigners, including the Dogs Trust and various charities, wanted that figure to be three per vehicle, based on the surveys that they had done. However, if we think about what has happened with unscrupulous traders picking up foot passengers who potentially have four or five animals with them, five per vehicle in this legislation is a darned sight better than potentially 20 per vehicle. I urge the Minister to keep the limit under review; if there is evidence that anything is being exploited, I am sure that reducing the five down to three would be very much welcome across the sector.
A key point that I want to stress in clause 4 is the difference between commercial and non-commercial transportation. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and animal charities have found that people have been flipping between commercial and non-commercial transportation of animals to get away from the authorities. I urge the Government to keep a watching brief on that issue. If there is evidence that people, because of this legislation, are flipping between the two, the Government must stamp down on what would be an alarming development.
Finally, I briefly turn to amendment 5 to clause 4. I very much understand the methodology and the reasons for tabling it, but the Government, who are supporting and drafting this amendment, need to clarify what is meant by “exceptional or compelling circumstances”. We have heard some examples, but some in the sector, such as the RSPCA, have expressed some reservations that amendment 5, while well intended, might unfortunately create a loophole.
In his summing up, can the Minister give clarity that the Government will keep a watching brief on that issue and be very clear about who we mean by “exceptional and compelling circumstances”? As with any legislation, unintended consequences and loopholes can develop, and we know that in the animal smuggling sector bad people, who are doing bad things to animals, exploit loopholes. I urge the hon. Member for Winchester and the Government to clarify that amendment 5 will be okay.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for all the contributions on this very important part of the Bill, and I will try to address briefly some of the points that have been made. On bringing the numbers down from five per person to a maximum of five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger, I hear the points made by both the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole.
The Government strongly support the reduction, but a limit of five pets per vehicle gives flexibility for individuals travelling with assistance dogs alongside their other pets, as well as family and friends travelling together, as the hon. Member for Winchester explained in his introductory comments, while also significantly reducing the risk that non-commercial pet travel rules will be abused. Clearly, we will always monitor the way in which this works and act accordingly. The limit of five pets per vehicle and three per air or foot passenger was recommended by the EFRA Committee back in April 2024.
In passing, I will also reference the Veterinary Surgeons Act. We are well aware of the need to update it, and it will be in the programme in future—it is a question of finding legislative time, but we are very keen to proceed. The Government also strongly support the Bill’s introduction of a requirement for pets and their owners to travel within five days of each other—that is really important. It will link a pet’s movement to their owner’s, closing a loophole that we know is exploited by unscrupulous traders.
As explained by the hon. Member for Winchester, amendment 14 is a clarificatory change to make it clear that the existing definition of pet animal is not affected by the measures in the Bill; some of these finer points are really quite important to ensure that we do not introduce unintended consequences. The amendment seeks to maintain the status quo by clarifying that the Bill is not changing the definition of pet animal, to avoid any unintended consequences that may impact the operation of the pet travel regime. I urge Members to support that amendment.
Turning now to amendments 4 to 8, we all recognise the importance of the measures in clause 4 to prevent abuse of the pet travel rules and to close existing loopholes. However, to address the point raised by the shadow Minister, sometimes exceptional circumstances arise where strict adherence to those rules may be impractical or negatively impact individuals, such as those—but not only those—with protected characteristics. In our view, an intentional and tightly controlled exemption is entirely appropriate, but I give an absolute assurance that it will be in very limited circumstances. The Government will be able to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis to ensure that groups such as those with protected characteristics are not adversely impacted, but there has to be sufficient justification for an exemption.
The purpose of the amendments is to give us flexibility and to allow the objective of introducing tighter restrictions on pet travel to be balanced with the need to ensure that genuine pet owners are not penalised in emergency situations, and that those with protected characteristics can, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, travel together. We are trying to get the balance right, and obviously we will see how it plays out in practice. I genuinely believe that the exemption upholds our commitment to ending puppy smuggling while offering flexibility, providing that individuals can demonstrate that their movements are genuinely non-commercial. The exemption would not create any blanket exceptions from the rules, and its application would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
My officials will be working with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop clear operational guidance outlining exactly what circumstances might justify an exemption and what evidence would be necessary. That will be communicated to the public ahead of the measure coming into force. For those reasons, I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
“2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if—
(i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and
(ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Consequential provision
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 6, page 8, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes the power to make provision in regulations that is consequential on clause 4 or 5.
Dr Hudson
I rise to support clause 6 and the subsequent clauses within the Bill. I will be very brief; I just want to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have the highest standard of animal welfare in the world, and with legislation like this, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. Animal welfare, as we have seen today, unites us in humanity across the House, and it is so important that we support such legislation.
I thank everyone involved with this Bill: the DEFRA team, the Clerks, Hansard, the Bill Committee, the Doorkeepers, and the public for coming, watching and engaging with this process. I thank my friend and veterinary colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester, for introducing this important legislation. I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament, as a shadow Minister, as a co-sponsor of the Bill and as a veterinary surgeon. It has my full support.
Daniel Zeichner
I echo the comments from the shadow Minister. This is a very important piece of legislation and I am very pleased that it is finally happening. It builds on the recommendations from the EFRA Committee, it addresses multiple concerns raised by stakeholders about the current pet travel rules, and it supports the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling. I am delighted that we are making good progress, and I am very much looking forward to seeing it continue to progress through its remaining parliamentary stages.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Regulations
Amendments made: 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That subsection (1) of clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 7 on page 4.—(Dr Chambers.)
Ordered,
That clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 21 on page 5.—(Dr Chambers.)
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dr Chambers
I appreciate your chairmanship throughout our proceedings, Sir Jeremy, and I want to thank everyone who was involved. I will thank my team in Winchester, again. I am so effusive in my thanks because, for a brand-new MP, trying to learn how to set up an office and then negotiate the complexities of a private Member’s Bill, this has been a huge amount of work, and my team—Sophie Hammond, who is currently on maternity leave, and Tom Wood and Hayley Puddefoot, who took over from her on this—have now become experts in animal movement.
There has been a lot of work from everyone, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs staff. I was a member of the British Veterinary Association policy committee more than 10 years ago, and we campaigned on this issue. I know that applies to so many other organisations: the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS and Blue Cross. I was at Battersea yesterday, with my friend the hon. Member for Epping Forest. So many organisations have been working on this issue for so long, and I think I can speak on behalf of the veterinary profession when I thank every Member who is here today to make this legislation happen, because it is seismic for animal welfare. The veterinary profession has wanted it for years and it will have a huge impact on animal welfare and on those who work with animals every day.
We know that the Bill will put an end to the sight of dogs with cropped ears. Whether they are imported from abroad or whether the procedure occurs in the UK, there will no longer be an excuse to own a dog with cropped ears, and that will be something we can all celebrate, because it is a very cruel procedure. It is not the only mutilation that we see; it is not the only unnecessary mutilation that we see, but it is so common. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said earlier, so many of the public are not even aware that it is a mutilation. I think many believe they are seeing normal anatomy, and that is a huge problem in itself.
On that note, and although this is not part of the Bill, I look forward to working with the Government—along with other vets in Parliament—to ensure that we deal with other animal welfare issues where the public simply do not understand that they are causing cruelty. A very good example is flat-faced—brachycephalic—dogs. They shot up in popularity by over 300% between 2010 and 2020. Some of these dogs are bred to such an extent that they need surgery even to be able to breathe. Again, it is not a niche issue. More French bulldogs were registered in the UK than labradors, so this is a very common problem, and we need to work together to both educate the public and, potentially, legislate as we are doing today to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, even if it is caused by well-meaning people who do not understand the amount of suffering that they are causing.
Sustainable Farming Incentive 2024
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
This Government inherited farming schemes which were underspent, meaning millions of pounds were not going to farming businesses.
As set out in the plan for change, the Government are focused on supporting our farmers, driving rural economic growth and boosting Britain’s food security. Now is the right time for a reset via the reformed sustainable farming incentive offer, which will support farmers, deliver for nature and target public funds fairly and effectively towards our priorities for food, farming and nature.
In October, the Labour Government outlined plans to invest a record £5 billion into farming, the largest budget for sustainable food production in our country’s history.
As a result of this investment, a record number of farmers are now in farming schemes, and more money is being paid to more farmers under the SFI than ever before.
Earlier this year, the Government have successfully allocated the entire SFI budget and could therefore no longer accept new applications for the scheme.
There are more than 37,000 live SFI agreements currently in place, under which money continues to be paid to farmers this year and over future years.
However, an error was made when the current scheme was closed to new applications, the budget having been allocated.
I was not aware that people who had started an application and then saved it without submitting had been shown a “We’ve saved your application” screen containing two messages:
“If we need to close applications, we will give you six weeks’ notice. We will publicise this information on www.gov.uk and email you”. This message was shown in error due to a technical issue which meant that the message was carried over unintentionally from the online application used for the SFI 2023 offer.
“Your application will be available for two months for you to continue. If you have not submitted your application by then, we will delete it”. This message was intentional.
The first message should not have been included and I apologise for the confusion it caused.
I am addressing the situation and have remade the decision to close the SFI 2024 scheme to new applications, without notice, on 11 March 2025, taking into account the message that was published in error on the screen.
I have decided to allow applications to be made to the SFI 2024 scheme by those who had started an application within two months of 11 March 2025, but who had not submitted the application by that date. This is relevant to around 3,000 applications which were started on 12 January 2025 or later. Eligible applicants will be given a six-week window in which to make an application. My Department will shortly be contacting applicants who are eligible to let them know when this window will open and close.
Agreements will be offered to eligible applications subject to the following restrictions:
Only one application may be submitted per farm business.
Agreements will be offered up to a maximum value of £9,300 per year for the duration of the agreement—excluding the SFI management payment, which would not count towards the value limit. This maximum value reflects the median average agreement value for existing SFI 2024 agreements.
Agreement holders will not be able to add more land to “rotational” SFI actions after year 1 of their agreement.
I acknowledge that these restrictions are not part of the published SFI 2024 scheme. I have taken the decision to put these restrictions in place in order to be as fair and reasonable to the affected applicants as possible, while also ensuring the prudent use of public money and the wider public interest. Given that the budget for the SFI 2024 scheme has been fully allocated, any further agreements entered into under the SFI 2024 scheme will need to be funded from other areas of DEFRA’s departmental budget. I have therefore borne in mind the need to avoid creating unfairness to others or undermining other important objectives by unreasonably diverting funds from the wider farming and countryside programme.
My Department will announce further details on how this approach will be implemented shortly, including the timing of when applications from eligible applicants can start.
This decision does not change arrangements for small groups we previously announced would be able to make applications for agreements under the SFI 2024 scheme despite the closure of applications—namely farmers who were in the SFI pilot, assisted digital applications, and applicants with known system issues that prevented them from submitting applications. We will be contacting these groups shortly to explain the details of how this will be taken forward.
For all other farmers, SFI remains closed to new applications for the time being, pending the launch of the reformed SFI offer, which we will publish more detail about this summer. Work on this offer is already well under way. We are developing it in partnership with sector stakeholders, and the scheme will target public funds more effectively to meet the needs of both farmers and the environment.
Every penny committed through more than 37,000 live SFI agreements that were in place before 11 March will continue to be paid to farmers over the coming years. All eligible applications submitted before applications closed have been taken forward.
This decision will not impact the planned payment rate increase for farmers in higher level stewardship agreements, details of which are due to be released shortly.
We are investing £30 million to increase HLS payment rates so farmers in HLS agreements can continue to restore habitats, support rare species, preserve historical features and maintain traditional landscape features in our iconic countryside.
We are going further to develop a 25-year farming road map to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come with Baroness Minette Batters, former NFU President and farmer, appointed to lead a review of farm profitability.
[HCWS626]
Oral Answers to Questions
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
On VE Day, it is important that we remember the huge contribution made by fishermen, fishing communities, farm workers and agricultural workers during the last war to keep the country fed. Later today, I shall unveil a plaque to the members of the Women’s Land Army, one of whom was my aunt, Jean Mead. They made a fantastic contribution during that period.
We negotiate a range of fishing quotas, and any future quotas will be agreed only if that is in the national interest. I am pleased that we are engaging closely with industry, trialling new methods to shape future allocations that will both protect stocks and support communities.
Harriet Cross
A recent poll by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation showed that 87% of Scots believe the UK should control access to our fishing waters. Two-thirds of seafood landed in the UK comes into Scotland and it is vital to our economy and to many of our coastal communities. Will the Minister show the House and rural and fishing communities across the country that the Prime Minister will not negotiate away any control of our waters during his EU reset later this month?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Lady for her important question, and I recognise the importance of the Scottish fishing fleet and its contribution. She will have to wait a little longer to hear the full details of the outcomes of any negotiations, but I have to remind her that the sense of betrayal across fishing communities came under her Government’s watch.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
We have discussed this serious issue in the Chamber before, and I know how seriously Members on both sides of the House take it. The Government make it an absolute priority to protect farmers from the dangers of this awful threat. The Government have stepped up measures to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease following confirmed cases in Slovakia and Hungary. Imports into Northern Ireland of live animals and susceptible meat products are prohibited from within the restriction zones surrounding the affected premises in Hungary and Slovakia.
Robin Swann
I join in the Secretary of State’s words on VE Day, especially regarding Northern Ireland’s contribution to our armed forces and through the armaments we supplied.
When I contacted the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland about his responsibilities, he actually told me that the issue no longer sits within his ministerial responsibility, but comes directly under the control of the Environment Secretary. What practical steps is the Minister taking to protect Northern Ireland farmers, especially in regard to the recent announcement of a case of African swine fever on 2 May in Slovakia, within the same geographical area as those foot and mouth outbreaks?
Daniel Zeichner
We work closely with the Minister in Northern Ireland for exactly the reasons that he would expect. We take this extremely seriously. There are a range of threats in Europe, and that is why we have not only put in place the long-established and well-trialled measures, but added additional protection measures to ensure that we are properly protected.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Farmers in Northern Ireland who fear foot and mouth, and even dog owners like me, rely on good veterinary support, but this is no longer the world of James Herriot; a number of large companies dominate the market. The Competition and Markets Authority says that remedies are needed. Does the Minister agree, and will he commit to reviewing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is clearly no longer fit for purpose?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can assure him that I and Baroness Hayman, who leads on this in the Department, are very well aware of the recent reports and the antiquated nature of the legislation. We will come back with proposals in due course.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The hon. Lady and I have discussed these issues before. I know that she shares my passion for achieving the transition to the nature-friendly farming that we all want. The Government are investing £5 billion in farming over the next two years—the highest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in our history. Through a range of measures delivered through the Government’s environmental land management schemes, we are supporting farmers to implement nature-friendly farming practices. We now have more farmers than ever in nature-friendly farming schemes, and reform in the sustainable farming incentive will target funds fairly and effectively towards food, farming and nature priorities. We will announce further details later this year.
Ellie Chowns
On behalf of the Green party, on this special day of commemoration, I join colleagues from across the House in paying tribute to all those who sacrificed so much to resist and defeat fascism 80 years ago.
I thank the Minister for his response. We have indeed discussed these issues before and will continue to do so, I am sure. At the weekend, I spent time on two farms in my constituency—at both I met groups of farmers, including members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who told me of their huge frustration at being let down by the Government’s policy on farming and the lack of support. They recognise how vital farming is, including the transition to nature-friendly farming, for this country’s food security, nature protection and climate action. Does he agree with the farmers in my constituency about how vital the transition to nature-friendly farming is for those issues, and will he give us a date for when he will introduce such policies—
Daniel Zeichner
I am always interested to hear reflections from farmers. I have spoken to other members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network who are very pleased with the progress being made, but of course we want to go faster and further. We have over 50,000 people in the schemes and more money is being spent than ever before. We must recognise the important progress being made.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this extremely serious issue. To prevent the further spread of disease and manage the risk of avian influenza, DEFRA and the Animal and Plant Health Agency have implemented well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and support recovery in local communities. Avian influenza prevention zones are in force across the UK. To further protect farmers and help communities, we are currently investing £208 million in the future of the biosecurity labs at Weybridge.
Sir John Whittingdale
Does the Minister agree that avian influenza remains an existential threat to the poultry industry, and—now that the French have decided to vaccinate their ducks—will he agree to the National Farmers Union request that we introduce the vaccination of seasonal turkeys in order to protect the entire industry?
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman makes a well-informed point. Vaccination has been considered for some time. There are trade issues, but as he says, the fact that the French are changing their position is useful. The Government are committed to exploring options for vaccination, and a cross-Government and industry avian influenza vaccination taskforce has been established. It published an initial statement on 7 March and will report more fully this summer.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Avian influenza, sadly, is still very much with us, having devastated both wild and domestic birds in recent years. With bluetongue still here, African swine fever on our doorstep and, alarmingly, foot and mouth outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, we face significant threats to our biosecurity. Disease surveillance, vaccination and control are crucial, centred with the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which I thank in these challenging times. When will this Government finish the work that we Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion in 2020 to redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge? Labour’s repeatedly re-announced £208 million is a start, but when will it commit the further £1.4 billion for this critical national infrastructure, for the sake of UK agriculture and our national security?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words and his praise for the APHA. These are extremely important subjects. We face a range of threats. That is why the Government have increased security in terms of personal imports through the short straits in particular. On his point about Weybridge, we have had this discussion before. There is a major programme under way, which will take a number of years. It is already a world-leading facility, and this Government are committed to providing the funding that Weybridge needs to do its job. We are absolutely committed to that, which is why we have announced £208 million this year.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Annual variations in farm input costs are driven by global markets. UK fertiliser farm gate prices are tied to movements in the international markets, and UK fertiliser suppliers compete for market share, providing the best price they can for farmers.
Graeme Downie
Farms in my constituency and across Fife produce some of the highest quality grain in the world. However, many farmers are struggling to make a profit as imported grain is often produced at a different standard. That can undermine or undercut cereals grown in Scotland, which are produced to the highest standards. Scottish grain is a vital ingredient for high-quality Scotch whisky, and with the news this week of the trade deal with India, welcomed by the Scotch Whisky Association, demand for Scottish grain is likely to rise. What steps will the Minister take to increase standards for imported grain, and ensure profit for farmers in my constituency and a consistent supply for sectors including Scotch whisky?
Daniel Zeichner
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will always maintain our high standards. All imported products will continue to be subject to clear controls, including limits for pesticide residues. I join him in sharing the really good news on that trade deal: it is good news for Scotch whisky and good news for British producers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My farmers in Northern Ireland and Strangford, and farmers across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, produce some of the best products. Prices are rising, sometimes due to things we cannot prevent, but farmers need better prices from the supermarkets. What is being done to ensure that our farmers, who produce a quality product, get the right prices for the effort they put in?
Daniel Zeichner
I am always grateful for a contribution from the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, a series of fair dealing clauses were included in the Agriculture Act 2020; they are being brought into effect at the moment and we expect to see more progress made in that regard. He is absolutely right to raise the point that farmers should get a fair deal.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and note that even in those times of distress, woe and horror, some good relationships were formed. The seasonal worker visa scheme for 43,000 seasonal worker visas was announced a few months ago. That number includes 2,000 extra for poultry. At the National Farmers Union conference, the Secretary of State announced a five-year extension to 2030. That will provide certainty, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to analyse and assess very carefully what the industry needs to ensure it has the resources required.