Animal Welfare in Farming

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[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 Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Adam Jogee]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Dr Hudson]

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

[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 Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Monday 12th May 2025 Written Statements

[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

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

5. What plans he has for future fishing quotas.

[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)]

6. What recent progress he has made on the Surrey hills national landscape—area of outstanding natural beauty—boundary variation project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

8. What steps he is taking to help prevent foot and mouth disease entering Northern Ireland.

[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)]

9. Whether he plans to improve support for nature-friendly farming.

[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—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a lot to get through today—come on.

[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)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent the spread of avian influenza.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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)]

11. If he will publish updated climate resilience plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to help reduce the cost of materials for arable farms.

[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)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7.   I must thank the Land Army, too. I am only here because my grandma met my grandad on his farm when she was working in the Land Army. Cornwall has a successful horticultural industry, specialising in cauliflowers, daffodils, potatoes and courgettes. The industry welcomed the extension of the seasonal worker visa scheme until 2029, but what metrics are being used to ensure that visa allocations will meet the industry’s needs? Without sufficient access to seasonal labour, there is a real risk to Cornwall’s horticultural sector.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

Small Abattoirs

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.

I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing the debate, and for delivering a thorough and thoughtful introduction to a subject that matters deeply to all those who have spoken today and indeed to many of us across the House. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions to the debate from a range of Members. I thank the UK meat processing industry for all it does to provide us with products that meet high human health, environmental and animal welfare standards, and to support our domestic food supply chains and strong export market. In 2024, the sector was worth some £12 billion.

Today, we are obviously concentrating on the small abattoir sector. Over 93% of meat is slaughtered in larger slaughterhouses but, as has been outlined, the small abattoir sector is still very important, particularly in dealing with rare breeds and in achieving the premium outcomes that I think we all want to support. Everyone who has spoken has made a strong case for the importance of small abattoirs, because they contribute to economic growth in rural communities, provide skilled employment opportunities and offer an outlet to market for those who farm rare and native breeds. As has been said, they promote animal welfare by enabling shorter journey times to slaughter.

We are all aware that the situation for small abattoirs has been an issue for a number of years. Of course, over the last few years a number of smaller abattoirs have closed; some of them have been mentioned in this debate. However, it is also worth pointing out that a number of small abattoirs work very effectively, and have shown remarkable adaptability and resilience. We saw that during the covid-19 pandemic and during disease outbreaks, and we have all heard and understand the crucial role that they play in the agricultural community. When one looks at the map to see where they are, one sees that they are still quite spread out, although quite clearly there are areas of the country that are particularly challenged.

Several Members mentioned the Food Standards Agency’s ongoing evaluation of the discount scheme for meat inspection charges. Obviously, some elements are for the FSA to consider, but as a Minister I can also have a view. Although it is necessary to review such schemes periodically, I absolutely recognise the importance of the discount scheme to smaller abattoirs and the contribution that the industry can make to the evaluation process. That important point was raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), who has since had to go to the main Chamber, and by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton.

After the call for evidence in autumn last year, the FSA has hosted several engagement sessions to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to share their views on discounts, so there is an ongoing discussion about discounts and how they should be structured in the future. My understanding from those discussions is that there was positive engagement, and that the information that was gathered from those sessions will inform future proposals.

I can assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to engage with the sector on those wider priorities, concerns and opportunities, and we will use some of the well-established forums, some of which were mentioned earlier—the small abattoir working group and the small abattoirs task and finish group. I am very grateful to the members of these groups; they provide a valuable opportunity for Government to collaborate with stakeholders on finding, where possible, practical solutions to the priority challenges they have identified, and to support our shared ambition for future resilience and growth. I checked earlier, and they have had meetings recently, in March and January, and I will look closely at the suggestions that they make.

One of the areas in which we have been working closely with the industry, and the Food Standards Agency, is in looking at how we can reduce regulatory and administrative burdens within the framework within which the wider abattoir sector operates. We have to get the right balance because, clearly, we need to make sure that the proper standards are maintained, but also that the regulation is appropriate and proportionate. I absolutely hear the point that has been made that it often seems that there is a disproportionate impact on the smaller abattoirs, as it can be hard for them to meet because of their size.

Actions have been taken already, and will continue to be taken, including the introduction of the reduced administration initiative, which aims to remove certain daily administrative tasks for food business operators, and the FSA escalation process, which is designed to help abattoirs quickly raise and resolve operational issues. I can pledge that we will continue to work collaboratively with the industry, and focus on evaluating the feasibility of other potential flexibilities, including relaxing post-mortem checks within smaller abattoirs.

I am also aware of the impact that recent disease outbreaks have had on the sector. The spread of diseases means that it is sometimes necessary to implement restriction zones, and abattoirs must be designated to receive animals for slaughter from within those restriction zones. Again, I appreciate and understand the difficulties that that can place on both farmers and processors. We have made this process as simple as possible by working closely with both the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland.

Before turning to some of the other actions that the Government are taking, I want to take the opportunity to use this debate to pose a few questions for us all to consider, some of which have already been raised. How can we raise awareness about the vital role that smaller abattoirs play in maintaining the UK’s food supply, and how can we work with local butcheries and farm shops in promoting the added value to primary products, which we have heard about from others? We should also look at the rural employment opportunities that are provided for skilled workers while continuing to innovate and use new technology to drive efficiencies and productivity. I genuinely believe that this is a sector that has a good story to tell.

[John Lamont]

The Minister is absolutely right to highlight the importance of supporting local food production and ensuring that consumers here in the UK buy local. I just wonder how that stacks up with what President Trump has just said, which is that this new UK-US trade deal

“includes billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all the products produced by our great farmers.”

How does that fit in with encouraging people to buy British products?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the opportunity to shoehorn a wider issue into the debate this afternoon. I would encourage him to look more closely at the details as presented by the UK Government, which are a very reliable source of information.

[John Lamont]

But not President Trump?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I could not possibly comment. I will return to the issue of small abattoirs, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government are absolutely committed to making sure that we uphold the very high standards that we have in this country, and that is what we have achieved through the agreement.

Returning to small abattoirs, we are working to modernise statutory livestock traceability services, which should make a big difference over the next two to three years and make it less burdensome for all actors in the supply chain to report the movement of animals into their premises. As we advance those opportunities, we have been working with the industry to identify ways of helping to alleviate the pressures that smaller abattoirs face with the disposal of animal by-products and with labour supply—again, points that were raised in the opening speeches. We will continue to work closely with the industry to explore potential solutions.

To further support economic growth, we remain committed to harnessing the purchasing power of the procurement supply chain to set the tone for delivering our wider ambitions on sustainability, animal welfare and health. We have an ambition to supply half of all food into the public sector from local producers or those certified to higher environmental standards, in line with our World Trade Organisation and domestic procurement obligations.

For the first time, as the Secretary of State announced at the Oxford farming conference in January, the Government will review the food currently bought by the public sector and where it is bought from. That work will be a significant first step to inform future changes to public sector food procurement policies, helping to create an equal playing field for British producers to bid into the £5 billion spent each year on public sector catering contracts.

As the Secretary of State also announced, we are committed to streamlining planning processes for agricultural infrastructure through the Government’s planned consultation on the national planning policy framework. That will give us the opportunity to consult on reforms to expedite the construction of essential farm infrastructure, such as buildings, barns and other facilities necessary for boosting food production, while also improving environmental sustainability.

As the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, I am absolutely committed to helping smaller abattoirs to succeed and to take advantage of the opportunities available to them by continuing to support the meat industry where and when I can. To support employment in the meat processing sector—a point raised by several Members—the Government are taking firm action to address the challenges we have identified through our engagement with that sector.

We are reforming the apprenticeships offer into a new growth and skills offer, which will provide greater flexibility to employers and learners and will align with the industrial strategy. That will include shorter-duration apprenticeships and new foundation apprenticeships for young people in targeted, growing sectors. That will help more people to learn high quality skills at work and will fuel innovation in businesses across the country. The Government will set out our plans for further steps and detailed information on the growth and skills offer in due course, based on the findings of Skills England’s engagement over the autumn with key partners, including employers and training providers.

As part of our commitment to strengthening vital sectors across the agricultural and food industries, we have also announced measures to provide stability to farmers and workers in the UK’s poultry sector. In February, the Government announced a five-year extension to the seasonal worker visa until the end of 2030, ensuring a reliable pipeline of workers for farms. As in previous years, 2,000 visas have been allocated specifically for seasonal poultry workers, and annual quota reviews will balance farm support with reducing reliance on seasonal migrant labour, helping farms to grow with stability and confidence.

I turn to funding. Despite the ongoing financial challenges posed by a very tight public purse, we have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over two years, with the largest ever investment directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery. Capital investment will not solve every problem, but we do plan to simplify and rationalise grant funding to ensure that grants deliver the best benefit for food security and nature. We are currently working to agree our capital settlement as part of the spending review and, once it is agreed, we will consider how best to use capital to achieve outcomes.

In closing, I thank the meat processing sector and smaller abattoirs specifically for their continued commitment to supplying the nation with healthy and wholesome food. The Government stand with them, and I look forward to continuing to work with the sector to build a stronger and more secure future for British agriculture and food production.

Draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025.

As always it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 March.

Let me begin by paying tribute to the UK pig sector, which is a cornerstone of our food system and a shining example of British farming at its best. The sector is built on generations of hard work, innovation and pride. Whether that is our skilled producers raising health, high welfare animals, or our forward-thinking processors adding value and reaching global markets, the pig industry is delivering day in, day out. It is about not just food on our plates—although the quality, taste and consistency of British pork products are second to none—but rural jobs, resilient supply chains and our wider goal of national food security. The sector quietly underpins so much of what we rely on, and it deserves recognition and support.

We also have to acknowledge the challenges. As in many parts of agriculture, the pig industry is not without its imbalances, in particular between typically small producers and much larger consolidated processors. When those imbalances are not addressed, the risk of unfair practices can creep in. We saw that most starkly during the pig crisis of 2021: the strain on the system exposed the underlying vulnerabilities and, sadly, in some cases, it even led to welfare culling on farms—a devastating situation for any farmer. Many of us remember that period very clearly. I remember visiting farms at the time, seeing oversized pigs and talking to experienced people who told me, genuinely, that it was a dangerous situation, because of the problems we had got into.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

This may be a stupid question—there is no such thing; just a stupid answer. I looked through the draft legislation this morning. It struck me that there did not seem to be much mention of the welfare of the animal. I wondered whether that was an omission or it is covered in different legislation. Will the Minister clarify that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

There are no stupid questions, and that is an important one. Animal welfare is clearly important and, in fact, goes to the heart of that very point about when the sector was not working properly—it was the welfare issues that were most troubling for many people. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that many other pieces of legislation will be coming forward to deal with welfare concerns.

The crisis at that time—thankfully, such instances were limited—served to illustrate how important it is that the system should work better for everyone. That is why this draft statutory instrument is important. It protects and builds on the good practices already happening in the sector, but also goes further. It puts in place the kind of transparency and fairness that pig producers deserve, giving them more confidence and a fairer footing in the market. The regulations have been shaped in close consultation with industry, reflecting a process that began with a public consultation and continued through extensive engagement with stakeholders. The result is a statutory instrument that is both practical and proportionate. I am pleased that it has been welcomed by key voices across the sector.

The draft regulations establish a framework for fair and balanced supply contracts, with preserved flexibility to reflect how businesses operate, provided practices are clearly agreed and set out in writing. To support transparency, contracts should be in writing and include all terms relating to the purchase. While many in the industry already operate in that way, it is not universal, and written agreements are essential for clarity and accountability. However, a fully compliant contract is not always appropriate, in particular in spot market trades, so the regulations include an option for producers to issue a notice to disapply and to step outside the framework for particular purchases when that suits both parties. Where the regulations apply and a written contract is in place, several key terms must be clearly set out. Most importantly, contracts must specify expected supply volumes and remedies if those volumes are not met. That was a major point of failure in the recent crisis I just mentioned, and the new requirement will give producers and processors greater certainty and stability.

The draft regulations also promote pricing transparency. We have been keen to protect and encourage transparent models in which prices are based on factors that farmers can verify themselves, such as market indices or shared cost of production data. Where prices are determined through internal or discretionary methods, additional rules ensure that farmers can understand how prices are set and raise concerns if needed. For many farmers, the ability to negotiate collectively, primarily through marketing groups, is a vital safeguard against imbalance. The regulations support that model, by ensuring that collective sellers benefit from the same protections as individual producers.

Other key provisions address fairness in contract termination and clarity around force majeure events. Although specific terms may still be negotiated, new restrictions help prevent one-sided practices, and contracts must clearly explain both parties’ rights and responsibilities in such situations. The core principle throughout this is that contract terms cannot be changed unilaterally. Any changes must be agreed in writing by both parties, ensuring transparency and fairness, while allowing flexibility.

We recognise that even with clear rules in place, disputes can still arise. That is why contracts must now include a clear dispute resolution procedure. That will give farmers clarity on how to raise concerns with the processor, and confidence that those concerned will be handled fairly and consistently. To ensure proper enforcement, oversight will be provided by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—ASCA. Acting on behalf of the Secretary of the State, the ASCA can investigate alleged breaches of the regulations that have not been resolved through dispute resolution. If breaches occur, it has the authority to impose fines, order compensation, or both.

This statutory instrument is the second to make use of the powers in the Agricultural Act 2020 to improve fairness in supply chain contracts, following the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024. It also makes a targeted amendment to those regulations. After implementation, we were made aware of unintended consequences relating to the rules on tiered pricing in exclusive supply agreements. For businesses with shared ownership structures, moving away from exclusivity is challenging, as exclusive supply is often fundamental to their operating model. To address that, we have made a limited amendment to the regulations to permit certain practices that were prohibited for those types of businesses.

In closing, I hope that I have demonstrated why these changes are both proportionate and essential. They respond directly to the concerns that we have heard from producers, and in a way that supports best practice, maintains flexibility and creates a fairer, more transparent market for the pig sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the contributions of knowledgeable and well-informed hon. Members. I am sure we can all agree that a resilient and sustainable pig sector that supports Britain’s food security depends on fair treatment across the supply chain, in particular for those in a weaker commercial position. I am therefore encouraged to hear support for the draft regulations. I am confident that they will deliver the protections needed to ensure a stronger and fairer future for the sector.

I am grateful for the Opposition’s support and perfectly happy to pay tribute to the previous Government and to my predecessors, Victoria Prentis and Mark Spencer. Victoria and I discussed the Agriculture Act over many hours, and it is good to see its provisions coming into effect. The hon. Member for Epping Forest chided me slightly on pace, but he will not be surprised when I point out that the gap between the Agriculture Act and the end of the previous Government’s term in office was about four years, while this Government have been in place for eight or nine months. We all understand why these things take time—in part, because it is important to get them right.

I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds. I pay tribute to him for his important piece of joint work between Government and organisations such as the National Pig Association. The praise he lavished on officials and farmers to get it in place was well merited and deserved.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked about the milk regulations. I do not think that any mandatory penalties have been issued, but I will go away and check. I think that the regulations are working as intended, but it is important to point out that we are making a strong commitment to keep these draft regulations under review and to make any amendments necessary. The fact that we came back with an amendment to the milk regulations demonstrates that the process is working.

On the poultry and fresh produce sectors, work is ongoing. I do not think it is a secret to say that the fresh produce sector is challenging—it is a complicated sector —and, again, it is important that we get it right and that we introduce regulations that work for the sector appropriately.

Finally, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale missed no opportunity to raise the issue of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I say gently that we also have the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—they are different jobs, different roles, and it is important to ensure that we support both of them in their important work. I am confident that they will be able to achieve the outcomes that we are all looking for. With that, I am hopeful that the Committee will agree the draft regulations standing in my name.

Question put and agreed to.

Fly-tipping: West Midlands

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Anyone would think it was election season, would they not?

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing today’s debate and making a thoughtful and considered introduction with a number of questions for me, which I will attempt to address. She asked for a champion of these issues and I can think of no better champion than the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), who would normally be here and who I am sure would welcome the cross-party support that the right hon. Lady offered.

I thought that the right hon. Lady made a number of sensible suggestions, for instance around points on licences, which I know is under consideration. She talked about having a national debate and a national action plan—all of these things are under consideration and are good ideas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for not only making an excellent speech on the issues around waste and fly-tipping, but for putting some context into the political argument that is happening about the history of Birmingham. These issues have to be understood in that wider context.

To go back to fly-tipping, it is not just a load of rubbish: it is a serious crime that blights local communities and the environment. We appreciate the difficulty it poses to councils, landowners and residents. Local councils reported more than a million fly-tipping incidents in 2023-24, representing a significant cost burden to the UK economy. Over the last five years, those reported fly-tipping incidents have increased by 20%. That is unacceptable and this Government will take back control of our streets and our countryside. We are committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created, as part of a crackdown on antisocial behaviour and we look forward to providing further details on this commitment in due course.

We recognise the crucial role of councils in tackling fly-tipping. Fly-tipping happens for a variety of reasons, from people misunderstanding how to deal with their waste to hardened criminals seeking to make money from the co-ordinated dumping of large amounts of waste, so the response will vary depending on the circumstances. We want to see an effective enforcement strategy at the heart of local authority efforts to combat fly-tipping. I strongly encourage them to make good use of their powers, which include prosecution. That can lead to a significant fine, a community sentence or even imprisonment and compensation for a landowner’s clearance costs.

Much has been said about Walsall council’s splendid record—the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about it at length—but I note that it failed to bring a single prosecution in 2023-24. While sentencing is a matter for the courts, I understand that the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which is chaired by DEFRA officials, has previously produced guidance to support councils in presenting robust cases to court. Right and hon. hon. Members across the House may wish to bring that to the attention of their local councils.

Instead of prosecuting, local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 to those who fly-tip or £600 to those who pass their household waste to someone without the proper licence. They also have powers to stop, search and seize vehicles of suspected fly-tippers. To help councils to make full and proper use of their enforcement powers, we are seeking powers in the Crime and Policing Bill to provide statutory enforcement guidance, to which councils will need to have regard.

[Wendy Morton]

Perhaps the Minister’s records are not as up to date as mine. I want to gently point out that Walsall council successfully prosecuted an individual for fly-tipping a fridge while serving a suspended sentence order in February 2024.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very pleased to hear it. It sounds like there was one prosecution, which is better than none.

We are under no illusion about the scale of the pressures that local authorities are facing. We all know how much pressure they are under, and it impacts the services that they can provide to local people. The 2025-26 local government finance settlement will provide over £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above local council tax. The majority of funding in the local government finance settlement is un-ringfenced, recognising that local leaders are best placed to identify local priorities. It will be a choice for local authorities, and they will make their choices.

The situation in Birmingham has been raised. I recognise the misery and disruption it is causing to residents and hear what Opposition Members have said. It is in the interests of all parties and, most importantly, of the residents of Birmingham and the surrounding areas, that this industrial action is brought to a close as soon as possible. We encourage all parties to redouble their efforts to find a resolution. We believe that it is right that the response continues to be locally led, as is usual in the case of council-run services such as rubbish collections.

Birmingham city council declared a major incident on Monday 31 March, which means that it can increase its street-cleaning operation and fly-tipping removal by bringing in extra vehicles and crews. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government updated the House on Monday 7 April on how the situation is being managed following that declaration. She, the Minister for Local Government and MHCLG officials are monitoring the situation closely. Birmingham city council continues to lead the response, as is appropriate, but cross-Government mechanisms have been activated to ensure a co-ordinated response, with MHCLG in the lead and DEFRA supporting.

The backlog of waste must be dealt with swiftly to address public health concerns. The council began its work to collect the hazardous accumulation of waste over the weekend, and the Government stand ready to play their part in supporting the council in that work.

[Robbie Moore]

How bad does it need to get for the residents of Birmingham before the Government step in and take stronger action?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We absolutely recognise the gravity of the situation, but we believe that the best thing to do is to work with people locally to try to get a solution. It is a complicated situation, as has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, and I think we had better concentrate on trying to get a solution than scoring political points.

[John Lamont]

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will carry on for a minute.

In the time-honoured spirit of scoring political points, I return to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), who queried why the Opposition voted against the deposit return scheme. That vote was just a few months ago, in January, when 67 Conservatives voted against the very policy that they had promoted in government. If we are going to have this knockabout and tit-for-tat across the Chamber, let us recognise that there are issues on both sides.

[John Lamont]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Absolutely—I will happily have a further tit-for-tat with the hon. Gentleman.

[John Lamont]

I view this as an important part of our democratic process, not as a tit-for-tat. It is important to recognise the concerns around that deposit return scheme. I was a Minister in the Scotland Office when the Scottish Government put forward proposals, and the previous Government were concerned about how those would impact on the operation of the internal market in the UK. Are the current Government saying that having different deposit return schemes in different parts of the UK is no longer a concern?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The point we are making is that it is quite extraordinary that the Conservative party in government promoted a piece of legislation that the party in opposition now appears not to support.

I am going to move back to fly-tipping, because that is the subject of the debate. We recognise the role of the public in tackling fly-tipping. Approximately 60% of fly-tips involve household waste, and householders have a legal duty to take all reasonable measures to ensure that they give their waste only to an authorised person. They should check the register of waste carriers to avoid giving waste to criminals who promise quick, cheap waste collection but only go on to dump it in our communities. I have asked officials to look at how we can strengthen the regulatory regime for waste carriers, brokers and dealers to crack down on the waste criminals.

We also need to help householders to get rid of their rubbish before they turn to rogue waste collectors. Simpler recycling will provide all householders with a comprehensive and consistent set of waste and recycling services, end confusion and enable householders to recycle as much waste as possible. DEFRA recently published guidance to ensure that local authorities consider certain factors when they review services, such as residual waste collections, to ensure that reasonable standards are maintained. Those include ensuring that there are no disamenity impacts, such as an increase in the fly-tipping of residual waste. We expect local authorities to monitor any changes to collection frequencies to ensure that there are no adverse consequences.

We also recognise the importance of household waste recycling centres, which was mentioned by Opposition Members. It is for local authorities to make the relevant decisions. They hold the responsibility for the operation and management of such centres in their areas.

I recognise the difficulty that fly-tipping poses to rural areas, and recognise that more than 80% of farmers say that they have been affected by fly-tipping on their land. We will continue to work with the National Farmers Union and others through the national fly-tipping prevention group to promote and disseminate good practice on how to prevent fly-tipping on private land. Whether it is councils, individuals or businesses, when we all work together we can tackle fly-tipping and littering more effectively. Our work with the national fly-tipping prevention group, which includes councils, the Environment Agency and police representatives, is identifying issues, highlighting innovative ways of tackling fly-tipping and sharing best practice.

Members on both sides spoke warmly about their experiences of volunteering. I commend all those who have been out picking up litter themselves, as I have done in the past, as well as all the volunteers in voluntary groups around the country. The Government have been proud to support Keep Britain Tidy’s excellent Great British spring clean campaign, and my colleague, the Minister for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East, was pleased to speak at the launch event earlier this year. DEFRA colleagues recently cleaned a section of the Regent’s canal with the help of the Canal and River Trust. I urge everyone to try to get involved in helping to create an environment we can be proud of.

Reducing waste in the first place should mean that there is less of it to be dumped unlawfully. In our manifesto, we committed to moving to a circular economy, in which resources are kept in use for longer and waste is minimised. The Secretary of State has convened a circular economy taskforce of experts from industry, academia, civil society and beyond to help the Government to develop a circular economy strategy for England.

The strategy will be supported by a series of road maps, detailing the interventions that the Government and others will make. Among other things, the outputs will aim to support economic growth and tackle threats to our environment and circularity, such as fly-tipping. What gets tipped is often landfilled, rather than recycled, remanufactured or repurposed.

In conclusion, this Government believe that whether someone lives in the countryside, a town or a city, they should be able to walk through their community feeling proud of a clean environment that is free of rubbish and litter. That is why we are committed to stamping out antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping from our streets and countryside. It is time to dump the excuses. Working with councils, regulators and others, we will force offenders to clean up their mess, put a stop to waste criminals and together keep our communities clean.

Trail Hunting

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing his first Adjournment debate and speaking with such knowledge and passion about this important subject. I welcome the valuable opportunity to close the debate by outlining the Government’s strong commitment to animal welfare priorities, including taking action on trail hunting. I also thank all hon. Members who intervened during my hon. Friend’s speech, because they showed the interest and passion there is on this subject.

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. Banning trail hunting is only one part of that. We will also end puppy smuggling and puppy farming, ban the use of snare traps and ban the importation of hunting trophies. We are supporting the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, which will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet travel rules that are abused by unscrupulous traders. It will also give the Government powers to prevent the supply of low-welfare pets to the United Kingdom. We will prohibit the bringing into Great Britain of puppies and kittens under six months old, dogs and cats with non-exempt mutilations such as cropped ears, and heavily pregnant dogs and cats.

We are committed to tackling low-welfare dog breeding practices to bring an end to puppy farming. As part of that, we are carefully considering the results of the post-implementation review of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, the recommendations from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s inquiry into pet welfare and abuse, and the animal welfare committee’s opinion on canine breeding practices.

As was outlined in our manifesto, we will also bring an end to the use of snare traps in England. I am aware that both the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have brought in bans on the use of snares in recent years, and we are now considering the most effective way to deliver on that commitment. We will set out the next steps in due course. In the meantime, anyone using snares has a responsibility under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to ensure that their activities do not harm protected species or cause any unnecessary suffering.

The Government are also committed to banning the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals. The UK has a long history of championing global conservation, and the Government are carefully reviewing how to introduce effective legislation as soon as possible. We welcome the establishment of the national animal welfare panel by the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare and look forward to working with it in the future. As a recent report from the animal sentience committee stated, there is work to do to improve compliance with animal welfare regulation. We will be considering recommendations and proposals as we work to bring that about.

I know that hon. Members in the Chamber will share my deep concern about the recent high-profile incidents of hare coursing that have been in the news. Hare coursing is an abhorrent activity that can quickly shatter rural communities’ sense of safety and security. It is a serious crime, which is often carried out by organised criminal gangs. It is vital that rural communities are protected by effective policing to ensure enforcement of the law. DEFRA, alongside the Home Office, is working jointly with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to deliver an updated rural and wildlife crime strategy. This joined-up approach between Government and policing will help to ensure that the entire weight of Government is brought to bear on tackling rural and wildlife crimes.

The Government are continuing to provide support to the national wildlife crime unit alongside the national rural crime unit. Those units will receive £800,000 from the Home Office in 2025-26. DEFRA will also provide the national wildlife crime unit with a further £424,000 to help prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis that highlights local or national threats, and directly assisting law enforcers in their investigations. That includes cases of cruelty to wildlife and supporting local police forces to take positive action against those who break the law through illegal fox hunting.

Let me turn to the primary focus of this debate: trail hunting. As we are aware, the Hunting Act 2004 made it an offence to hunt a wild mammal with dogs, except where it is carried out in accordance with the exemptions in the Act. Those found guilty under the Act are subject to the full force of the law. However, as many have said here today, the nature of trail hunting makes it difficult to ensure that wild mammals such as foxes are not endangered. The trail is not laid constantly but is occasionally lifted for a distance and dropped again to allow the hounds to search for the scent. Huntsmen and followers often do not know where trails have been laid and that can mean that, at times, the scents of wild animals are picked up. That makes it challenging to protect foxes, as well as other wild animals such as deer and hares.

From November 2023 to March 2024, as we have heard, the League Against Cruel Sports reported nearly 526 incidents of suspected illegal hunting and 870 incidents of hunts causing distress or nuisance. That is why the Government are committed to going further by putting in place a ban on trail hunting. My hon. Friend asked for a specific timeline. I am afraid that, at the moment, I cannot give him that, but I want to assure Members that we are working to move this forward and will deliver a thorough consultation later this year to ensure that the legislation that is brought forward is effective in practice and that its impact is understood.

I also appreciate that, as we have heard, there are people in this House who will not welcome a change in the law. I want to reassure Members here today that the Government recognise the contribution made to the rural economy by supporting professions such as farriers, vets and feed merchants. We will, of course, look closely at the impact that any changes may make. We will consult relevant stakeholders at the appropriate time and further announcements will be made in due course.

More generally, we will pull together an overarching approach to animal welfare across farmed animals, companion animals and wild animals. We have been meeting key stakeholders from each of those sectors and want to work in partnership with them on improving animal welfare. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth for securing tonight’s debate, and I very much look forward to working closely with him in future to secure progress on this very important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the UK’s fishing and seafood industry and particularly the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025. I thank all Members for their constructive and thoughtful remarks.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, particularly about cetacean hunts. I assure him that we have pressed that case at every opportunity, and that is exactly why we will be proceeding with electronic monitoring. We have common cause on some issues.

We have heard from Members from all around the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and, of course, the south-west—and the views of hugely diverse interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) pointed out, this is a complicated sector. I will try to cover as many of the points that Members made as possible. I say that to give them a sense of where I am going and so they do not feel that I am leaving them out. I will start with some general points, and then touch on the reset with the European Union and say a bit about the spatial squeeze. I will then address the very detailed points that the hon. Member for St Ives made.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very thoughtful and sensible introduction, which covered a range of issues. I reiterate how much I enjoyed that visit in the glorious late summer last year—it seems quite a long time ago now. I very much enjoyed seeing the diversity of the fishing fleet in Newlyn and the fish market, and listening to the views of fishing and seafood businesses. It is only by having direct discussions with people working on the frontline that I can be properly informed. It is all very well sitting around having policy discussions, but it is best to hear from those people.

I want to restate at the outset just how important the fishing sector is as a source of sustainable food for our country—a number of Members made that point. There are also wider social, economic and cultural issues surrounding that historic sector. As the Secretary of State has said repeatedly, the Government are keen to co-create policy through listening to fishermen and their representatives. That will enable us to create better policy.

Fishing is, of course, a very challenging job, and as the hon. Member for Epping Forest rightly said, sadly it is too often dangerous. It is therefore always right to pay tribute to those who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives at sea over the last year. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch published its 2023 annual report in October, in which it detailed the tragic loss of four lives and the loss of three fishing vessels in 2023. It is always important that we remember that. It is also important that the good work to improve safety continues—I will touch on the regulatory issues later—and that safety is paramount. I am afraid that there is still under-reporting, as the marine accident investigation branch flags up.

This debate is about the fisheries negotiations for 2025 and the impact on the industry. It is timely because we published reports on the sustainability and economic outcomes of the negotiations just last week, so I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for securing it now. The independent sustainability outcomes report states that the number of fish stocks, set in line with scientific advice, stayed the same for 2025 compared with last year, while the economic outcomes report details the UK fishing opportunities for all UK quota stocks in 2025. As mentioned by the Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), those reports are quite complicated.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) about the figures, although I take slight issue with her: yes, 769,000 tonnes of quota is down a little, but I am told that its value is slightly up, at £1.04 billion—it is about the same. The issue is that our share has remained constant while the overall amount has fallen on scientific advice. We need to be mindful of this issue. One thing on which everybody agrees is that it is essential that we follow scientific advice. We obviously have to interpret that advice in line with legislation and policy, but we still have the global challenge of maintaining our fish stocks.

As an independent coastal state, our approach to all negotiations has been driven by our domestic priorities, and sustainability is at the heart. We aim to set catch limits that take account of the best available scientific advice, but we will always back our British fishing industry and, through negotiations, push for the best possible opportunities for British vessels. That is a complicated set of trade-offs and negotiations. Many different parts of the sector come to me, quite rightly, to make their case, and they do it well, but we have to get the best deal for everybody.

In that spirit, in our bilateral negotiations with Norway for 2025 we trialled a new approach by working closely in partnership with UK industry representatives to develop a package of quota exchanges. This approach stems from our commitment to putting more emphasis on delivering our policies and programmes in partnership with stakeholders—we are working with the industry, so it is not just us doing it.

Industry feedback about addressing the balance of those who contribute and those who benefit from the negotiations has been broadly positive. In the light of that feedback, my officials will this year be hosting a series of workshops with stakeholders to help us consider how we take forward our negotiations for the next year. I am determined that we do things differently under this Government, and I am keen that we co-deliver wherever possible.

The hon. Member for St Ives asked about multi-annual quotas, which we discussed a few months ago. When setting TACs for stocks, we are guided by the best possible scientific advice. For most stocks, that is provided annually by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, but for some stocks, such as black scabbardfish and northern shelf ling, ICES provides biannual advice, so we agree catch limits for more than one year. In some forums, we are seeking long-term management strategies that can provide greater stability for industry between years. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we are looking at this issue, but it is important that we respond to annual advice.

[Andrew George]

I am not a fisheries scientist, but a lot is known about the maximum sustainable yield and the recruitment of each of those species that are relevant for commercial fisheries, as well as about the length of life and when species reach sexual maturity. It is therefore surprising that scientists cannot provide some projections for future years. Even if the data is only indicative, it would be helpful for the industry to know it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will go away and discuss it further. Virtually every Member who spoke talked about our relationship with our near neighbours in the European Union. Clearly there is a negotiation going on by proxy, if not directly, at the moment, so I will not comment on the individual points that have been made other than to reflect that we are determined to get the best possible outcome for our nation. I am determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector, because there is a widespread sense that people were sold short last time around.

The temporary adjustment period for fisheries access ends in 2026, as was agreed in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. The Government are absolutely committed to a reset with the European Union, but I assure the House of my determination that we get a good outcome for the fisheries sector. We have proven our ability to build a strong relationship with the EU on fisheries matters, including through the quota negotiations. We have had five years of annual negotiations, and we have built strong foundations on which to take forward future agreements that benefit our shared fish stocks and our respective industries. Other countries are clearly pushing very hard, and we will push equally hard for our sector.

In 2026, the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels into the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation, to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is a very important point.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy. We have our own objectives, and we are making progress on things like fisheries-management plans, which are very important. That is central to our priorities for UK fisheries and the thriving, sustainable industry we want.

Clearly, one of the biggest issues facing the sector is the spatial squeeze, and I want to send a message to the industry that I am absolutely determined to stand up for our fishing sector. We need to achieve a whole range of things in our waters, and food is one of them. That will only get more difficult in the coming period, but we have established a very good process for resolving these issues through our marine spatial prioritisation programme. We will take a strategic approach to managing those dilemmas, but I do not underestimate how strongly people in the fishing sector feel about this—it has been raised with me repeatedly. I insisted that we put out the very strong written statement a few weeks ago on protecting the fishing sector.

[Melanie Onn]

This is the point I wanted to make to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). Does the Minister have a sense that great progress has been made, particularly on the Celtic sea and the Crown Estate’s approach to engaging with the fishing community at the earliest stage to try to minimise the impact of spatial squeeze?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Crown Estate plays an important role, and we are working together closely. Things have improved. It has not always been an easy relationship, but we have a strong process and I am confident that it will work successfully.

I am conscious of time, so I will address some of the points that have been raised, particularly in relation to the south-west. I am very much taken by what the hon. Member for St Ives said about low-impact fishing. These are complicated issues, but I am pleased that, from January 2025, the licence cap of 350 kg of quota species has been removed for the under-10s. That was quite contentious a while ago, but it gives fishers greater flexibility to diversify between quota and non-quota species.

The pollack issues are clearly fraught and complicated, and I am afraid that my advice to the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not entirely what he wants to hear. We agreed with the EU a bycatch-only TAC for pollack, which equates to a UK share of 172 tonnes of pollack in area 7 for 2025. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about abundance, but the ICES advice is what we have to follow. Its advice is for a zero catch, as last year, and it does not see signs of recovery. That is clearly a problem in the short term. We are forecasting to allow for a 20% increase in stock biomass next year.

I understand the strength of feeling on the recreational pollack fishing industry, and we have sent a clear signal that this is the last opportunity for this to work for the recreational sector. Voluntary guidelines have been developed by the Angling Trust and the Professional Boatman’s Association to encourage anglers to adopt a bag limit and a minimum conservation reference size, as well as closed seasons to avoid the spawning period, and the use of descending devices to reduce pollack mortality. We want to see whether those measures can work, but if they do not, I am prepared to introduce mandatory measures. I appreciate that this is still a very difficult question.

Moving on briefly to sole, the issue of 7h and 7e is quite complicated. This is probably an incomprehensible conversation for people outside the industry, but we are looking closely at the potential genetic connection between the two. We are working with the EU in the Specialised Committee on Fisheries to facilitate consideration of the data by the relevant ICES working group to improve our scientific understanding and to encourage the most appropriate management. There is ongoing work, but I appreciate that this is a concern.

The scientific work on pollack is due in June, and I will go away and look at it more closely before coming back to the hon. Member for St Ives.

I want to give the hon. Gentleman a minute to respond, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I very much appreciate the wide range of challenges facing the sector, and I understand why people are feeling anxious and fraught. This is a difficult time, but we tackle it by working together in close collaboration. I am determined that we work and listen closely.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will not, as I want to give the hon. Member for St Ives a moment to respond.

As I said back in November, I genuinely think there is a bright future for the fishing sector, and it is important that we understand it is a key source of food. The Government are absolutely committed to making the most of these opportunities to ensure that we can properly contribute to food security and economic growth.