Oral Answers to Questions
Danny Chambers Excerpts(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Good morning. Can I start by acknowledging the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the House? We are investing in the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and have committed more than £200 million to the next stage of rebuilding our biosecurity facilities at Weybridge to enhance our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond to and recover from outbreaks. That is in addition to supporting farmers through the animal health and welfare pathway, which includes veterinary visits to improve livestock health, welfare, biosecurity and productivity.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for his comments. The recent National Audit Office report was hugely concerning, and it was clear that the UK is at high risk of, and unprepared for, a major animal disease outbreak. Post-Brexit checks mean that only 5% of animals are physically checked as they come into the UK. We know that a lot of illegal meat is coming in through the ports, and our farm animal veterinary workforce is overstretched. Also, climate change and antimicrobial resistance are putting us at a higher risk of disease outbreaks. If a disease such as foot and mouth hits again, it will devastate British agriculture and rural communities, and have an impact on our food security. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are treating the issues that the report raises as a strategic national threat, and that its warnings will not be ignored until it is too late?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We take this matter extremely seriously. Sadly, it is not a new problem. We have had similar reports in the past, and I can assure him that we are giving careful consideration to this report. We will develop a plan to address it. He will be aware that there are a range of threats, and it is important that we balance our work. We have taken strong measures to restrict personal imports, given the threats on the continent.
Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates
Danny Chambers Excerpts(4 days, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the petition, and I thank all the petitioners who have turned up to watch the debate. The people of Winchester are certainly passionate about the subject; I have received a lot of heartfelt emails about it. As a veterinary surgeon, I have always believed that how we treat animals reflects our values as a society, and as someone who grew up on a farm and who now represents very rural areas in Winchester such as those around the Meon valley, I understand the deep connection between animal welfare, food production, conservation and the livelihood of farming families.
We should first acknowledge the reality that UK farmers operate to some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. That is not to say that they cannot and should not be improved where possible; we want to make progress. When we talk about ending the use of farrowing crates, we must also talk, as many Members have done, about supporting farmers to transition away from them. Any change must be practical as well as ethical. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) gave us a valuable insight, pointing out that many pig farmers struggled after a sudden change was brought in back in—was it 2000?
Dr Chambers
It was a long time ago, and it devastated the industry.
Farrowing crates are used to reduce piglet mortality by preventing crushing. It is a serious concern that no responsible farmer would take lightly. As the NFU has rightly pointed out, we need a science-led, managed approach to phasing out their use that gives farmers the time, investment and confidence to transition to higher welfare systems such as free farrowing pens.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to develop a comprehensive national strategy to end the use of farrowing crates—one that is built in full consultation with farmers, vets, welfare scientists and industry stakeholders. That strategy must come with clear funding commitments, practical guidance and research and development support to trial alternatives that work in the UK’s diverse farming environments. One of the five freedoms, which I mentioned earlier, is the freedom to express natural behaviours. That remains a vital benchmark for animal welfare, but we must ensure that the sows and piglets are kept physically safe as well as psychologically enriched.
When I was 11 years old, I brought 13 pigs home from market. My dad was not too happy about that: we were a sheep farm, and I turned up with these piglets. They turned into pets, really—we used to play football with them. We had a great time with them. Their behaviour was completely different from that of the pigs on the intensive farms on which I had to spend time as a veterinary student a few years later. They all had their own personality.
We have discussed intensive chicken farming, and we have mentioned battery hens, which are still seen in some parts of the world. Pigs are hugely intelligent and require a lot of enrichment, and although people acknowledge that chickens are not as intelligent—there is no doubt about that—the level of intelligence does not change the capacity to suffer or feel pain. At the moment, in broiler farming, chickens are selectively bred to grow so quickly that their legs do not develop quickly enough and they start to develop sores, infections or even broken limbs because of the rate at which they are growing. Those chickens feel pain and distress as much as any pig or other more intelligent animal.
I summed up at our party conference this year. We are calling for new policies for farming in general, investing in training and peer-to-peer farming learning networks, better access to apprenticeships in agriculture and animal welfare, and a proper workforce plan to ensure that there are enough vets, farm workers and abattoir staff across the supply chain. However, those steps alone will not be enough if we allow lower welfare imports to flood British shelves. The previous Government’s trade deals undercut UK farmers with Australia and directly undermined the standards that we ask them to uphold. We urge the Government to ensure that any trade agreements require imported food to meet UK standards and ban the sale of food that would be illegal to produce here. That is really important, because there are plenty of imported egg and dried custard products that could be produced by battery hens.
It is not only vets and farmers who are proud of our high animal welfare standards, but the British public. We should not compromise those standards. There are farming systems around the world that not only are worse for the environment and for animal welfare, but do not have the same judicious use of antibiotics. That is driving antibiotic resistance, which is creating a public health crisis. Already, 1 million people around the world die because of antibiotic-resistant infections every year. That will get worse unless as a global community we take serious action on antimicrobial resistance.
Charlie Dewhirst
It is worth noting that the pig industry in the UK has reduced antibiotic usage by 69% since 2015. That is an industry initiative and should be applauded.
Dr Chambers
I absolutely applaud that. That is a very important intervention. The Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance has reported that since 2015, overall antibiotic use in livestock has been reduced by 59%. That is a huge reduction and is very much industry-led. In the UK, farmers are not permitted to treat unless there is a diagnosis of an illness and an appropriate antibiotic, whereas in other countries antibiotics are essentially given as a substitute for low hygiene standards and to act as growth promoters.
The previous Conservative Government promised the biggest boost to animal welfare in a generation, but they scrapped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, failed to act on the 2018 Stacey review and abandoned their own pledge to consult on ending the use of cages for farmed animals. I believe that we should work towards ending the use of farrowing crates, but we cannot do so overnight. We must do it in partnership with farmers, not at their expense. We must be honest with the public, fair to producers and ambitious for animal welfare.
I will finish by quoting probably the most famous veterinary surgeon of all, James Herriot:
“If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans.”
Non-stun Slaughter of Animals
Danny Chambers Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the petitioners on bringing this important subject to Parliament.
I start by making something absolutely clear: the Liberal Democrats, and I personally, fully respect the right to freedom of religious belief and expression, and this debate must not be used as a smokescreen for antisemitism or Islamophobia. Too often, discussions about religious slaughter are hijacked by those with an agenda that has nothing to do with animal welfare. That is unacceptable. This debate must be grounded in science, evidence and animal welfare, not in prejudice, and our focus should be on improving welfare standards through respectful dialogue and evidence-based policy, not fuelling division or targeting communities.
To declare my very obvious conflict of interest, I am a veterinary surgeon. As a veterinary student, I had to spend a lot of time in abattoirs learning about the process and about public health. As a vet, I have had to issue emergency slaughter certificates for farms. I was on the policy committee of the British Veterinary Association, and we looked at farm assured schemes and welfare standards at different stages of animals’ lives on farms. As a veterinary profession, we have always been clear in talking purely about stunned and not stunned, and not bringing in kosher, halal or other types of religious slaughter, because doing so would muddy the waters and play into the hands of people who are trying to hijack the animal welfare agenda with antisemitism and Islamophobia.
The science is clear: the evidence shows that stunning animals before slaughter is the most humane method available. Stunning renders animals unconscious and insensible to pain prior to slaughter, and slaughter without stunning causes avoidable pain and distress. That is why, from a veterinary and animal welfare perspective, we want to see a reduction in the amount of non-stunned slaughter and a great uptake of stunning techniques that are compatible with religious practices. It is encouraging that almost 90% of halal meat in the UK is already pre-stunned. That is a clear example that animal welfare and religious observance can go hand in hand.
Dr Caroline Johnson
When doing research for this debate, I found that the RSPCA states that 65% of all halal meat is pre-stunned; the rest of it, presumably, is not. Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference, and why some meat would be classified as halal when it has been stunned and some would not?
Dr Chambers
If the RSPCA has different figures, I would ask it to explain where its figures come from. Not all non-stunned meat is halal. Some of it is shechita slaughter, and the hind quarters are not considered kosher, so they would go into the normal food chain. That could be why there are some discrepancies, but I am not familiar with how the RSPCA generated its figures, so I would take it up with the RSPCA.
I acknowledge that, as many hon. Members have rightly pointed out, there are failures in stun slaughter as well. That is sometimes due to bad practices and inadequate training in abattoirs, and is one reason why I was pleased to be part of the successful campaign to put CCTV in all abattoirs. We should ensure that legal standards are upheld, that anyone breaking those standards is held to account, and that adequate training is given.
I share the concerns about slaughter in which pigs are stunned with CO2. I eat pork, but I am aware that such slaughter is a welfare concern in the veterinary world. We are looking at how we can improve that experience for pigs.
Iqbal Mohamed
On CCTV and enforcement of existing humane slaughter processes, does the hon. Member agree that the Government must ensure that there are adequate resources for inspectors’ visits and audits of abattoirs so that the right level of treatment of animals is maintained?
Dr Chambers
I totally agree. The resourcing of trading standards and the veterinary profession is a hugely important issue. We know that we are short of vets working in public health and farm animal medicine.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, the British Veterinary Association has made several sensible recommendations, including that the UK Government should introduce
“a non-stun permit system to ensure that the number of animals slaughtered without prior stunning does not exceed the relevant demand of the UK’s religious communities”
and that they should
“stop the export of meat from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter.”
The British Veterinary Association and the National Farmers Union also support greater uptake of the demonstration of life protocol for sheep and goats. Although that protocol is not perfect, it can help improve welfare outcomes, even in non-stun contexts. I urge all abattoirs to adopt it.
The Liberal Democrats believe that consumers deserve full transparency. That is why we back clear and honest labelling that includes information on whether the animal was stunned before slaughter, the conditions in which it was reared and the environmental impact of the product. Our goal is simple: to give people the information that they need to make informed choices—not to stigmatise any group, but to raise welfare standards across the board. Religious consumers who wanted halal meat, for example, would be able to see whether it came from stunned or non-stunned animals. That matters deeply to many of the individuals in those communities with whom I have spoken.
There have been many calls for a way to know whether meat is stunned or non-stunned, and for freedom of choice. I point out that British consumers already have the freedom of choice to ensure that they eat only meat that has been stunned. All farm assurance schemes, including Red Tractor, Soil Association, and RSPCA Assured, have minimum welfare standards throughout the animal’s life, and require stunning before slaughter. Someone like me, who wants to ensure that they eat only animals that have been stunned, can do that with current farm assurance label systems.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made a very important point about the need for more local abattoirs, to reduce transport time and stress, and to ensure that more meat is produced and sold within local communities. I commend him for that point.
Let us move forward with a science-based, respectful approach that works in partnership with, not against, religious communities; that improves welfare without fuelling division; and that ensures the UK remains a world leader in compassion and evidence-based policy, while allowing for expression of religious freedom.
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Danny Chambers Excerpts(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee today. I also want to thank Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, all the officials, and everyone else who helped draw up the Bill, including my team in my parliamentary office. Many veterinary and animal welfare organisations contributed to our discussions over the last few months.
I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill. Ending puppy smuggling is an aim of three major parties, so I am pleased that together we are committed to tackling the trade. The Bill aims to address the issues of illegal puppy smuggling and low-welfare movements of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom. Evidently, we are a nation of animal lovers. A survey conducted last year by the PDSA showed that 51% of UK adults own a pet, and I contribute to that statistic. At home we have Frank, a border terrier cross pug who is now 15 years old, and I was able to wish him happy birthday in Westminster Hall the other day. We also have Moose, an 11-month-old labrador; my partner Emma is doing the bulk of the training, which is pretty tough.
As the mental health spokesman for the Lib Dems, I have long been aware of the mental health benefits of owning pets. In veterinary practice, we often find that people come in who might be a widower or who might live alone with a pet. Certainly, during lockdown, many people told us that it would have been unbearable had they not had the company of their pet. We sometimes underestimate just how important being able to own a pet is for people’s wellbeing.
During my time practising as a veterinary surgeon, I met many members of the public who had bought a new puppy and discovered afterwards that it was potentially smuggled in from abroad—they had absolutely no idea when they went to buy it. A survey showed that about half of adverts online are for potentially smuggled puppies when people think they are buying one from the UK. This is not a niche problem; it is a huge problem.
It is clear how much pets mean to people across the country. The pet travel and import rules are there to protect our pets’ health and welfare. They ensure safe travel for pets and assistance dogs with their owners when relocating to the UK to settle in their new homes. However, it has become apparent that unscrupulous pet traders are exploiting loopholes in our pet travel rules. The number of non-commercial movements of pets has risen dramatically over the last decade, and with that, the risk of fraudulent activity. Data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency showed that in 2024, 368,000 dogs, cats and ferrets were moved non-commercially into Great Britian. It is important to highlight that, under the current pet travel rules, there is a limit of five pets per person, but deceitful traders abuse that rule by claiming ownership of up to five pets each, which allows them to cram large numbers of animals into vehicles for transport into Great Britain in a single trip.
Evidence from stakeholders suggests that the increased demand for pets during the covid-19 pandemic has also led to a considerable increase in the illegal trade of puppies. The welfare of those puppies is frequently compromised, with puppies being separated from their mothers far too young and transported into Great Britain in sub-par, unsafe conditions.
The Chair
I realise that we had to get the cat names in, but may I ask for interventions to be brief? The hon. Lady is of course welcome to try to catch my eye if she wants to make a longer contribution.
Dr Chambers
The hon. Lady is completely right that the surge in demand for pedigree cats has also led to a surge in demand for the illegal import of cats, and cats struggle more medically with stress than most other animals.
Paired with the illegal trade of puppies is the emerging practice of moving heavily pregnant dogs into Great Britain to sell their litters. There is anecdotal evidence that these animals are brought into Great Britain to give birth and then transported back to breed again in low-welfare conditions abroad. If we do not act now to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, it is a worry that traders may turn to this tactic when we raise the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens. The British Veterinary Association reported last year that one in five vets reported seeing illegally imported puppies in the previous 12 months.
There is also a concerning demand for importing cropped and docked dogs into Great Britain, even though it has rightly been illegal to carry out a non-exempt mutilation within Great Britain for more than 15 years. That loophole creates a smokescreen for ear cropping and tail docking to be carried out illegally in the UK, where it is not done by a vet and probably not done under anaesthetic, causing a huge amount of physical and psychological damage. The loophole allows individuals to claim that these dogs have been legally imported. Ear cropping reports have increased sevenfold in the past five years, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill will provide the powers to improve welfare for our beloved pets, including powers to close these loopholes exploited by unscrupulous commercial traders and prevent these abhorrent pet-smuggling practices.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and all those involved for bringing this legislation to close those loopholes. I have two cats myself, Cookie and Sprinkles, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his private Member’s Bill that will allow a safe practice for people to have pets, which will rightfully help their mental health. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Bill is vital and much needed.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am really enjoying all the cat names—that is a very good reason for introducing the Bill on its own. Although this is a huge animal welfare issue, we should also acknowledge that, because these dogs and cats are being brought in illegally, it is a public health issue, as they are clearly not being tested, checked or registered, so there is the risk of them bringing zoonotic diseases such as rabies and Brucella into the UK. So that we can consider the Bill in more detail, I will now run through its eight clauses.
The Chair
Order. Just the one we are discussing at the moment, and we will return to the other clauses later.
Dr Chambers
Thank you, Sir Jeremy.
Clause 1 creates a regulation-making power that will allow the Government to introduce measures through secondary legislation to tackle low-welfare movements of dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom from third countries. Importantly, the clause gives the Government the ability to introduce regulations to respond dynamically to pet smuggling practices as they evolve in the future. We know that illicit traders are quick to react to legislative changes and find ways to circumvent new restrictions, so the ability to impose restrictions to protect animal welfare both now and in the future will be important and will ensure that we can tackle illegal activity and pet smuggling quickly and effectively.
Subsection (1) empowers an appropriate national authority to make regulations about the bringing into the UK of dogs, cats or ferrets for the purpose of promoting their welfare. Subsection (2) makes it clear that that includes the ability to prohibit or restrict such imports according to specified criteria. An appropriate national authority is defined in clause 3 as the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland. Clause 1(2) provides an indicative list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. Those include exemptions to prohibitions or restrictions, issuing permits and enforcement mechanisms.
Many Members have asked me about this next point. Ferrets are included in the scope of this regulation-making power to align with the scope of the non-commercial pet travel rules, which apply equally to dogs, cats and ferrets. Our pet travel rules apply to dogs, cats and ferrets because they are species that are susceptible to rabies and commonly kept as pets.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for inviting me to be on the Committee, for introducing the Bill and for mentioning ferrets. It is very important. In discussing the last iteration of this legislation, I put on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar, and I would like to repeat that.
Dr Chambers
He is not—my condolences to the hon. Lady’s brother on the loss of Oscar, his much-loved ferret.
Crucially, subsections (3) and (4) state that the first regulations made under the regulation-making power in subsection (1) in relation to England, Scotland and Wales must include prohibitions on the three specific types of low-welfare imports. Governments in Great Britain must first use the power to raise the minimum age at which a dog or cat can be brought into Great Britain to six months, to prohibit the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats that are heavily pregnant and to ban the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations, such as cropped ears.
Johanna Baxter
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that under subsection (4)(c), the reference to cats that have been mutilated includes cats that have been declawed?
Dr Chambers
Yes, I can confirm that. The declawing of cats is specifically included, but it covers any mutilation that is for cosmetic purposes only and not for the welfare of the animal.
The restrictions will be subject to appropriate exemptions, which I will touch on shortly. Despite the current rules specifying that a dog or cat cannot be brought into Great Britain under 15 weeks old, we still see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or sometimes even younger. Separating a puppy from its mother too young has implications for the puppy’s health and welfare. Evidence from stakeholders also suggests that puppies imported into Great Britain have frequently been subjected to unacceptable breeding practices abroad and transported in poor conditions.
Raising the minimum age at which a puppy or kitten can be brought into Great Britain to six months old will disrupt the low-welfare movement of under-age puppies into Great Britain. At six months old, both puppies and kittens can be aged more accurately, which will make it easier to enforce the new minimum age and to identify under-age dogs and cats. We hope that the measure will result in significantly fewer low-welfare breeding operations supplying the Great Britain market.
Currently, welfare and transport regulations prevent an animal from being transported during the final 10% of its gestation. That limit is insufficient to tackle the emerging practice of importing heavily pregnant dogs, and it is very difficult to identify the stage of pregnancy accurately.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing us the Bill. Does he agree that it is especially dangerous for cats in the last third of their gestation to travel when pregnant?
Dr Chambers
Yes, we know that late-stage travel during pregnancy is a risk factor for problems during the pregnancy and that it can lead to the cat giving birth early.
The potential for low welfare during travel greatly increases as the pregnancy of the female advances, and that risks the health and welfare of the offspring. We also anticipate that traders may respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. A ban on bringing heavily pregnant dogs and cats into Great Britain is therefore needed to mitigate that. The first set of regulations made under clause 1 will go further than the current requirements, so that dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant cannot be brought into Great Britain. At 42 days, there are much more reliable visual markers of pregnancy, meaning that the ban will be much easier to enforce.
It is currently illegal to carry out a non-exempted mutilation in Great Britain, and it has been since 2007. Despite that, demand continues for pets with mutilations such as dogs with cropped ears or docked tails and declawed cats. Those procedures are cruel and cause unnecessary pain. The definition of mutilation is set out in subsection (9):
“a dog or cat has been ‘mutilated’ if it has undergone a procedure which involves interference with its sensitive tissues or bone structure otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.”
For example, the amputation of the tail of an injured dog for medical reasons would still be permitted. Allowing people to bring animals into Great Britain that have suffered in this way only outsources such cruelty. Fundamentally, the ban would make the purchase or ownership of dogs and cats of non-exempted mutilations extremely difficult. It would also remove the smokescreen that enables ear cropping to continue to be done illegally in Great Britain with relative impunity.
Members will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial provisions. That is because very low numbers of ferrets are being brought into Great Britain, and unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in, or low-welfare movement of, ferrets at this time. Importantly, the regulation-making powers in clause 1 will allow for measures to protect ferrets’ welfare to be introduced in the future should that situation change. Those three measures are widely supported by stakeholders and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Together, they will help to disrupt low-welfare movements of pet animals into Great Britain for sale.
Delivering the measures via secondary legislation allows the Government the opportunity to gather further evidence and to discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. That crucial exercise will ensure that new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively with no unintended consequences and with appropriate exemptions. I understand that the Government have already started engaging with stakeholders, including the Kennel Club, to gather information and to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support appropriate exemptions. Any exemptions will need to be finely balanced against the risk of creating loopholes that could be exploited. Importantly, as set out in subsection (5), the prohibitions would only be lifted in subsequent regulations following consultation with appropriate persons.
Subsections (6) and (7) will enable regulations to set out a process for non-compliant dogs, cats and ferrets that are seized or detained. That will allow for the costs of detention to be met and, if necessary, for animals to be rehomed. The powers will help enforcers to effectively tackle the low-welfare movements of dogs and cats that are routinely seen on entry into Great Britain, while maintaining our high standards of biosecurity. Subsection (8) will allow regulations to make provision for monetary penalties to be imposed, which will help to ensure that measures envisaged by the Bill can be enforced appropriately and act as a sufficient deterrent.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to speak to clause 3, but, if he wants to do so, now would be the time.
Dr Chambers
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Clause 3 outlines who can exercise the regulation-making powers in clause 1. For the purposes of those powers, clause 3(1) defines the “appropriate national authority” in respect of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That subsection confirms that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland will have the power to make regulations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
Animal welfare is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, including in relation to the movement of animals into Scotland or Wales for the purposes of protecting animal welfare. In Northern Ireland, animal welfare is generally a transferred matter, but the subject matter of the Bill means that the reserved matter in paragraph 20 of schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is engaged. Therefore clause 3(2) sets out that the consent of the Secretary of State may be necessary when DAERA proposes to make regulations under the powers in clause 1. To provide for effective collaboration, clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that extend and apply to Northern Ireland where DAERA gives its consent. Subsection (4) sets out that DAERA’s consent would not be needed in such circumstances as described by subsection (2).
Sarah Champion
I think this is the first time I have served under your guidance, Sir Jeremy; it is a pleasure to do so. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for using his private Member’s Bill to shepherd this vital legislation through the House and for inviting me to be part of the Committee. The Bill is deeply welcomed. I have campaigned on animal smuggling for a decade, and those hon. Members around me have been campaigning on it for just as long. It generous of him to let us see the Bill through what is hopefully the final phase.
My constituents often write to me expressing their concern about this vile, exploitative practice and urging legislators to take meaningful action. They are frustrated by how many animals experience unnecessary suffering, which so often could be stopped with a stroke of a pen in this place. But let me be clear: these measures should have been acted on years ago. I urge the Committee to use this momentum to push for the strongest protections possible and support the Bill.
The puppy smuggling trade is worth billions in the UK. The Naturewatch Foundation found that an estimated 80% of dogs and puppies in the UK still come from unknown sources, including unlicensed breeders, illegal puppy farms and puppy smuggling operations. There are huge welfare concerns for puppies being transported long distances at such a young age having been taken from their mothers too soon, which hampers their development and often leads to illnesses and lifelong conditions. There is a human risk, too, with imported dogs leading to serious biosecurity concerns. I did not know, but in 2022 we had the first case of Brucella canis transferring from an imported dog to an owner. It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly support the Bill’s actions, with 83% backing stronger rules to stop puppy smuggling.
Cats face similar mistreatment. Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlighted that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. It is unclear whether they received health and welfare checks or what conditions they were subjected to during travel. Without proper regulation, cats likely arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health, carrying infectious diseases that they would inevitably pass on to other cats.
I therefore strongly support clause 1(3) and (4), which increase the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens from 15 weeks to six months. They also introduce new measures to prevent the import of mutilated animals. For years, puppies and kittens have been imported into the UK, completely legally, with painful mutilations, including docked tails, cropped ears or having been declawed or debarked. Continued importation normalises these practices and makes it near impossible to enforce a ban in the UK.
The abhorrent declawing procedure, is, I am sorry to say, the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip to the first knuckle. The 2024 PDSA “Animal Wellbeing” report stated, alarmingly:
“4% of cat owners who acquired their pet from abroad told us they did so because they wanted them to be declawed”.
That equates to 15,000 cats whose owners want them to be mutilated. To end such an appalling practice once and for all, I urge the Committee to maintain the strength of the Bill’s core provisions. In so doing, we will answer the public’s long-standing call for reform, protect our beloved dogs, cats and ferrets from ill treatment, and entrench the UK’s leadership on animal welfare.
Finally, if you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy, while I appreciate that the Bill looks at a very specific area of animal imports, I want to take the opportunity to reflect the strong feelings of the animal welfare and conservation sector about the decline in cross-border movements of zoo animals between the UK and the EU. Those movements are often part of essential conservation breeding programmes, and I share the hopes of the sector that, as the Government address dog, cat and ferret imports, they will soon address cross-border animal movements for zoos and aquariums.
I fully support the Bill. I wish it well with its progress, and I hope that it has the Committee’s support.
Dr Chambers
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is timely and essential. I thank you, Sir Jeremy, for chairing the Committee this morning. I also thank my whole team from Winchester—
The Chair
Order. I should have been clearer: I meant that the hon. Gentleman should sum up the debate on the first group in relation to clauses 1 to 3 and the amendments that he has proposed. He will have a chance to make general valedictory statements later.
Dr Chambers
Okay; I will thank my team from Winchester again later. Shall I go on to clause 4?
The Chair
We need to first put the questions related to the first group. Before I do that, I will give a friendly warning. Clause 1 is fairly broad in scope, so I have allowed the debate to be fairly broad. Subsequent clauses are much narrower, so the debate will have to be narrower.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Regulations under section 1: supplementary
Amendments made: 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, after “offence” insert “(but see subsection (2A))”.
This amendment inserts in clause 2(1)(g) a signpost to the new subsection inserted by Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 1 may create a criminal offence only in relation to (or in relation to the causing or permitting of)—
(a) a contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of section 1(2)(a);
(b) where by virtue of section 1(2)(b) such a prohibition or restriction is subject to an exemption, a contravention of a condition attached to the exemption;
(c) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to carry out checks in relation to the bringing of animals into the United Kingdom;
(d) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to provide information or documents, or the provision of false or misleading information or documents in purported compliance with such a requirement;
(e) the obstruction of, or a failure to assist, a person acting in the execution of powers conferred by any relevant legislation.
(2B) In subsection (2A), ‘relevant legislation’ means legislation (including regulations under section 1) that relates to animal welfare or animal health.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment qualifies clause 2(1)(g) (power to create criminal offences in regulations under clause 1) by setting out the only conduct in relation to which offences may be created.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Disapplication of non-commercial rules in certain cases
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
“(b) in point (b), after ‘non-commercial movement’ (in the first place it occurs) insert ‘(including movement that would be non-commercial movement but for Article 5 or 5A)’.”
This amendment makes a minor clarificatory change in consequence of the other amendments made by Clause 4.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 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.”
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 stand part.
Clause 5 stand part.
Dr Chambers
Clause 4 will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet travel rules to make it harder for those rules to be exploited for commercial gain. The clause contains the second set of substantive measures in the Bill to tackle puppy smuggling. The measures are designed to make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to disguise commercial imports as genuine pet movements.
Our non-commercial pet travel rules are intended to make it easier for the genuine pet owner to travel with their dog, cat or ferret. We know, however, that some unscrupulous commercial importers abuse the existing rules to bring in pets for sale. Those individuals seek to maximise their profits, often at the expense of the welfare of the animals they are importing. By its very nature, the true extent of pet smuggling operations cannot be known; it is likely that APHA figures only capture a small proportion of the animals being smuggled into the country.
A key loophole in our current rules is that up to five pets per person can travel in a single non-commercial movement. Consequently, unscrupulous traders can claim ownership of up to five puppies each, enabling them to cram vans with tens of dogs for transportation into Great Britain in a single trip.
By bringing animals in under the non-commercial rules, these traders avoid the more onerous requirements of the commercial import regime, which include the clinical examination by vets of animals before transport and enhanced traceability requirements. These requirements protect both animal welfare and our high biosecurity standards.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I thank the hon. Member for the proposals in this Bill on behalf of my constituents in North Somerset and on behalf of Cats Protection, which has sent me numerous emails about this clause regulating the number of animals allowed in a vehicle. I think he will agree that these vital changes need to be made, to ensure that we end the horrible atrocity of the smuggling of puppies, cats and ferrets.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I spent many happy years living in his North Somerset constituency while I was teaching at Bristol Veterinary School at the University of Bristol. He must be very proud that there is such an institution, which does so much to improve animal welfare, in his constituency.
To close this loophole, subsection (4) of clause 4 reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be brought into Great Britain from a third country in a single non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle, including vehicles on board a train or a ferry, and to three per person for foot or air passengers. This represents a significant reduction in the number of pets that can travel in a single, non-commercial movement. It is, however, a proportionate intervention that balances the need to disrupt illegal trade while minimising the impact on genuine pet owners.
The new caps are high enough to ensure that family and friends travelling together with their pets have enough flexibility to transport their pets non-commercially when they have genuine and legitimate needs to do so. They are also high enough to ensure that individuals are able to travel with assistance dogs and still have enough space to travel with any additional pets. The new limits in clause 4 also align with industry practice. Eurotunnel, which sees the greatest volume of pet movements, has capped the number of animals moving non-commercially on its service to five per vehicle.
Importantly, these restrictions would not preclude the movement of larger consignments of animals. A person who wishes to move more than five pets per vehicle or three per person for air or foot passenger travel would still be able to do so under the commercial import regime.
Currently, the pet travel rules also allow the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret into Great Britain within five days by a person authorised by the owner to carry out the movement on their behalf. Unfortunately, there is evidence from APHA and anecdotal evidence from stakeholders that this rule is also being exploited. Some individuals are known to pose as authorised persons to move animals under the non-commercial rules, when they are actually bringing them into Great Britain for sale. These pets should be moved under the commercial import regime, subject to more stringent requirements.
To prevent the misuse of these rules, clause 4(5) amends the existing pet travel rules to directly link the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret with its owner, in order to ensure that a pet can only be moved by an authorised person if it is within five days of the owner’s completing the same journey. Subsection (6) also makes amendments to the non-commercial pet travel regulations to ensure that only an owner, and not an authorised person, is permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog, cat or ferret is non-commercial.
Amendments 5 and 8 together, with consequential amendments 4, 6 and 7—provide the appropriate authority with powers enabling it to grant exemptions in certain circumstances from the requirements affecting non-commercial movements of pet animals in new articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 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”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7 stand part.
Motion to transfer subsection 7(1).
Motion to transfer clause 7.
Clause 8 stand part.
Dr Chambers
I have speaking notes for clauses 7 and 8, but I feel that they are very technical and probably do not add much to the debate. Unless Members particularly want me to read out those notes, I am happy to move on without discussing them.
The Chair
That is entirely a matter for the hon. Gentleman. He does not have to read them out if he does not wish to.
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.
Dr Hudson
I am grateful that the hon. Member has brought up the issue of brachycephalic animals. Again, it highlights the situation in popular culture and the fact that we need to educate people and try to stop advertising companies using these flat-faced animals as part of their “cute” advertising campaigns. Does the hon. Member agree that it is a question of educating the public, but also we need to inform the debate around popular culture for these animals?
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest and as someone who helped to draw up the British Veterinary Association advertising policies for use of animals in adverts, I certainly urge all companies to read that before they produce adverts.
In relation to this Bill specifically—the hon. Member has touched on this already—we are mindful that we will need to review with the Government how effective our biosecurity is. This legislation should help hugely in lowering the risk of rabies, Brucella canis and other diseases that can affect humans, but other steps may need to be taken, perhaps through other Departments or other legislation, to ensure that we have rigorous public health safety when we have a large number of animals moving between countries. We also need to ensure that people are not inadvertently affected by this measure. Many organisations and individual constituents have contacted me with concerns, and we will have to keep an eye on how we can improve things for individuals with secondary legislation.
I thank everyone who has worked on this measure for many years, in whatever capacity and both outside and inside Parliament. I am fully aware that it was part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill initially. It was then brought forward by the former Member for North Devon in the last Parliament and with a lot of help from the hon. Member for Epping Forest. I am so proud to have finally got it over the line, but I am also very mindful that it was not me on my own. This has been a huge discussion for many years by a lot of people, on a cross-party basis, and I am very thankful for all the work that has been put in, so thank you.
The Chair
I add my thanks to the hon. Gentleman and all other members of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Farming
Danny Chambers Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate.
I wish to follow on from what the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said about trade deals. We know that trade deals, particularly the potential ones with the US, threaten to undermine our high animal welfare standards that we have spent years working so hard to establish. If we allow products that are produced to lower standards—such as hormone-treated beef or chlorine-washed chicken—to become the norm, that will undercut our farmers. This is not about protectionism, but about fairness. Not only are vets and farmers proud of our high animal welfare standards, but the British public are, too. We should not in any way be looking to compromise those.
The UK has already made significant strides in reducing antibiotic use in livestock without compromising animal welfare. Our veterinary and farming sectors have worked together to promote the responsible use of antibiotics. We are setting an example for the rest of the world to follow.
As the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance report in 2024 highlighted, sales and usage of antibiotics in food-producing animals remain low. In fact, the past 10 years has seen a 59% decrease in the use of antibiotics in animals and livestock. Long-term antimicrobial resistance surveillance carried out by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate shows that multi-drug resistance in animals is at its lowest level in a decade. Such encouraging statistics are a product of years of work and dedication between scientists and the farming community. This is a huge public health issue, and we should be ensuring that trade deals do not force our farmers to compete with countries that do not have the same judicious use of antibiotics as we do.
On Saturday, I visited the NFU in Hampshire at Ben Robinson’s farm where, like many lowland farmers, they are about to start lambing. This is the hardest time of the year for sheep farms—I grew up on a sheep farm. Those farmers will be working all day and all night. In farming, the amount of effort, time and work that farmers put in does not always result in profit, because so many factors are out of their control—international disease outbreaks, geopolitical events that put up fertiliser prices, poor weather, changing Government policy, and potential trade deals. I pay tribute to the Farming Community Network, which works so hard to support the mental health of farmers.
Sustainable Farming Incentive
Danny Chambers Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner
Let me repeat the point: this is not about communication. If we suddenly say that a scheme with a fixed amount of money in it will close in two or three weeks, we would get a surge in applications and have to close it the same day. That is a flaw in the way the scheme was originally designed, and we want to do better in future.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
International events have pushed national security right up the agenda, and I am sure that we have cross-party acknowledgment that food security is a vital part of national security. Given the changing geopolitical situation, has an impact assessment been undertaken on changes to and stressors for family budgets and cash flow, such as the removal of SFI, and their effect on food security?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I refer him to the food security report. There has been no change to the amount of money available. The £5 billion budget is there; this is a discussion about who gets it.
Avian Influenza
Danny Chambers Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Farmers and vets will remember the 2022 outbreak, which was the biggest we had seen in the UK and which killed millions of birds worldwide, so this new outbreak is of huge concern for three major reasons.
First, there is the impact on animal welfare, not just the birds catching avian influenza and dying or being culled, but their having to be kept inside rather than being free range. Secondly, there is the impact on farmers, their businesses and their mental health. As with any notifiable disease, this is hugely stressful, and it is hugely disruptive to business models. What are we doing to ensure that compensation and support are given to farmers quickly? Thirdly, there is a huge potential impact on public health. While we fully understand that there is a low public health risk at the moment—this is a disease of birds—we have just come out of covid-19. We know that if someone is infected with human flu and potentially gets infected with avian influenza, there is a risk that it becomes more infectious to humans. What discussions is the Minister having with APHA and the Department of Health and Social Care to monitor the genotypes?
Daniel Zeichner
Let me deal first with the second of those two questions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course there is concern, but I can assure him and the House that the advice from the UK Health Security Agency is that avian influenza is primarily a disease of birds, and the risk to the health of the general public is very low. However, of course we are monitoring it, and genetic testing and sequencing is available to us for that. He is right about the impact on bird keepers and on farmers. It is why the compensation scheme is in place and working. We absolutely recognise the pressures on people and the effect on their mental health.
Foot and Mouth Disease
Danny Chambers Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation; I shall add him to my list. The border checks involve a complicated set of issues, but one of the Brexit benefits, if you like, is the existence of those checks, and I am satisfied that they are providing a level of security that should give people confidence. As I said in an earlier answer, we have strengthened the controls on personal imports. It is always a challenge to protect any area, but we are in a better position than colleagues in mainland Europe.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is good to see cross-party support for increased investment in Weybridge, which has long been needed, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned biosecurity, and we know that a great deal of illegally imported meat is coming through our ports. That is a huge biosecurity risk, and an even greater risk if there is foot and mouth on the continent. As well as investing in Weybridge and improving those facilities, can we look at how we can resource the port authorities properly to catch all this illegally imported meat?
Daniel Zeichner
That is an important point. We will try to do all that we can to ensure that illegal imports are intercepted and stopped. I am delighted to observe the outbreak of cross-party consensus on the need for more investment, and I hope there will also be an outbreak of consensus on how to fund it.
Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality
Danny Chambers Excerpts(5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) on securing this debate. There are two chalk streams in the Winchester constituency—the River Itchen and the River Meon. The River Itchen flows through the heart of our city; it is not just a beautiful part of our environment but part our cultural heritage as well.
There has been a lot of talk about chalk streams in the Chamber today, including in the eloquent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). However, we must remember never to take these streams for granted. There are only 210 chalk streams in the world, and 85% are in southern England. The biodiversity and ecosystems of some of them are completely unique, and these streams have been designated as sites of special scientific interest. In the southern chalk streams, for example, the Atlantic salmon are genetically distinct from those in the rest of the ocean. In that respect, dumping sewage and other pollutants in sites of special scientific interest is not only morally wrong but an act of ecological vandalism.
Although we support many of the measures the Government have brought forward, after the last Government ignored sewage dumping for so long, we have a couple of specific concerns about chalk streams. One is about the recent statement confirming plans by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to scrap the chalk stream protective pack, without anything else being announced specifically to replace it. Chalk streams form over millions of years and are a unique part of our heritage. The Government need to recognise their importance and not merely lump action on them in with other protective measures. Will the Minister therefore please discuss the Department’s plans to put together a chalk stream-specific recovery plan and to achieve special protective status for all chalk streams?
To finish off, I congratulate and pay tribute to all the community groups in Winchester that work so hard on chalk streams—the citizen scientists, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, and the river keepers. They are really working hard, and we and the Government need to support them in every way we can.
Family Farming in Devon
Danny Chambers Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for securing this important debate. I grew up on a family farm in Devon, very near where he lives, and as a vet I have attended and been on duty for many of the agricultural shows he mentioned. If he has not yet been to the Chagford sheep-shearing competition, I definitely recommend it, and I extend an invitation to him to the fantastic Alresford agricultural show near Winchester, which has been going on there for over 120 years.
All of today’s speeches touch on the fact that farming is not merely a business; rather, the rural community is based on family farms. Those farms are not just farming and producing food; they also provide the governors for the local schools and do charity work. We need to keep family farms farming to ensure that the entire fabric of our rural communities survives and thrives into the next century.
Farming is a tough life. It is one of those professions: farmers can work all hours, in all weathers, and then—due to reasons completely out of their control—realise that they are either going to make money or lose a huge amount of money. Losses can be due to weather conditions, such as droughts and floods; disease outbreaks, like foot and mouth, bluetongue or avian influenza; or political events, as other Members have touched on, including trade deals. Farmers can do everything right in one year but, because of reasons completely out of their control, realise that they will struggle to make a profit and could make a significant loss.
The subject of mental health issues in rural communities has been well recognised, and was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). Farmers who are dealing with uncertainty do struggle, and there is a high suicide rate among them. We have to remember that farms are not just businesses, but individuals and families who are directly affected by decisions made in this House.
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) touched on how beautiful the Devon countryside is. The Lake district, the Yorkshire dales, the shires in Devon, and the beautiful countryside in Hampshire around the Meon valley only look the way they do because they have been farmed for generations. Those are curated landscapes, created and cared for by generations of custodians. Although farmers might not make a direct profit from tourism, the only reason we have a booming tourism industry is because we have such landscapes. Their contribution should be recognised for the huge amount of GDP generated by foreign visitors coming to look at our green and pleasant land.
Earlier today, I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on food security, which included a discussion on illegal meat imports coming in through Dover. We heard about how the Dover Port Health Authority, Border Force and DEFRA struggle for resources. When they do spot checks on lorries bringing in products, they regularly pick up tonnes of illegally imported meat. That is a public health concern, because we do not know the origin of the meat or the standard it was produced to, and it is often not refrigerated.
Many of the lorries come from eastern Europe, where there are notifiable diseases of livestock, such as foot and mouth and peste des petits ruminants, that we do not see in the UK. That is a huge risk to agricultural livestock production and farming in the UK. I ask the Minister: how can we better resource our border and biosecurity? I am fully aware that that would cost a huge amount in money and resources, but it is much more cost-effective to prevent foot and mouth or similar diseases than to deal with an outbreak. That is a hugely concerning situation to be in.
Farmers and vets are hugely proud that we have the highest animal welfare and environmental standards in farming in the world. They were hugely disappointed when the previous Government—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. The time is up. I remind the hon. Member, who is new, that if he is not here at the start in future, he will not be called to speak. We now move to contributions from the Front Bench.