Support for Pig Farmers

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this timely debate.

I grew up on a sheep and beef farm, and when I was about 11 years old, I bought 13 pigs from market to take home. They became more like pets; I used to play football with them—

[Graham Stuart]

You used to kick them around?

[Dr Chambers]

No, I used to play football matches with them. They were a lot of fun, and I learned that of all livestock, they are potentially the most intelligent and certainly some of the most affectionate animals. I had a particularly interesting visit to Sparsholt agricultural college in Winchester with the National Pig Association. I used to love going there when I was a vet to treat the animals; now I go there as an MP to look at its teaching and facilities. It has a fantastic indoor, high-welfare unit that delivers piglets without the use of farrowing crates, and I pay tribute to the staff there for their teaching and the welfare standards that they maintain.

To touch on something that many Members have spoken about today, one of the top issues threatening the pig industry is biosecurity at the border. I have been to Dover and met the vets and border inspectors there who look at the potentially illegal meat coming in and the tonnes of it that get seized. The crazy thing is that currently, if I were caught smuggling meat into the UK, I could not be arrested and my vehicle could not be seized, but the meat would be confiscated and my vehicle would have to be cleaned, because it would be a biosecurity risk. The only deterrent to trying to smuggle illegal meat into the UK would be that I might get my van cleaned for free at the taxpayer’s expense. That is absolutely ridiculous. I totally understand that enforcing biosecurity at such a busy border is difficult and comes with huge challenges, there are not even suitable deterrents in place for people who get caught. I urge the Minister at the very least to look at implementing some.

One thing that the pig industry has done phenomenally well is to reduce antibiotic use by 72% since 2015—just over 10 years. That is hugely important, not only for animal welfare, but for public health. Antimicrobial resistance is like a slow pandemic; it never gets media attention, but it will kill 39 million people by 2050 if we do not take action. It is important that we do not undercut our high animal welfare and farming standards with products from countries that have lower standards. Countries that use antibiotics as growth promoters are not only farming with lower welfare standards, but contributing to this huge public health crisis, so we must do our bit to tackle that issue.

The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned labelling. It is hugely important that we can identify where meat has been produced. Consumers are currently being hoodwinked; they believe that they are buying products from animals reared in the UK, but it turns out that they were only processed in the UK. They want to support British farmers and high animal welfare standards, so it is completely wrong that they are being hoodwinked into buying products that potentially undermine UK standards.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made a very important point about the lack of small abattoirs in the UK. Their closure is a huge animal welfare issue, as animals have to be transported further than necessary to be slaughtered, and a huge economic problem too.

I urge the Minister to see how the Government can work with the pig industry to move away from the CO₂ stunning of pigs. It is a big welfare concern, and the British Veterinary Association and others are keen for the industry to make a sustainable transition away from it. It causes a lot of concern to a lot of constituents, and it really upsets me as a vet.

Finally, I urge the Minister to meet the National Pig Association as soon as possible to look at supporting UK farmers, maintaining high animal welfare standards and improving our nation’s food security.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is right about our tree cover, which is why I am delighted to tell him that tree planting is at its highest rate for 20 years. As we endure our second heatwave this summer, we know that we need to do more. That is why we are doubling the funding for tree planting through our trees outside woodland fund, which is £2.5 million this year, up from £1 million last year.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s mentioning an update to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966; after 60 years, it is much needed to make the Act fit for purpose to regulate new business structures and paraprofessionals such as physios, and to protect the title of veterinary nurse. Could we have an assurance that, with the change of Administration, the update will remain a priority and will not be kicked into the long grass? It is much needed right now.

[Emma Reynolds]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is a priority for the Government. I visited the University of Surrey’s veterinary medicine school yesterday, and we have been engaging with the sector, which wants to modernise the legislation. It is not fit for purpose—there are plenty of things available now that were not around in 1966, such as scans for animals. We are absolutely committed as a Government to modernising the legislation to the benefit of the profession—ensuring that we continue to drive up standards, celebrate good practice and root out bad practice—and to the benefit of pet owners, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important and powerful point, and I commend her on all her work to tackle violence against women and girls, and on the courage that she has shown. The presumption of contact changes are incredibly important, and will progress in the usual way, as the Bill goes through Parliament.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is well recognised that people who inflict deliberate pain, injury or violence on animals are more likely to be involved in domestic abuse, yet if someone is prosecuted for deliberately injuring an animal, they are prosecuted under animal welfare laws, meaning that their conviction is unlikely to show up under the domestic abuse disclosure scheme. Will the Minister look at how we can change the recording of such offences, so that people who deliberately harm animals are likely to be reported as being at risk of committing domestic abuse against people?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point: some research has shown a correlation between someone abusing their pet and domestic abuse. That is touched on in the cross-Government VAWG strategy. It is important that vets are aware of that research and that link, and can detect those issues and signpost and escalate when necessary.

Animal Abusers

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this hugely important debate; the petitioners and Bea Elton for getting so many signatures, which is why we are discussing this issue; and Holly’s family, who are turning an absolute tragedy into something that could have a positive legacy. That is very courageous.

In my many years of working in veterinary practice, one observation always stuck with me: how people treat animals is often a reflection of how they treat the people closest to them. People who treat animals with unfailing kindness tend to be some of the kindest people you will ever meet. If people deliberately inflict suffering on a defenceless animal, it is often a warning sign that that violence will extend beyond the animal and into the home. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a fantastic animal champion; he has done fantastic work on puppy smuggling. Does he agree not only that there should be stronger sentencing powers, but that those with a proven track record of serious animal abuse and harm should face complete ownership bans?

[Dr Chambers]

I totally agree. We should be clear that, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is a very big difference between someone who causes suffering to an animal for a variety of reasons, such as mental health issues or ignorance, or through neglect, and someone who deliberately causes harm to an animal because they have a sadistic personality or want to feel powerful. In this debate, it is important to consider the motivation behind causing the suffering: if someone causes deliberate suffering, it indicates that they may well cause harm to other people around them.

As a vet, it is always unsettling to treat a dog with a broken rib that could have resulted from a kick when the owner says that it fell down the stairs, for example. That is a very unusual thing for a dog to do, and it would be very unusual to break a rib as a result. My concern in those situations, beyond treating the animal in front of me, extends to the people living in closest proximity to the person who has brought in the dog. We know that people sometimes even coerce their partner to stay with them instead of leaving by threatening to harm their pet. On that note, I pay tribute to organisations such as Trinity in Winchester, which has a refuge for people fleeing domestic abuse that allows them to take their pets with them, because that is a barrier to people escaping that situation. Cats Protection and Dogs Trust have very similar schemes, and they are hugely important.

As vets, we are trained to recognise the early signs of diseases so that we can treat them before they become irreversible, and I believe we should take the same approach to violence. Animal abuse is not always an isolated act of cruelty; sometimes it is the first symptom of something much more dangerous. That is why I take every opportunity to discuss the important work of the Links Group, which highlights the evidence linking animal abuse with domestic abuse and other forms of violence.

I ask the Minister to consider three measures. First, when someone has been convicted of abusing an animal, that information should be disclosed under the domestic violence disclosure scheme, commonly known as Clare’s law, where it is relevant to protecting someone at risk. If animal abuse predicts domestic violence, that information must be available to all those who need it. The issue at the moment is that the abuse of an animal is often prosecuted under animal welfare laws and does not show up when people look for historical allegations of or convictions for domestic violence.

Secondly, anyone convicted of sexually abusing an animal should be automatically placed on the sex offenders register. At present, such convictions under animal welfare legislation carry no referral to public protection mechanisms. That means that if someone has sexually abused an animal, they are prosecuted under animal welfare laws and there is no way of tracking them, although they have a higher likelihood of committing sexual violence against other people as well. That cannot be right; it is an anomaly that this House should fix. Thirdly, anyone convicted of deliberately abusing an animal should be prohibited from owning animals in the future. The courts should have the powers to impose long-term or, where appropriate, lifetime disqualification orders.

Holly’s killer had abused animals since the age of eight. He had admitted it and the RSPCA knew about it, but the legal and justice systems that are in place did not allow anyone to join those dots. We cannot allow that to happen again. By clamping down hard on deliberate animal abuse, we can protect women, spouses, children and animals from future harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

The right hon. Member is a tireless champion on these issues, having met the former Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office and written to Baroness Hayman following his business question last year. I assure him that officials are continuing to work across Government on the points that came out of his meeting with the Minister, and I will certainly take away the points that he just raised.

[Dr Chambers]

I totally understand the need for safeguards so that disclosures are not used as an excuse for harassment or inappropriate release of data. Sexually abusing an animal does not mean that someone is on the sex offenders register, and the committing of deliberate acts of violence against an animal would not automatically be included in domestic violence disclosure; but, given the way that information is recorded and stored currently, even if the police wanted to and thought it appropriate, it is unlikely that they would be able to disclose it. Would the Minister meet me to discuss how we ensure that these offences are at least recorded in a way that means that they could be disclosed if deemed necessary and appropriate?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for the insight that he, as a vet, brings to the debate. I am very happy to take his suggestions and views back to the Department. He will know that animal welfare is not within my portfolio—it is the responsibility of Baroness Hayman—but I will take back his suggestions and concerns and explore that further.

[Dr Chambers]

rose—

[Stephen Morgan]

I will make some progress, but I am happy to take away the action and share it with my ministerial colleague.

We heard at the start of the debate that, more broadly, the Government are committed to strengthening animal welfare protections and raising standards across the system. That is why, last December, we published our ambitious animal welfare strategy for England. This strategy is not a short-term list of individual measures but a long-term plan to improve welfare, prevent poor welfare earlier and support a more joined-up approach. It includes practical action to promote sensible, responsible pet ownership, tackle puppy smuggling, end low-welfare puppy farming and explore further protections.

That matters, because many welfare problems begin long before prosecution is brought. They can start with poor breeding, poor socialisation, lack of knowledge or owners unable to meet an animal’s needs. By addressing those causes earlier, we can reduce the risk of animal suffering and reduce pressure on enforcement bodies later on.

Of course, enforcement remains vital where poor welfare or cruelty does occur. Local authorities, the police and animal welfare organisations all play an important part in protecting animals and holding offenders to account. As we have heard, the RSPCA alone secured more than 1,000 prosecutions in 2024, which shows the scale of that continuing work. That is why the Government’s approach is both practical and preventive. We want to stop animals suffering wherever we can, not only respond once harm has already happened. That means helping owners to understand their duties, providing early advice and ensuring people know where to turn before welfare problems escalate. It also means improving traceability through stronger microchipping and better records so that lost animals can be reunited with their owners, and that irresponsible breeders or owners cannot avoid accountability. Taken together, those measures provide a clear direction, prevent cruelty earlier, target enforcement where risk is greatest, and protect animals through proportionate, workable and lawful safeguards.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions and for speaking so passionately on behalf of their constituents and those who signed the petition. I commend the work of the RSPCA and all organisations that support animal welfare across our country. The Government are clear about our commitment to protecting animals from cruelty, neglect and exploitation, and to ensuring that those responsible are held properly to account. Courts have the power to impose lifetime bans where appropriate, and it is right that they retain the discretion to do so.

Although we recognise the good intention behind the calls for a public register, the risks outweigh the benefits. Targeted disclosure remains the most effective approach. We are continuing to strengthen enforcement by supporting local authorities on how to utilise the tools available to them more effectively. We will continue to deliver our animal welfare strategy, which will improve the lives of millions of animals across our country. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues and stakeholders to ensure the highest possible standards of animal welfare.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am in close contact with domestic fertiliser suppliers. I held a ministerial roundtable with them and industry leaders across food farming and the supply chain to hear about the pressures and confirm our readiness to act when required, so the hon. Lady can be assured that we will do that. Let me take this opportunity to welcome her to her role on the Opposition Front Bench—she is a sort of constituency neighbour, really.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to help improve water quality.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

The Government are serious about holding water companies to account and maintaining high drinking water standards. Just this week, South West Water has rightly been fined £1.85 million—a record fine for a drinking water offence—for failures that led to a cryptosporidium outbreak in the Brixham area of Devon. We will keep taking action so that communities can have safe, clean and reliable drinking water.

[Dr Chambers]

The Government’s own Veterinary Medicines Directorate is really concerned that pet flea treatments sold in supermarkets are washing pesticides into Britain’s lakes, waterways and chalk streams and killing aquatic life. Those treatments include ingredients such as fipronil and imidacloprid, which is banned from agricultural use to protect bees. Millions of pets are blanket-treated every month, whether they need it or not, and we already require professional advice before selling similar products to treat parasites in farm animals. Will the Minister commit to reclassifying these products so that they can no longer be sold off a supermarket shelf without professional advice? A chemical that is too dangerous for use in agriculture probably should not be available over a counter.

[Emma Hardy]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area. This is a serious issue; a scientific group is looking at it and will give advice to Ministers on what is the best course of action to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I will take away the hon. Lady’s comments, discuss them with Justice Ministers and confirm the position to her in writing.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

5. What steps she is taking to ensure the effective prosecution of domestic abuse cases.

[The Solicitor General]

Domestic abuse has a significant impact on victims and their families, and those who are brave enough to come forward deserve to have their cases resolved quickly. Earlier this year, as I have set out, I secured additional funding of £5 million, so that victims of domestic abuse in the Crown court get a pre-trial meeting with the prosecution team. I also visited Crown Prosecution Service Wales, where the police and CPS are piloting police-led charging decisions in some domestic abuse cases to speed up decision making and get justice for victims quickly.

[Dr Chambers]

One form of domestic abuse is financial abuse and coercion. I have been made aware of a Child Maintenance Service case in my constituency that has been repeatedly dropped at the magistrate level because of one parent failing to attend the hearing. That means that the CMS withdraws the case, not prosecuting the parent who refuses to attend, and leaving the other one trapped and without any means of escaping the loop of financial abuse. Does the Minister agree that it is deeply troubling that a case is simply dropped, without any repercussions, if a parent does not attend the hearing?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case on behalf of his constituent. He is right to highlight the fact that many people use financial abuse as a form of coercive, controlling behaviour and a form of domestic abuse, and we should call that what it is. I commend the bravery of any victims who come forward. If he writes to me about the case, I would be happy to look into it for him.

Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 General Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for her speech.

Liberal Democrats will also support the long-term move towards a fairer farming system that rewards sustainable food production, nature recovery and climate resilience rather than relying solely on an outdated subsidy model. However, we are deeply concerned that the Government are accelerating the withdrawal of support before replacement schemes are fully available, adequately funded and trusted by farmers. We are particularly concerned that England is now the only country in the UK and Europe that does not financially support farmers in the production of food.

Farmers are being asked to absorb rising costs, including increased fuel and fertiliser costs caused by war. They face uncertainty in environmental land management schemes and in the closure of the sustainable farming incentive, while facing the prospect of losing almost all remaining delinked payments in 2026 and 2027. That risks creating yet another cliff edge for the farming sector after years of Conservative mismanagement and continuing Labour uncertainty.

We are also concerned that the Government continue to characterise these payments simply as “delinked subsidies” despite the fact that farmers still had to demonstrate cross-compliance with environmental standards to get the basic payment. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must ensure a fair transition by properly funding ELMS, restoring confidence in environmental schemes, providing long-term certainty for farmers and recognising the vital role that farmers play in producing food, restoring nature and supporting rural economies. That is why we are calling for an additional investment of £1 billion in the farming budget to support that transition. We will therefore vote against the draft regulations.

Agriculture: Government Support

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that issue. Last year, farmers were devastated by the overnight closure of the sustainable farming incentive, which came with no notice. I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge at the Oxford farming conference in January that there would be no further unexpected closures of that scheme, but I did not get the sense in my conversation last week that confidence has been restored fully since that overnight closure of SFI.

Small producers are disproportionately disadvantaged under the new SFI scheme. Payment caps raise serious issues about long-term farm profitability. The system appears not to have been designed around farmers and what they want, but rather around bureaucracy and administrative convenience. The Liberal Democrats would invest in agriculture, including an additional £1 billion a year to support sustainable, domestic food production, improving our skills, resilience and supply, rather than leaving our farmers at the mercy of global markets.

Thirdly, I would like to talk about planning concerns. As I understand it, there are delays in the planning systems across local authorities that are preventing farmers from doing the right thing. Last week, I talked to one who had applied for a cover on a slurry store and was still waiting, eight months later, for a verdict on whether he could go ahead and make the modification.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I was speaking to farmers in Winchester just two weeks ago, and planning is a huge issue, whether they want to put in a new slurry lagoon or repurpose a barn, with a wait of more than 18 months. The process is very opaque and there is no set timeline. It is impossible to make business decisions if no timeline is given as to when they might even be told when they will have to supply information to get the planning permission.

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is right. From what I understand, there is a national shortage of planning officers, and many of them are stretched across a number of things; they might be looking at applications for big housing developments. Sometimes, farm improvements that are geared towards improving environmental practices are quite low down the list for some of those planning officers. I question whether we might have dedicated planning officers who specifically look at some of the applications from farms. That would make a huge difference by improving the contribution of farmers to the environment.

To recap, we are calling on the Government to reduce exposure to volatile global inputs by supporting domestic fertiliser production. We are calling for a tax policy that recognises that family farms need stability, rather than the Government adding to global shocks with one or two of their own. We need farm support schemes that are predictable, accessible and fair, alongside systems for planning developments that work towards following clear timetables, rather than deadlines that continue to slip.

Farmers are doing their best in very trying circumstances. They are adapting and innovating, and trying to produce food for all of us while under immense economic pressure. They do not need warm words from the Government—they do not need “monitoring”. What they need now is a Government that are prepared to take action to match their rhetoric. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Fur: Import and Sale

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate.

I think that we will rightly repeat several of the key issues and reasons why the import of fur products should be banned in the UK and those points are absolutely crucial. As we have heard, the United Kingdom banned fur farming over two decades ago because Parliament rightly recognised the extreme and unnecessary cruelty it inflicts on defenceless animals. Yet today we continue to allow the import and sale of fur products produced using precisely the same methods that we judged unacceptable within our own borders. That contradiction is simply impossible to defend. If fur farming is rightfully recognised as too cruel to permit in this country, then it also should be considered too cruel to profit from its proceeds.

Every year, tens of millions of animals across the world are confined to small wire cages or trapped in the wild solely for their fur. An estimated 85 million to 100 million animals globally are farmed or trapped for their fur. Investigations and scientific assessment have shown repeatedly that such conditions fail to meet animals’ most basic behavioural needs and cause severe and inhumane suffering; but do we really need scientific studies to prove that the way in which fur is farmed and animals are trapped is inhumane and causes suffering? Of course not; we can see it with our own eyes.

These are wild animals who should be allowed to roam free in the wild, but are instead kept locked up in tiny cages in deplorable conditions. Once their pelts are ready, they are gassed or anally electrocuted, as we have heard. Many of the animals are killed at about the age of one year, when their pelts are in their prime. That is the real nature of the system that continues to supply the global fur trade. While the UK banned fur farming domestically, we remain inextricably connected to the system through the import of furs.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the UK continues to import about £30 million to £40 million-worth of fur products each year, which equates to an estimate of about 1 million animals annually. That raises an obvious ethical question.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Last year, I was pleased to promote a private Member’s Bill—now the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025—to stop puppy smuggling, specifically given the issue of ear cropping. It has been illegal to crop a dog’s ears in the UK since 2006, but it was legal to import dogs with cropped ears. We thought that it was unacceptable to do that in the UK on welfare grounds, but people were getting around the loophole by acquiring dogs from abroad. This seems to be exactly the same thing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not be offshoring our ethical animal welfare issues by banning something in the UK but allowing people to get those products from abroad? If we think something is unacceptable here, it should be unacceptable anywhere.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree, and I was happy to support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill and speak in the debate. Anything that we deem unacceptable or cruel in our country is unacceptable or cruel wherever it is done, and we should not help to perpetuate that cruelty elsewhere around the world.

The ethical question is, as the hon. Gentleman just said, why are we comfortable outsourcing animal cruelty to other countries simply because it then occurs beyond our shores? Increasingly, the general public recognise the incoherence of that perverse position. There has been a profound sea change in British public attitudes to the fur trade. A YouGov survey found that 93% of people in the UK do not wear real fur and, as we heard, 97% would never wear real fur. A 2023 poll found that 77% believe that when a type of farming is banned in the UK for being too cruel, we should also ban imports of products produced in the same way overseas. An easy win for the Government would be to implement a policy that is widely popular: such cruelty is unacceptable to the people of our country. In other words, that is not a controversial position among the public, but reflects a widely shared, common-sense position that the fur trade is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.

The economic case for maintaining the fur trade is increasingly weak. The UK fur market has been in steep decline over the past decade. Fur imports now represent just a tiny fraction of the UK’s overall clothing trade. Many major brands and global luxury houses have already turned away from fur entirely, and London Fashion Week banned its use in 2023. The direction of travel is clear: the industry is dying, consumer demand is collapsing and alternatives are widely available.

Environmental and public health concerns are also associated with fur production. Studies have shown that the carbon footprint of fur significantly exceeds that of many other materials used in fashion, given the intensive farming of carnivorous wild animals and the process it entails. Meanwhile, outbreaks of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—and avian influenza on fur farms have highlighted the risks that such facilities can pose as potential transmission hubs for zoonotic disease, thereby increasing the likelihood of future pandemics.

Taken together, the case for a more comprehensive ban is compelling. I welcome the efforts of colleagues who have brought forward proposals to prohibit the import and sale of fur in the United Kingdom, including the Fur (Import and Sale) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. Such legislation would close the obvious loophole that currently exists in our animal welfare framework.

The UK was once a global leader in banning fur farming. Many other countries followed our example. We now have an opportunity to lead again, by ending our association with a trade that is morally repugnant, environmentally harmful, economically marginal and overwhelmingly rejected by the public. There is no such thing as humane fur farming, wherever it takes place, and it must end now.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I promise I will be as quick as possible. There is so much I would like to say about biodiversity net gain and the importance of the natural environment to people in Winchester, but I will speak only about a specific issue with one of our chalk streams that I believe the Minister could help us with. The beautiful River Meon runs through a little village called Droxford. For various historical reasons, it is classified as a public highway, and that means that people drive 4x4s along the river for a few hundred metres. It is not a shortcut to anywhere—it is not simply a river crossing—but it is damaging the riverbed. It also disrupts the spawning of the very rare Atlantic salmon that come from southern chalk streams.

For over two years now, I have been working to try to stop the traffic from damaging this very precious habitat. The South Downs national park wants it to stop. The local people want it to stop. Lib Dem-run Winchester city council wants it to stop. For various reasons, we cannot get the Conservative-run Hampshire county council either to change the designation of the river so that it is no longer a highway or even just to put in a traffic regulation order to prevent people from driving 4x4s along the stretch of river. I would really appreciate a meeting with the Minister, maybe with some of the various stakeholders, to work out how we can cut through this red tape, because it is ecological vandalism, it provides absolutely no benefit to the environment and there is overwhelming support to stop the damage.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing this really important debate. I really appreciate the discussion, and wholeheartedly support much of what has been brought up.

One thing that I am disappointed to see is missing from the strategy is the breeding of dogs with extreme conformation. I am specifically talking about brachycephalic dogs—dogs with flat faces, including pugs, French bulldogs and English bulldogs. They are bred with such extreme conformation that they have a narrow trachea, so they struggle to breathe. They have narrow noses and what we call inverted laryngeal saccules at the back of their throat. That all impedes air flow, which means that many of these dogs require surgery in the first few months of life simply to breathe. Many owners who buy these dogs have no idea that that is going to be the situation. They might spend several thousand pounds buying a puppy, then come into the vet and discover that, within weeks or months of owning the dog, they are going to have to fork out for surgery. Some cannot afford that, which means the dog gets rehomed or euthanised—that is heartbreaking for owners and vets.

In case people think I am talking about a very niche issue, the number of brachycephalic dogs increased by 3,000% between 2010 and 2020, and around that time French bulldogs surpassed labradors as the most registered dog in the UK. This is possibly the single biggest pet animal welfare situation at the moment. Aside from the breathing issues, the dogs look very cute—that is why people breed them; they look like a teddy bear, with little flat faces and big bulgy eyes—but their eyes end up getting corneal ulcers and are damaged very easily. Some of these dogs have lifelong painful eye conditions as well.

The popularity of these dogs is driven partly by social media influencers posing with them and partly by companies using them irresponsibly in advertising, completely out of context—for example, for absolutely no reason, a pug pops up on the Amazon error page. It is such a problem that it is causing vets a lot of distress as well. If you talk to a bunch of vets about it, they will almost roll their eyes and say, “You wouldn’t believe how many of these I saw today. It’s really upsetting.” It is upsetting for owners as well.

It is rightly illegal to intentionally cause an animal to suffer, and people get prosecuted for that. For some reason, it does not seem to be illegal to breed an animal that you know will definitely suffer—an animal that will almost certainly require surgery just to be able to breathe. This is something that the Government need to take very seriously, and something that we should really focus on. There is the potential for legislation to apply already, if it were tweaked, because it could be argued that an animal with two parents that were bred to need that type of surgery in the first place is being intentionally caused to suffer. I urge the Government to look at this, because it is possibly the biggest pet animal welfare issue that we deal with at the moment.

Food Inflation

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing this hugely important debate. The cost of living, particularly the cost of food, is one of issues I get contacted about the most by my constituents. The high cost of living is being driven by rising food prices. I was astounded just last week, when someone emailed me a photo of an £8 tube of toothpaste from the supermarket in Badger Farm in Winchester. It was not a special new one that claims to whiten teeth and cure all oral ailments; it was just bog-standard toothpaste. I think we are all finding that we leave the supermarket baffled. Often, I just pop in for some essentials and I leave with a bag of shopping that has come to £50 or £60. It is affecting absolutely everyone. We are finding that people are struggling just to meet the absolute basics—not just food, but other life essentials.

Several Members have spoken about farming and food producers. As a vet who grew up on a farm and so has worked in farming in many capacities, I think that that is one of the most underestimated ways of helping to address the cost of living crisis.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, farm-gate prices are so low that many farmers are earning significantly less than the living wage, yet supermarket prices are so high that many people cannot afford to buy basic, decent quality food. That shows the necessity of the revised food strategy, which has to be an imperative for this Government.

I know what it is like to have to get up at 5.30 in the morning to milk cows, to calve cows in the middle of the night and to work all night lambing. Farmers work all hours in all weathers, but their income at the end of the year is often not related to the amount of work they put in, because it can be affected by factors completely out of their control, such as a disease outbreak, a trade deal or a weather event. The frustration of not getting rewarded for the amount of effort, time and energy they put in is making many see long-term futures in farming as unsustainable. They need a huge amount of support.

Food security is part of our national security, but 45% of our food is imported. Given the volatile geopolitical situation, food is more than ever a key component of our national resilience. While we are desperate to have food that is more affordable, we must be mindful that signing trade deals with the USA that would undercut our farmers on welfare, environmental and basic public health standards would be hugely detrimental. We do not want chicken that has been washed in chlorine, we do not want hormone-treated beef and we do not want eggs that have been produced by battery hens. That would be bad for British farming, for animal welfare and, given the antibiotic use, for public health. I urge the Government to ensure that it is enshrined in any trade deals that those standards would be protected.

I want to pay tribute to the food banks in Winchester, which I have visited on more than one occasion. We have the Winchester Basics Bank and the food pantry in Unit12. I thank the huge team of more than 80 staff and volunteers for all their work; they are extremely busy at the moment. I also thank the community, faith groups and churches that support them.

Taking a step back, despite all our economic troubles, we are one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. We can be a nation where an honest day’s work pays a living wage, where no one with a full-time job has to go to food banks to feed their children, and where no child ever goes to school hungry. We have to make these choices urgently; we must address them as soon as we can.