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.

Rural Communities

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

One of the best things about the boundary changes at the last general election is that Winchester is now 60% rural. I spent many happy years driving around the countryside of the Meon valley treating horses. It is very obvious that the communities—the towns and the villages—in rural areas are cut off in many different ways, because often where there is no mobile signal there is no broadband, or no fast broadband.

An added extra pressure over the last few years is that buses have been cancelled. In 2025, I spent a lot of time working with local communities trying to save or restore bus services, because they are an absolute lifeline. I took the last bus journey on the now cancelled 61 bus to Colden Common and Bishops Waltham, and the bus driver told me that the route had been going for 100 years, but Hampshire county council has withdrawn its funding. Buses are not only important for getting people to work and school, but vital for people’s independence. I have met many elderly people who used this bus to get to Winchester for hospital appointments, to go to the doctor or to do their shopping, and they say that without this bus, they will not be able to remain living in a little village, or remain living independently.

It had not occurred to me that there are the communities that buses themselves create. Some people I met said that they met their friends on the bus, and they now go for coffee together and check up on each other, but they would not even have known each other had they not been on the same bus. [Interruption.] I have a lot to say about this bus, but I only have 45 seconds left, and it is not the only bus. Conservative Members may find it amusing, but the Conservatives on Hampshire county council have cut the funding for these buses, after they froze council tax for years. The Conservative Government cut funding for the local council, and now local people are paying the price of very poor financial decisions. The first things being cut are the buses that affect people’s everyday lives and their individual experience. That is a good example of poor financial management, and individuals are now paying the price.

Animal Welfare Strategy

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her comments.

Let me mention something that we would like the animal welfare strategy to focus on. The Veterinary Surgeons Act was passed in 1966, and a lot has changed since then. More than 60% of veterinary practices are now owned by corporates; they used to be owned by individual veterinary surgeons. Medical care for animals is now provided by a whole range of para-professionals, including equine dental technicians, cattle hoof trimmers and animal physiotherapists, who are all unregulated. We also have very highly trained veterinary nurses, but the title of veterinary nurse is not protected.

I urge the Government to make updating the Veterinary Surgeons Act a centrepiece of their animal welfare strategy. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the veterinary profession are calling for that. It would be good for owners, good for animals, and good for the veterinary profession, so I urge the Government to make that a key component of the strategy.

I am really excited about the fact that now that I am an MP, I will not be on call for Christmas, as I have been many times. I remind everyone not to feed their dogs mince pies and chocolate, and not to let them get hold of onion gravy, as that is what keeps us really, really busy at Christmas.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the whole House, for what he has just said, and for his service, before he became a Member and since. This is a really important area, and we absolutely appreciate that the Veterinary Surgeons Act needs updating. I can reassure him that we are continuing to pursue opportunities to do that.

Water Scarcity

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I think the two words “immoral” and “obscene” sum up the issues that the hon. Lady has referred to, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

In 2024, Northern Ireland Water published a new water resource plan, extending its long-term planning horizon from 25 years to 50 years, so it has in place a structure to look forward at what will happen in Northern Ireland. Our population has increased by, I think, more than 200,000 in the last 10 years. The increase has been quite significant. There have been large developments. My constituency of Strangford has experienced that. There is a development coming through in the east of the town. There will be 750 new houses, and that will add stress on the infrastructure, including the water system and all the roads. But we have to address population growth, housing demand, water usage and climate change. The plan recognises that future weather patterns are likely to include more frequent extreme events, and pledges to build resilience so that the water supply remains secure.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

This is the first time I have intervened on the hon. Member—it is normally the other way round. He mentioned climate change, and I was alarmed to read that last year Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service attended 197 outdoor fires and wildfires, which was one of the highest numbers in the whole of the UK. We are seeing water scarcity and abstraction from rivers against the backdrop of having had the 20-odd hottest years on the planet—year after year after year. It has to be acknowledged that that is affecting water scarcity as well.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member highlights another issue in relation to climate change and the dry spells that we are having, which lead, ultimately, to the fires that take place, whether deliberately or by accident.

Spelga dam supplies most of the water for the Greater Belfast area, and that takes in the area that I live in, Strangford, and North Down, and goes down as far as South Down. I also want to refer to Lough Neagh in a few minutes. Water usage per person in Northern Ireland is rising—the hon. Member for Horsham referred to this issue in his introduction—and has exceeded 160 litres per day. The system is sensitive to dry spells. I am recalling the summer that we have just had and the Twelfth of July—this is a very important year for us Orangemen—when the weather was outstanding. So much more water was used for children’s play pools, sprinklers and watering plants. The weather should not be taken for granted and neither should the amount of water that we are using. That is what this debate is all about—how we use water better. The situation was similar to one a few years back in Northern Ireland. I remember that there was actually a hosepipe ban, involving restricted hours, to limit the amount of water that was being used. We have had drought spells in Northern Ireland in the past, but we do not really have much shortage of rain, by and large.

Water quality is also a big issue back home. Environmental concerns have been released by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the safety of some of the water that it manages. Large bodies of water such as Lough Neagh, the UK’s largest freshwater lake—this has been in the headlines all over the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland—have repeatedly experienced toxic algae blooms. The issue is not isolated to just that location; it happens in other locations as well. Northern Ireland has also witnessed a risk to infrastructure and investment, which could have a direct impact on our drinking water supply. Funding constraints are always an issue, to the point that Northern Ireland Water has actually halted new wastewater connections for many new housing developments. It puts the onus on the developer to come up with the sewerage systems, come up with the water supply—come up with the infrastructure that it would normally put in—and the developer pays for that.

There are real issues regarding water scarcity back home. I always have great faith in the Minister in relation to her discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am always encouraged by the Ministers who come to these debates and whom I speak to, because when it comes to contacting the Ministers back home, by and large they have all done that. If this Minister has had that opportunity, what has been the outcome?

Water is not scarce in Northern Ireland, but there are many contributing factors that imply that the situation could get worse. On water condition and water access, more needs to be done to repair the damage and ensure that agencies such as Northern Ireland Water have the money that they need to improve our services. I look to the Minister to tell us what discussions and conversations she has had with the Ministers back home to ensure that we can address this issue centrally here at Westminster, but for the benefit of all the regions.

Male Chick Culling

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Irene Campbell]

I agree what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) said, and I will go on to say more about that.

Most people will not have heard of hatch and dispatch, which is a process of culling male chicks a few hours after they are born because they are not capable of laying eggs and do not grow fat enough to breed for meat. It is estimated that 6.5 billion newly hatched male chicks are culled globally every year, around 45 million of which are in the UK. Legally, live chicks can be killed using maceration, exposure to insert gas, or cervical dislocation, where no other method is available. In the 21st century, surely it is not acceptable that such a cruel practice takes place, when alternatives exist, as I will go on to describe.

In July 2023, the then Government’s Animal Welfare Committee released a report, “Opinion on chick culling alternatives”, which called to ban male chick culling and imports from systems that still use culling. The Committee advised that any future welfare labelling scheme should say whether the production system culled male chicks or used in-ovo technology, as well as calling for financial support for the introduction of new technologies and for wildlife rehabilitation projects, which are reliant on culled chicks for food.

In-ovo technology can determine the sex of a chick while it is in the egg, meaning that only female eggs will hatch and avoid the cruel cull. Research has shown that chick embryos can feel pain from around day 13 of egg incubation, so most in-ovo sexing systems operate between days eight and 12 of incubation. While some methods take small fluid samples, there are also non-invasive techniques, such as spectroscopy and hormone detection.

There is also significant progress in many other countries. Male chick culling is banned in Germany, France and Austria, while countries such as Italy have passed bans that will take effect in the future, and many other countries, including the United States and the Netherlands, among others, have adopted in-ovo technology voluntarily or through retail-led initiatives. I hope people here will agree that it is time that the UK catches up and introduces a ban on this cruel practice.

Almost 90% of eggs consumed in the UK are produced in the UK; that is a figure of about 12 billion eggs per year, out of the 13.6 billion that are consumed in total, so about 2 billion eggs a year are imported.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way—she is passionate about animal welfare. She mentions in-ovo technology identifying the sex of chicks. Similar technology has worked well in the dairy industry, where semen can be sexed before a cow is artificially inseminated, to ensure we have female cows rather than a surplus of male cows that end up getting culled at a young age. That is a successful programme in the dairy industry that could be replicated in the poultry industry.

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with what the hon. Member said and I think that is a good example to follow.

Two major hatcheries dominate the UK’s laying-hen sector. If we were able to introduce in-ovo sexing technology in just two hatcheries, we would be able to eradicate the vast majority of male chick culling in the UK’s commercial egg industry, so surely that is worth considering.

The public are vastly in favour of that as well. A poll by the Vegetarian Society in May found that 76% of respondents supported banning male chick culling even if it would result in a price increase of 1p per egg. In Westminster, over 30 MPs and peers from different parties signed a joint letter to the former Minister calling for a ban on male chick culling.

What would happen to eggs that are deemed to be male? The immediate answer would be to merge them with other hatchery biproducts used for energy generation, fertiliser or animal feeds. However, experts are also investigating the possibility that the eggs could be used to feed exotic animals in captivity. They could potentially be a high-value product as by day 12 the chick embryos have nails, beaks and bones, as well as not being sentient yet.

On a personal note, as a vegan for many years I find this whole discussion difficult, but it is important to highlight that currently culled chicks are being used as animal feed for captive raptors. However, animal by-products from slaughterhouses could be the best alternative, as this would be a circular and low-impact approach that would ultimately reduce the number of animals killed. Experts recommend that this should be a short-term solution, with long-term research focusing on cultivated meat, cultivated casting and even 3D-printed whole-prey alternatives.

The culling of live male chicks is a cruel and outdated practice. There is strong public support on this issue and wide international precedent. As with many others, I keenly await the animal welfare strategy this autumn, and I hope that the banning of the culling of male chicks will be a key aim of the strategy. It is important that a road map with a timeline is introduced to phase out this cruel practice and that male chick culling and imports are a thing of the past.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Danny Chambers Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is a pleasure to reach this milestone in the Bill’s journey through the House of Commons. As we know, livestock worrying has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers. In Committee, I and other Committee members shared the experiences that had resonated with us of farmers having suffered attacks to their livestock. The damage of a livestock attack can be horrific, causing brutal injuries that are tragically often fatal. There are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry, and separation of mothers and their young leading to hypothermia or starvation. I have seen pictures from farmers in my constituency of the aftermath of attacks that have mutilated their calves beyond any hope of keeping them alive.

The consequences of an attack, no matter the scale, are profound, and attacks are sadly all too common. The data from the recent National Sheep Association survey speaks for itself: 96% of respondents had experienced incidents in the last 12 months, and 98% agreed that there is an urgent need for additional police powers. The responses highlight that livestock worrying remains a huge problem for the sector and show just how important it is to deliver the Bill.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

As someone who grew up on a sheep farm, a vet who has treated injuries caused by dogs that are out of control, and someone who continues to work with farmers quite closely in the Meon valley, I cannot emphasise enough how necessary this legislation is. The problem is devastating for animals, but also causes farmers to take a huge economic hit. It is horrendously stressful for everyone involved, and it is not a niche problem—it happens all the time. I thank the hon. Member for introducing this legislation.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank the hon. Member for his insights as a vet, and for emphasising what so many people across the House know: these changes are vital. May I also say how grateful I am to the hon. Members who took the time to serve on the Bill Committee? I am truly grateful for their support and contributions, and for the conversations I have had with many of them about the Bill.

As we heard in Committee, the Bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring that it reflects the needs of modern-day farming. The Bill strengthens police powers, so that they can do their job more effectively. Specifically, it gives the police powers of entry, and allows them to seize and detain dogs and to collect evidence—changes that farmers in my constituency have specifically told me are necessary. The Bill will also increase the penalty—and we hope, in turn, the deterrent against livestock worrying. The fine is currently capped at a maximum of £1,000; that will go up to an unlimited amount, to reflect the severity of livestock worrying from an animal welfare standpoint, as well as the economic toll an attack can have on farming.

Farming has diversified, and therefore the scope of livestock requiring protection has increased. I am delighted that camelids such as alpacas and llamas will now be protected under the Bill. Anyone who has driven down country roads, such as those in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, will know that farmers move livestock. In recognition of that, the Bill includes roads and paths as locations where an offence may take place; that will give farmers greater reassurance when moving livestock. As I said in Committee, the legislation puts animal welfare and farmers right at its heart.

Today marks exactly one year since the general election. I am deeply proud and grateful that in my first year as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, I have been able to introduce a Bill in my name that will make a genuine difference both for animal welfare and farmers. This is precisely why I stood for election, and it is testament to the strength of this Parliament that an Opposition Back Bencher can help deliver meaningful change in the law that will have a real and lasting impact.

We should all be able to enjoy the countryside, and there is no finer countryside than in Chester South and Eddisbury. However, that enjoyment comes with a responsibility to preserve and protect it, and to support those who care for it every day: our farming community. The Bill gives us the opportunity to act to protect our countryside, support our farmers and strengthen animal welfare. I hope that Members from all sides of the House will join me in backing it, just as they did in Committee.