Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling
Neil Hudson Excerpts(3 days, 18 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 Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I first declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her thoughtful opening of this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for her as a passionate advocate of, and champion for, animal welfare. I also thank the 102,458 signatories to the petition, including the 143 from my constituency of Epping Forest.
We have heard many contributions from across the House today about many of the tools in the toolbox for tackling bovine tuberculosis. We have heard from the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Ives (Andrew George), for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Some of the key elements that came out in those contributions were the mental health impacts of this disease—I will touch on that later in my speech—and the different tools that are currently available to us, or are being developed, to tackle the disease. No particular tool is perfect, but we need to be looking at a combination of tools in the toolbox.
I think we can all agree that, as we have heard, bovine tuberculosis has devastating consequences, and at present there is no single method that, in isolation, is perfect for combating it. During this debate it has been encouraging to hear colleagues from across the House reiterate the fundamental key aim, which is that we all want to eradicate bovine TB. That aim should unite all stakeholders, including farmers, animal welfare groups, scientists and veterinarians. Loud and clear in this debate is the importance of animal welfare—the welfare of the cattle and also the badgers.
As we have heard, there are various numbers for the cattle that are slaughtered, but many thousands are slaughtered each year in the UK as part of the effort to eradicate this awful disease. Equally, there are different levels for the cost, but it is estimated that the cost to the UK taxpayer is £150 million per year, with additional costs falling on the cattle sector itself.
Bovine TB takes a terrible toll on farmers, leading to the loss of highly prized animals and, in the worst cases, entire valued herds. It has devastating impacts on farming businesses up and down the land, and as we have heard across the Chamber it has significant effects on the mental health of everyone involved.
In the last Session, I was a member of the EFRA Committee and triggered an inquiry and report on rural mental health. Some of the most powerful evidence we took was from the veterinary and farming sectors about the mental health impacts on farmers and other workers, including vets, from bovine TB. The stress and anxiety around the testing of a herd, the trauma and consequences of having positive reactors in a herd, and the implications and outcomes of infection in a herd are devastating. We cannot overstate the loss of animal life and the human emotional impact that result from infectious disease outbreaks in farming.
My experiences as a veterinary surgeon in the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 are a huge part of my journey to this place as a Member of Parliament. I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime.
Bovine TB is a very complicated situation, with complex epidemiology that, I am afraid, still very much implicates wildlife reservoirs such as badgers in the spread of the disease. The disease can be spread between cattle, from cattle to people—it is important to realise it is a zoonotic disease—and between cattle and badgers. The latter transmission can be from cow to badger and vice versa. The review for the Government by Godfray in 2018, which was updated in August this year, clearly states that there is transmission to and from badgers and cattle, and that the presence of infected badgers poses a threat to cattle herds. The Godfray review also emphasised the impact that the disease has on the welfare and wellbeing of farmers and their families—a discussion we have heard today.
In October 2023, NFU Cymru released the results of a survey it had conducted. Of the 507 farmers who had completed the survey, 85% said bovine TB had negatively impacted their mental health or the mental health of someone in their family. Over 93% said they were extremely concerned or very concerned about bovine TB. The 2025 update to the Godfray review also took time to stress the significant research undertaken on bovine TB and its mental health impacts, and recommended that
“those dealing directly with farmers in a regulatory or advisory capacity, received basic mental health first aid and suicide awareness training.”
I strongly support that recommendation and very much urge the Government to work to implement it as soon as possible, in addition to other, similar recommendations that we made in our EFRA report on rural mental health.
As we have heard today, there are significant challenges with the testing for and diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Testing is so important, and more work is needed on the optimal tests for the disease, taking into consideration both sensitivity and specificity. There is a debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the currently used single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin—SICCT—test. Godfray talks about the move to the more sensitive single intradermal cervical tuberculin—SICT—test. Indeed, the British Veterinary Association also talks about the potential roll-out of the interferon-gamma test as a supplement to the SICCT. Those diagnostic tests are just one tool in our toolbox to control and eradicate bovine TB.
During the tenure of the previous Conservative Government, in a major scientific breakthrough, the Animal and Plant Health Agency developed a companion candidate test—the so-called DIVA test—to detect infections among vaccinated animals, and differentiate a vaccinated animal from a naturally infected one, and the hon. Member for St Ives spoke about that test. That major breakthrough brought us closer to being able to strategically vaccinate cattle in England against this insidious disease but, as we have heard, we are not quite there yet with that test. I urge the Government and the Minister that this must remain a huge and urgent priority, and I hope she will update us on the progress of the field trials and roll-out of that vital tool.
The previous Government drove forward an ambitious strategy to eradicate bovine TB in England by 2038. That strategy set out a range of evidence-led interventions to tackle the disease in both cattle and wildlife, including by strengthening cattle testing and movement controls; introducing new help for herd owners to improve biosecurity measures on farms and manage down the risk of bringing the disease into their herds; and supporting the deployment of badger vaccination. I cannot stress enough how important biosecurity measures are in the control of this disease, just as they are for many other infectious diseases, as we have heard in the debate, and that too was emphasised by the Godfray review and by the British Veterinary Association.
I cannot pass the word “biosecurity” without stressing that this issue is another clear demonstration of how crucial it is that our biosecurity is firing on all cylinders, and that the APHA is fully equipped at the forefront of the UK’s fight against animal disease outbreaks and their potentially devastating consequences. After pressing the Government no fewer than 17 times in this Parliament to fully fund the redevelopment of APHA’s headquarters in Weybridge, I am relieved that their national security strategy committed £1 billion to do so. I welcome that major commitment from the Government, which continues the work started by the previous Conservative Government.
However, that £1 billion, combined with the £1.2 billion provided by the previous Conservative Government in 2020, still leaves us with a shortfall of £400 million from the £2.8 billion that the National Audit Office outlined is required. The current plans mean that the redevelopment will not be complete until 2034, with interim laboratories not in place until 2027-28. The 2025 update of the Godfray review explicitly concludes that a “lack of investment” in the APHA, and in DEFRA more widely, is still limiting our control of bovine TB. That needs to be addressed with urgency.
Our wider short-term biosecurity is equally vulnerable, as outlined this year in the alarming findings of two new reports by the EFRA Committee. The “Biosecurity at the border: Britain’s illegal meat crisis” report stated that seizures of illegal meat imports have soared from 164 tonnes in 2023 to 235 tonnes in 2024. If we think about the amount that we are not detecting, it is a frightening statistic. Meat being handled in poor sanitary conditions is already creeping through into our food chain. As with bovine TB, the EFRA Committee’s reports note that a key part of this problem is a lack of strategic resourcing by DEFRA, such as DEFRA currently funding only 20% of the Dover port authority’s operational coverage, which is only made worse by poor data collection and sharing at present.
All of that is against the worrying backdrop of the worldwide biosecurity context, with foot and mouth disease outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia; African swine fever spreading across the European continent; and avian influenza, bluetongue virus and, as we are discussing today, bovine TB very much with us in the United Kingdom. Those are critical and grave threats, and we cannot afford any complacency by any Government of any political colour, so I urge the Government to carry on really focusing on biosecurity. I shudder to think of the consequences if this situation is not improved as a matter of urgency. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what the Government are doing about the biosecurity situation in her response.
We have heard about vaccination of cattle today, and another vital tool in the toolbox is vaccination of cattle against TB. At present, cattle are starting to be vaccinated with the cattle BCG vaccine, which is based on the human BCG vaccine—a weakened strain, which does not cause disease. However, the BCG does not give 100% protection against the disease. On its own, that particular tool is not the silver bullet; it needs to be used in combination. As Godfray states, the development of a successful BCG/DIVA product is still not there and still not guaranteed, so we need to make sure that it is scaled up and rolled out at pace. Therefore, cattle vaccination should not be considered as the end result, but as complimentary to a comprehensive testing and surveillance programme.
It is also important to highlight efforts to vaccinate the wild badger population. Practically that is, as one can imagine, a much more difficult job than vaccinating cattle. As Godfray states, the vaccination of badgers can help, but it may take over a decade based on current approaches. The Government launched a national badger population survey in February, and further surveying is scheduled to resume later this year to estimate badger abundance and population recovery. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify when the results of those surveys will be published.
The last Government supported efforts to control the spread of the disease, and a new version of the ibTB mapping tool was launched, which is enabling farmers to access information on TB-free farms and facilitate safer trading.
Unfortunately, this year’s update of the original Godfray review has concluded that
“there is only a small chance of meeting the target without a step change in the urgency with which the issue is treated and the resources devoted to eradication.”
Sadly, we again are being warned that a lack of resourcing when it comes to animal welfare is an obstacle to doing what we need to do. That must change.
Moving forward, strategies to eradicate the disease must focus on vaccination. However, until that can be done at the speed and scale required, other control methods are still required. That includes the use of culling in the wildlife reservoir population of badgers, which has been shown to be an effective method of controlling the spread of the disease. We have had debate about that today.
Part of ensuring that culling is undertaken as necessary is ensuring that, behind alternative tools such as vaccination, we have the body of evidence necessary to give us the clearest possible picture of their effectiveness, strengths and limitations. The National Farmers Union and the British Veterinary Association have emphasised the need for this evidence, particularly when it comes to the use of vaccination and its impact on herd incidence. That can not only have benefits in terms of how vaccination could be used as a potential exit strategy or to stop disease spreading into new areas, but could give confidence to farmers that alternatives to badger culling can be effective and motivate those with livestock at risk of bovine TB to take part in Government measures, particularly in the light of the fact that, as we have discussed today, the Government have announced that they intend to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament.
When it comes to information collection and sharing, both the Godfray review and the National Audit Office have stressed the disappointing progress made on the livestock information transformation programme, which drives livestock traceability. The Godfray review’s updated publication this year found that speeding up progress on that programme is essential to eradicating bovine TB by 2038. The National Farmers Union notes that this is a huge opportunity for the industry to unlock a wealth of additional information; I urge the Government to look at how the benefits of that can be unlocked as soon as possible in the essential task of data gathering.
The Labour Government’s ending of the badger cull seems a high-stakes gamble and does not appear to follow all the science or the evidence. For example, the study by Downs et al. published in 2019 found that after four years of culling, reductions in TB incidence rates in cattle herds were 66% in Gloucestershire and 37% in Somerset, relative to comparison areas. In 2024, Birch et al. found that, in a study from 2013 to 2020, the herd incidence rate of TB decreased by 56% up to the fourth year of badger control policy interventions.
Andrew George
I am repeating myself, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that those research papers were questioned heavily as, during the period over which the statistics were gathered, they were not based on the same baseline nor on the same system as cattle testing at that time. Therefore, they did not compare like with like. That was very heavily questioned at the time, and it was never satisfactorily resolved.
Dr Hudson
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Birch et al. study of 2024 looks at that issue in depth. Indeed, if we look at some of those scientific studies criticising the badger cull, the Government’s DEFRA chief scientific adviser and the chief veterinary officer queried the statistical methodology of those. We can have a long debate about the methodology of those papers, but Godfray himself, and the expert panel reconvened by the new Government, looked at a lot of the evidence, which shows that there is still a role in some way for badger control. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will carry on.
The previous Government were clear that they did not want or intend to continue badger control indefinitely. No one wants to keep going with it forever. However, until all the tools in the toolbox—we have heard today about many of those tools, and they are not all there yet—are fully developed and up to speed, His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, sadly, badger control needs to be kept in that toolbox. I know that will disappoint many stakeholders watching this debate and many people in the Public Gallery, but we must try to be dispassionate and follow the science. One of the key take-homes from the Godfray review was that the polarisation of the role of the wildlife reservoir and the badger in this debate, and the fact that it has split people into one view or the other, has made it very difficult for everyone to analyse the exact risk and the best control mechanism.
The British Veterinary Association states that when badger culling is deployed, it
“should be deployed in a targeted, effective and humane manner only where cull design is based on the best available evidence and mitigates against the ‘perturbation effect’”,
which we have heard a little about today.
The National Farmers Union states that to tackle the disease effectively and combat transmission through all routes we must retain access to all tools, and their implementation must be driven by science and evidence.
More widely, on rural issues, this Labour Government have already shown us that sometimes they do not follow the evidence or data in policy decisions for farming and rural communities. Just look at their retrograde approach to taxation on farms, ignoring the devastation that the family farm tax will have on the very livelihood and survival of rural businesses, and choosing to add to the pressures on farmers’ pockets and wellbeing, rather than providing them with the support they need. I too urge the Government to reverse the policy as a matter of urgency—something we have heard from across the House—to give clarity to farmers and to abolish the family farm tax.
I hope the Government do not make another error by losing the progress made since 2014 in the control of bovine TB. If we take a quick decision without looking at all the science and the evidence, we might take backwards steps that will have significant impacts on our rural communities. At present, we need all the tools to remain in the bovine TB control toolbox: biosecurity measures, better diagnostic testing, cattle vaccination, badger vaccination, roll-out of the DIVA test and targeted control of the wildlife reservoir.
To conclude, I reiterate that His Majesty’s official Opposition believe that targeted, humane and evidence-based badger control should remain a measure—not forever, but so long as the evidence says that it needs to stay in place. It is an available part of the toolbox, alongside others, to control the spread of the devastating disease that is bovine TB. The previous Government set out their ambition to eradicate the disease by 2038, and it is important to highlight that the current Government have not changed that target year. We should follow the science, the evidence and the data, for the sake of our cattle sector, our rural communities and, indeed, rural mental health.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Hudson Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The future of Thames Water is in sharp focus again, affecting millions of people and potentially the wider UK taxpayer. Bizarrely, the third party—along the Benches to my left—led legal action that could have sunk the company. Reform UK is also happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to a cost of billions and pushing consumer water bills through the roof. This Labour Government, in the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, repeatedly blocked our Conservative amendment that would have enabled limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by water companies.
As we reach a precipice with Thames Water, and given the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, will the Government rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer?
Steve Reed
The reason that Thames is in the state that it is in is the weak, so-called “light-touch” regulation that the Conservatives imposed on the water companies when they should have been getting a grip. The point beyond that that the hon. Gentleman makes is a sensible one, however, and our reforms to water regulation and indeed to the regulator are intended to ensure that such problems cannot happen again. In the case of Thames, we are of course keeping a very close eye on what is going on with that company. At the moment, it remains viable, but we are ready for all eventualities, should they occur.
Draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025
Neil Hudson Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee today. It is again encouraging to see that this Government have drawn upon our previous consultations to shape this statutory instrument; between December 2023 and March 2024, the previous Conservative Government held a consultation with the devolved nations on reforming the producer responsibility system for waste electricals.
I am pleased that the Minister talked about the disposable vapes ban as well, which was initiated by the previous Conservative Government. We very much welcome the fact that this Labour Government have taken that baton and taken it forward. The Minister mentioned the important environmental benefits of that legislation; there are also other significant benefits in terms of public health, specifically for our young people, who have really been targeted inappropriately around these disposable vapes. It will protect wildlife and domestic animals as well, as I have spoken about to the Minister and in the Chamber.
Turning back to the legislation we are talking about today, that previous consultation proposed creating a new category of electrical equipment for vapes, and 91% of respondents agreed with that policy change. I am pleased that these regulations will create that new category, and I hope that businesses producing electrical and electronic equipment in the toy and leisure sector—category 7 of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2013—will be happy to see that this will mean that they are no longer picking up the costs for those who produce e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products. Those products are considerably more costly to collect and recycle than toys and other leisure equipment, primarily due to the materials used in their construction and the need for specialised treatment to handle nicotine and other potentially toxic substances within the equipment. This statutory instrument will ensure that the financial obligation for those costs falls fairly on the producers of those devices.
The consultation also sought views on online marketplaces, and 87% of respondents agreed on that, highlighting that large volumes of electricals are being placed on the market via online marketplaces, which the Minister mentioned, and that there needs to be a level playing field between producers that sell electricals through different channels.
I am therefore pleased to say that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are very supportive of this instrument. It is not right that the entirety of the financial obligations falls upon producers who are properly registered under the 2013 regulations. It creates an unfair situation in which those who avoid the financial obligations are benefiting, and those who follow the rules are bearing the costs. This also has serious consequences for competition, and at a time when businesses are facing rising costs due to the Chancellor’s mismanagement of economy, it is another hammer blow to businesses. While we are offering no objections to the instrument, I hope the Minister can provide some assurances on how the relevant authorities, such as the Environment Agency in England, will ensure that online marketplaces are complying with their new obligations.
With regard to the new responsibilities on online marketplaces, the Government have confirmed that they expect there to be small contractual and familiarisation costs. Does the Minister have any concern that some online suppliers may withdraw their products from UK markets, reducing choice and availability for UK customers?
We will be supporting the regulations, and I am grateful that they were brought before the Committee.
Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025
Neil Hudson Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations.
The Government are right to focus on strengthening trade in the internal market and ensuring that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged in any way by de-listing. Maintaining a wide variety of product choices and availability is crucial: not only does it benefit consumers, but it encourages competition. However, it is important to consider the regulations in the broader context of the Government’s economic policies.
Unfortunately, recent measures taken by the Chancellor, such as the increase in national insurance contributions, have led to significant increases in costs for business. Although the draft regulations exempt small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, they do not exclude medium-sized or large businesses, which together account for 53% of private-sector employment in the UK. The impact assessment sets out that, over a 10-year period, businesses will face between zero and £53.8 million in total one-off labelling costs, including package redesign and the costs associated with setting up new product lines, and between zero and £279.4 million in total ongoing labelling costs, including product line changes and transportation. That is a considerable cost to push on to businesses in the full knowledge that it may ultimately be paid for by consumers. What assurances can the Minister provide today that the regulations will not add to inflation, which is something that the Government have yet to get under control?
The draft regulations set out that the intention is to provide businesses with the opportunity to comply with any notice before a fixed monetary penalty is imposed. They therefore allow a sufficient period of time to be granted to businesses to make the necessary changes. The period can be extended by agreement, where a business has demonstrated sufficient progress but has been unable to become fully compliant in the timeframe allowed. Can the Minister outline how many businesses he expects to seek an extension and what the cost will be for local authorities to process applications for extension?
I would also like to ask about Labour’s proposed new deal with the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the deal will facilitate trade across the Irish sea, and what impact that might have on these regulations? Although we do not want to see customers in Northern Ireland suffering as a result of the unavailability or insufficient supply of retail goods, we have concerns that the regulations will be considered another blow to business confidence and business finances, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give reassurances on those points. We look forward to scrutinising the matter further and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about the potential consequences of the draft regulations for businesses in an increasingly difficult climate.
Draft Marking of Retail Good Regulations 2025
Neil Hudson Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations.
The Government are right to focus on strengthening trade in the internal market and ensuring that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged in any way by de-listing. Maintaining a wide variety of product choices and availability is crucial: not only does it benefit consumers, but it encourages competition. However, it is important to consider the regulations in the broader context of the Government’s economic policies.
Unfortunately, recent measures taken by the Chancellor, such as the increase in national insurance contributions, have led to significant increases in costs for business. Although the draft regulations exempt small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, they do not exclude medium-sized or large businesses, which together account for 53% of private-sector employment in the UK. The impact assessment sets out that, over a 10-year period, businesses will face between zero and £53.8 million in total one-off labelling costs, including package redesign and the costs associated with setting up new product lines, and between zero and £279.4 million in total ongoing labelling costs, including product line changes and transportation. That is a considerable cost to push on to businesses in the full knowledge that it may ultimately be paid for by consumers. What assurances can the Minister provide today that the regulations will not add to inflation, which is something that the Government have yet to get under control?
The draft regulations set out that the intention is to provide businesses with the opportunity to comply with any notice before a fixed monetary penalty is imposed. They therefore allow a sufficient period of time to be granted to businesses to make the necessary changes. The period can be extended by agreement, where a business has demonstrated sufficient progress but has been unable to become fully compliant in the timeframe allowed. Can the Minister outline how many businesses he expects to seek an extension and what the cost will be for local authorities to process applications for extension?
I would also like to ask about Labour’s proposed new deal with the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the deal will facilitate trade across the Irish sea, and what impact that might have on these regulations? Although we do not want to see customers in Northern Ireland suffering as a result of the unavailability or insufficient supply of retail goods, we have concerns that the regulations will be considered another blow to business confidence and business finances, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give reassurances on those points. We look forward to scrutinising the matter further and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about the potential consequences of the draft regulations for businesses in an increasingly difficult climate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Hudson Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
This month, the National Audit Office’s “Resilience to animal diseases” report laid bare the startling reality about our biosecurity, stating:
“Defra and APHA would struggle to manage a more severe outbreak or concurrent serious outbreaks”,
and the risk of site failure at the APHA site at Weybridge is at its maximum rating. As I have raised 16 times in this Parliament, a fully funded and urgent rebuild of APHA in Weybridge is critical. It got no mention at all by the Chancellor in the spending review; it merely has repeated partial funding from the Department. When will the Government wake up, get a grip, and press on with this vital project as soon as possible, before disaster strikes?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman knows that I take this issue very seriously. I gently point out to him that this exact situation was pointed out by the National Audit Office during the last Parliament. The previous Government had 14 years to get the principles in place, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives. I can tell him that we have a £208 million investment this year; that is what was asked for. I can assure him that there will be funds in future, because we take biosecurity very seriously.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The National Audit Office report says that the Government really need to step up their border checks. As the Government have admitted in answers to me, 72,872 kg of illegal meat imports were seized between January and April this year, close to the 92,000 kg seized in the whole of 2024. With foot and mouth disease and African swine fever on our doorstep in Europe, I shudder to think how much potentially infected meat is slipping in undetected. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Will the Government act urgently to strengthen our biosecurity and our border checks before it is too late?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have acted with speed and haste to make sure that we are protected. We have banned personal imports, and we are absolutely committed to giving the Weybridge facility the support that it requires—we have given it what it asked for. The question is why we were in that position in the first place when we came into Government. What were his Government doing for all those years? These are not new problems.
Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates
Neil Hudson Excerpts(4 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 Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on leading this debate.
I declare a strong professional and personal interest in animal health and welfare as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We have heard some very thought-provoking and wide-ranging speeches today. I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, from whom I always enjoy hearing. She is an incredibly powerful and passionate champion of animal welfare. More strength to her elbow—keep going.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) brought his expertise in the porcine sector and talked about the key safety issues, especially in relation to pig husbandry techniques. We heard from the hon. Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), and the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke about the importance of biosecurity, which is pivotal in his part of the world, as it is across the entire United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke powerfully about the moral and ethical aspects of our duty of care to animals under our care. We heard wide-ranging speeches from across the country, including from the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), a powerful advocate for animal welfare, made some very thoughtful comments about the principles of labelling.
The speeches culminated in the presentation from my friend and veterinary colleague the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Full credit to him for quoting James Herriot—I must remember to do that next time.
Like all petition debates, we are having this debate because more than 100,000 people across the country signed the petition. As it stands today, more than 105,000 people have signed this petition, including 182 in my constituency of Epping Forest, and many others have written to me on this issue. I thank them all for allowing us to debate this important animal and bird welfare issue. It is important to have this opportunity to hold the new Government to account on their plans to improve animal welfare.
As Members are no doubt aware, the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in improving animal welfare, such as banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, with the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, and increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021. Pivotally, we enshrined animal sentience, which we have heard a lot about today, in UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the very important Animal Sentience Committee, which ensures that any new legislation pays due regard to animal welfare.
We should be incredibly proud that, in the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards. As I have said many times before, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world in that regard. I again pay tribute to our farmers, growers and producers who help to feed the nation and nurture our precious environment.
However, it is right that we continue to raise the bar, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss further the use of cages and crates for farmed animals. The Opposition have made it clear—I did so just this month, on 3 June, during a debate on animal welfare standards in farming—that we support banning cages or close confinement systems where clear scientific evidence demonstrates that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the UK’s existing legislation on the use of cages and crates, including: the ban on keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; the ban on keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and the ban on the use of battery cages for laying hens, introduced in 2012. Under the previous Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates no longer to be used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states:
“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.”
On poultry, it is also welcome that the market has been very influential in moving away from using cages for laying hens, and instead working towards alternative systems, including free range and barn. It is greatly welcome that this has also been driven by retailers acknowledging their role in raising welfare standards, with the transition to non-cage egg production being accelerated in recent years by major supermarkets committing to ending, by 2025, the sale of shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages, with some supermarkets also extending that commitment to products containing liquid or powdered egg.
About 75% of British eggs come from free-range, barn and organic production systems, which is a clear testament to the improved picture of bird welfare that we have seen in recent years. In particular, it is a testament to all those across the supply chains, from farmers to retailers, who have acted in the interests of bird and animal welfare. I very much acknowledge that today.
Further work with farmers—I stress “with” rather than “to” farmers—has been a key take-home message from today’s debate. Further work is still needed with farmers, supermarkets and other retailers to ensure that the figure increases in the years to come, and I hope the Government can commit to that today.
To return to the porcine sector, the Government have been asked whether they have plans to support free farrowing systems or to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates for pigs. The Minister has previously confirmed that the Government are “considering very carefully” the use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals, including farrowing crates, and I am sure we will hear more about how he is considering things closely. It is essential that we make good progress towards a system that both works commercially and ensures the welfare of the sow and her piglets. Tragically, as we have heard, sows can lie on their piglets and crush them unintentionally. We must ensure that any new approach safeguards both the mother and her young.
Farrowing crates used for sows and piglets have been raised as a particular area of focus by the RSPCA and other organisations, such as the British Veterinary Association, the National Pig Association, the NFU, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, FOUR PAWS, and Compassion in World Farming. I note that the British Veterinary Association has called for the phasing out of farrowing crates, saying that the Government should provide a 15-year transition period by which all new builds cannot contain farrowing crates except where already agreed, to be followed by a shift from a crate system to alternative methods, such as adaptive farrowing accommodation or free farrowing systems, as soon as possible. I hope the Minister can provide further clarity on how the Government intend to approach this issue, and I am sure he will do that today.
In the revision of the animal health and welfare pathway in March, the Government stated that a “transition out of cages” was one of their priorities, and that they are “exploring potential reforms” in this area. That raises questions, which I hope the Minister will answer, about the Government’s process in looking at this area. First, can he confirm whether any future decision on the use of cages and crates will be put to an evidence-based consultation?
Likewise, on process, can the Minister confirm that, in any future decisions, the Government will consider a plan that takes into account the needs of the industry, and the impact of any moves? The National Pig Association and the building suppliers forum concur with the British Veterinary Association that at least 15 years would be required to move from conventional farrowing to flexible or free farrowing, and it is noted that there are significant costs to replacing practices that would be banned.
If the Government plan any reforms, will they work with industry to make sure they are affordable, practical, effective and, at their heart, promote animal and bird welfare? It is essential that we make swift progress towards systems that ensure the welfare of animals and birds, and that work pragmatically and viably for the sector.
While the UK can be proud of our domestic track record on animal welfare, we must not lose sight of the global scale of animal welfare issues. The previous Conservative Government made it clear that the UK’s high standards were a red line in trade negotiations, and that there must be no compromise on environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. That is why, although we may not have got everything right on these issues, the free trade agreements signed by the previous Government with countries such as Australia and New Zealand included important dedicated chapters on animal welfare—the first of their kind in any such trade deals. It is also why, when she was Trade Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition stood up for our animal welfare standards during trade negotiations with Canada, stepping back from talks to ensure that there were no concessions on our red line of banning the importation of hormone-treated beef.
Whether Labour or the Conservatives are in government, we must continue to uphold animal welfare standards in trade deals. It is not simply a case of upholding high animal welfare and ensuring that food is safe to eat; it is about ensuring that our hard-working farmers are not unfairly undercut by other countries where standards may be lower. Our high standards must not be put at risk as this Government seek to negotiate new trade deals, specifically the bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, bovine somatotropin dairy, chlorine-washed chicken products, and the use of antibiotics as growth promoters—practices that are illegal in this country.
I have said this many times before, and I will say it again, as a Member of Parliament and as a veterinary surgeon: keeping firm on these standards makes it clear beyond all doubt that we as a nation are committed to animal welfare. Other countries will then know that, should they wish to trade with us, they must meet our standards and our values. That now extends to using cages and crates for imported animal products. Despite the UK having legislated to end the practice long ago, many countries, including the United States, still allow the use of sow stalls. Can the Minister assure us that no animal products will be imported to the UK where sow stalls have been used?
Just last Thursday, on 12 June, the Government finally provided their response to the previous Conservative Government’s “fairer food labelling” consultation, no doubt due to repeated prompting from His Majesty’s Opposition in recent days, weeks and months. In their somewhat sparse response, the Government stated that they
“will consider the potential role of method of production labelling reform as part of the UK Government’s development of an overarching approach to animal welfare and the wider food strategy.”
I look forward to the Minister elaborating on that somewhat economical response to a major consultation.
First, greater clarity for sectors affected by any change would be very much welcome. As such, will the Government outline a timeline for when they expect to be able to publish their new strategy on animal welfare, and for any legislative changes in the area of labelling?
Secondly, can the Government clarify why, despite the closing of the consultation in May 2024, they were able to respond only last week? Even accounting for election to office in July, it has still taken 11 months for those who took the time to contribute to the consultation to receive that somewhat limited response. Will the Minister therefore assure the public that this is not an indication of any lack of interest in this area from the Government? Labelling will help with many facets of the debate, allowing UK consumers to make informed decisions about the food they purchase, as they will be able to see the provenance of the food and how it was produced.
I have raised this with him many times, but can the Minister further clarify how he will address the loophole that still exists in Government buying standards in public procurement, allowing public bodies to deviate from high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost? On the procurement point, we cannot be a beacon of animal welfare for countries around the world if we do not have our own house in order. I would greatly appreciate an answer to that point, as I have asked the Minister about it a few times.
It is vital that we uphold our rigorous standards on animal welfare and retain the UK’s status as a world leader on animal welfare issues. I urge the Government to treat the matter with the seriousness and urgency it deserves, and not to allow any backsliding on existing legislation as they seek to secure new trade deals with the United States and other countries.
To have high animal welfare standards, we need healthy animals. For that, we need strong biosecurity. I have repeatedly called on the Government to urgently redevelop the headquarters of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge, Surrey. The APHA is critical in protecting against devastating diseases—such as foot and mouth disease, seen this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, and African swine fever—advancing up the continent of Europe. The Minister knows that I will keep pushing the Government on this matter.
In the spending review last week, the Chancellor did not mention DEFRA, animal health or farming once in her statement, nor was there any mention of reversing the catastrophic family farm tax. There was no mention of the APHA project in the spending review—in either the statement or the blue book. Will the Government finish the work that the Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion to redevelop the HQ? Labour keep reannouncing a pot of £208 million, which is a familiar figure to the Minister. It is a start, but when will they commit the further £1.4 billion for this infrastructure, for the sake of British farming, food production and national security?
I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. I thank our fantastic farmers, who keep food on our tables. It is clear that there is much interest across the House in this issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughtful response.
Animal Welfare in Farming
Neil Hudson Excerpts(4 months, 1 week 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 Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss this critical matter further. We have heard powerful contributions from right across the House. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in animal health and welfare as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
In the United Kingdom we have brilliant farmers, who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that fact. In that regard, we have heard today that we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. I am extremely proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on improving animal welfare standards in farming and right across the board. That includes the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which enshrined animal sentience into UK law and established the Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare; and the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences affecting the health and welfare of farmed animals, zoo animals and pets.
Furthermore, in 2023, the Conservative Government launched the animal health and welfare pathway—a partnership between farmers, vets, the wider industry and the supply chain that supports continual improvement in farm animal health and welfare. It includes access through funded vet visits to testing for priority diseases and to advice, to continually improve the health, welfare and productivity of farmed animals.
His Majesty’s official Opposition support banning cages or close-confinement systems if there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal or bird health and welfare. For example, the keeping of calves in veal crates was banned in 1990, the keeping of sows in close-confinement stalls was, as we have heard today, banned in 1999 and the use of battery cages for laying hens was banned in 2012.
The market itself has also been trying to drive the move towards alternative systems for laying hens—primarily towards free range and barn—and away from the use of cages. That transition to non-cage egg production has been accelerated in recent years by the major supermarkets that pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by 2025. Some supermarkets extended that to products containing liquid or powdered eggs.
Egg producers and consumers should rightly take pride in the quality of British eggs, with around 75% coming from free-range, barn and organic production systems. I hope the Government will continue to work with our farmers, supermarkets and other retailers to help ensure that that figure increases in the years to come.
Positive action taken by the previous Conservative Government is ensuring that animals are slaughtered domestically in high-welfare UK slaughterhouses, which have been fitted with CCTV since 2018. However, Members will be aware of the challenges facing the small abattoir sector, including a shortage of skilled workers, primarily because the jobs are relatively low paid and many people do not consider it an attractive industry to work in.
In 2007, the UK was home to almost 100 small abattoirs. Now it is estimated that only 49 small red meat abattoirs remain in England, Wales and Scotland. If closures continue at the current rate, it is estimated that none will be operating by 2030. It is important to mention that small abattoirs make a significant contribution to supporting the rural economy, enabling farmers to sell their meat locally in farm shops. Importantly—this goes to the point of this animal welfare debate—that maintains good animal health and welfare by reducing journey times to slaughter. The last Government launched the £4 million smaller abattoir fund to support small abattoirs. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what action the Labour Government will take to ensure the long-term viability of the small abattoir sector so that we can reduce journey times for animals to slaughter.
Following our departure from the European Union, the last Government prioritised ensuring that we had some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We must ensure that we do not row back on those standards. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will not weaken any of our high animal welfare standards as part of any shift towards dynamic alignment? Where we have higher standards than the EU—for example, with our ban on live animal exports for slaughter and fattening—does the Minister agree that we should use our influence to encourage the EU to adopt those higher standards?
Furthermore, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for breeding animals and birds that are protected from contracting harmful diseases. That could, for example, mean that birds are resistant to avian influenza, and we have seen the scourge of avian influenza across our country in recent years, devastating some of our poultry flocks. It could also mean developing pigs that are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. This technology can be a win for animal and bird health and welfare, in addition to protecting the environment and public health and—as we have heard today—mitigating antimicrobial resistance by reducing the usage of medicines. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the Government intend to lay the secondary legislation that will enable precision breeding in animals and birds, as they recently did—with cross-party support—for plants and crops? Can he also confirm that, as a result of the recent UK-EU summit, vital legislation on precision breeding will not be repealed or derogated?
We have heard a lot today about negotiating trade agreements, and it is important that within those agreements we uphold our high animal welfare standards. The last Government secured vital animal welfare chapters in both the Australian and the New Zealand trade deals. The UK Government must establish clear red lines in any trade deal with the USA and other countries, ensuring that products such as chlorine-washed poultry, hormone-treated beef and ractopamine-fed pork, or products in which antibiotics have been used as growth promoters, are not permitted to enter the UK market.
Just last year, when the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), served as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade negotiations with Canada due to its insistence on including hormone-treated beef in the agreement. That decisive action sent a strong message that the UK will not compromise on its ban on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork and chlorine-washed chicken products, which are illegal in this country. Standing firm on those standards demonstrates our commitment to animal welfare and signals to the world that if other countries want to trade with us, they must meet our values and our standards. I hope that the current Government continue to follow that Conservative example.
To have and maintain high animal welfare standards on farms, and to ensure the viability and resilience of the sector, the Government must prioritise biosecurity—I have deep affection and respect for the Minister, and he knows where I am going with this. The official Opposition recently supported the statutory instrument, which we laid the foundations for, that removed the 16-week derogation period. As a result, free-range egg producers and packers can label and market eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, as called for by the chief veterinary officer in response to avian influenza, however long that may last.
We have heard a lot today about labelling. The last Government ran a consultation on food labelling, which considered proposals to introduce clearer labelling requirements on the country of origin and the method of production for certain foods. Those proposals sought to improve transparency and consistency around food labelling, making it easier for consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing food and allowing them to choose products that align with their values. The current Government are yet to respond to that consultation, so I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on where they are with that.
In addition, will the Minister please clarify when the Government will close the loophole in the Government buying standards for public procurement, whereby public bodies can deviate from high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost? To set an example to the world, we must get our own house in order, so I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on that.
To have high animal welfare standards, we need healthy animals, and for that we need strong biosecurity. I have long called on the Government to rapidly redevelop the Animal and Plant Health Agency headquarters is in Weybridge, in Surrey. We are extremely grateful for all that it does to keep us safe and for its vigilance in terms of disease surveillance and management on the frontline. It is pivotal in protecting against devastating diseases such as foot and mouth disease, seen this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, and African swine fever, which is advancing up the continent of Europe. Will the Government finish the work the Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion in 2020 to redevelop the APHA headquarters? Labour has repeatedly reannounced £208 million. That is a start, but when will it commit the further £1.4 billion for that critical national infrastructure, for the sake of UK agriculture and our national security?
I pay tribute to all our farmers, growers and producers and to everyone else involved in producing food in our country. Food security is paramount for us, and we must uphold high animal welfare. We owe the people working on the frontline a debt of gratitude; thanks to them, we in this country enjoy a wide range of high-quality meat, poultry and dairy products that have been produced in high welfare standard conditions.
Sadly, farmers face an array of challenges because of the Labour Government’s punitive decisions, from the family farm tax to the closure of the sustainable farming incentive scheme. For the sake of our food, national security, animal health and welfare, and rural mental health, I strongly urge the Minister to consider the consequences of those policies and to stand up for farmers and animals in this country.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I ask him to leave a little time for the mover of the motion to sum up the debate.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Neil Hudson ExcerptsWednesday 21st May 2025
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 View all Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 May 2025 - (21 May 2025)
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I declare my professional and personal interest in this subject as a veterinary surgeon.
I am delighted that there is clear consensus across the House on the need to tackle livestock worrying and attacks. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury on securing the passage of this vital and important Bill. I cannot continue without congratulating and paying tribute to the many groups in this space that have championed reform, such as the National Sheep Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers’ Union, and the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, which I now co-chair with Lord Trees, who is also a vet.
Sadly, as a veterinary surgeon, I have seen at first hand the tragic effects of dog attacks. I have met with farmers right across the country who have impressed upon me the importance of protecting our livestock. This Bill unfortunately did not quite succeed in completing the parliamentary process in the previous Parliament. It was first introduced under the previous Conservative Government as part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—this is like groundhog day for the Minister and me, as we sat on that Bill Committee together—and then sponsored by our friend the former Member for Suffolk Coastal, Thérèse Coffey, who now has been rightly elevated to a seat in the House of Lords for her services to the House and to DEFRA.
Baroness Coffey contributed to the Conservative Government’s great efforts to improve animal welfare in this area and others, cementing this country’s world-leading status. Our achievements included introducing pet abduction as a specific criminal offence, increasing penalties for animal cruelty, banning livestock being exported for slaughter or fattening, and—not in a private Member’s Bill, but in Government legislation—enshrining animal sentience into law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. The Animal Sentience Committee was created so that any legislation passed by this House has to pay due regard to the concept of animal sentience. That is a clear achievement on which I am sure we can agree across the House.
Sadly, statistics from the National Sheep Association make stark reading on the real issue that livestock worrying presents for our livestock and for the farmers whose livelihoods depend on them. In a 2025 survey by the association, 87% of respondents said that they had experienced a dog attack on one of their sheep in the past 12 months, and 4% of those said that they had experienced between 10 and 30 such incidents in the past 12 months. Those are shocking figures.
The impact of worrying on livestock is a huge welfare concern for the animals affected. Physically, livestock that face worrying can be hurt. Sadly, if an attack results, they may die or have to be euthanised because of their wounds. The National Sheep Association survey found that only 20% of farmers were alerted directly of an incident that affected their livestock. Many incidents are not dealt with straightaway, which can delay lifesaving treatment of the animals.
Physical injuries can come not only from the attack itself, but from the sheer distress that the threat of a dangerous uncontrolled dog can cause. Trauma can often cause the injury of livestock that over-exert themselves fleeing the danger. In areas with a boundary or wall, where livestock are often kept, fleeing can cause stampedes in which livestock are crushed in an attempt to escape. The trauma can cause pregnant livestock, such as sheep, to miscarry; born young can be lost and separated from the dam in attempts to escape the attack, which puts those young livestock at risk.
Emotional trauma is not something that farmers of affected livestock are immune to. The sight of a livestock attack can be emotionally distressing, and the memory can stay with farmers way beyond the end of the attack. Likewise, the financial cost resulting from the injuries caused to livestock, or from the loss of livestock, can create long-term emotional distress for our farmers. The financial cost of farm animals being killed or injured by dogs is estimated to have totalled £1.8 million last year, according to NFU Mutual. One can only imagine the significant financial and emotional consequences spread across the farming population.
Only last week, I had the privilege of attending a roundtable led by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, which highlighted that the health of our farming communities is interlinked with their emotional and financial wellbeing. It is crucial that we tackle the shock factors that can have a knock-on impact. Livestock worrying and attacks are among the shocks, and the Bill is a vital place to start tackling the wider issue. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury cares very deeply about rural mental health; the Bill will help to mitigate the mental health effects on our rural communities.
As 98% of respondents to the National Sheep Association survey believe that additional police powers are needed, I highly welcome the fact that clauses 2, 3 and 4 will give them exactly that. Under clause 2, the police’s power to seize dogs that they have good reason to believe have been involved in an offence under the 1953 Act will be expanded to cover dogs found on roads or paths that may have been or could be involved in offences. That is an important addition to the legislation that will help to close some of the loopholes. It is a crucial measure that will enable police to act swiftly to begin the process of investigation and prevent any further harm to animals or human beings.
Another important step that will strengthen police powers to tackle the issue is the permission granted under clause 3 for police and veterinary surgeons to take samples or impressions, where appropriate, from animals wounded by livestock worrying, or indeed from the animals involved, to support law enforcement in finding the supporting evidence for a criminal offence and bringing the necessary charges. The NFU has championed the measure, which, if used in the right way, could be vital to ensuring that those who commit these offences are brought to justice. The value of that cannot be overstated. As the NFU has pointed out in its campaigning, livestock worrying incidents are too often under-reported.
What support will the Government provide to ensure that DNA testing systems can be a consistent and reliable method of identification and a consistent and reliable evidence-gathering tool? The NFU highlights research into the issue by Liverpool John Moores University, but are the Government prepared to support such research and translate it into practice? If advances are made, what steps will they take to support police forces across the country in implementing the methods effectively as soon as possible? The possibilities of DNA testing could change the game when it comes to prosecuting reckless dog owners. That, in turn, could increase farmers’ confidence that if they report offences, they will get the action that they need from the police.
Clause 4 will introduce an important extension of the police’s ability to investigate livestock worrying and attacks, and will make the system effective in prosecuting offences under the 1953 Act. It will permit police with a warrant to search properties in which there are suspected to be dogs that were involved in such offences. That is important, because it will end the feeling, which far too many people have, that once an attack or worrying event has taken place, nothing will be done to bring justice for victims or prosecute perpetrators.
That approach is to be welcomed, but a core focus on the criminal justice lens must be only one pillar of our strategy for tackling the issue. Criminal justice can intervene only after the fact, once the incident has taken place and the damage of worrying or attacks has been done. Prevention is much better than cure, so another pillar of the strategy must be responsible dog ownership.
The previous Conservative Government set up a responsible dog ownership working group, in which police, stakeholders and animal welfare groups came together to encourage better education and guidance on how people can keep pets safe, as well as keeping other animals and humans around their pets safe. That includes ensuring that owners understand the necessity of keeping dogs on leads around livestock, and that they know how to control their pets to prevent them from becoming a threat. The significant reduction in the cost of livestock worrying, injury or death in Wales between 2023 and 2024—from £883,000 to £314,000, a decrease of 64%—has been attributed to factors such as education campaigns, Blue Cross training courses for dog owners, effective rural crime teams and social media outreach. I also highlight the importance of the countryside code, which gives good guidance on being with a dog in a rural area. It is important that we amplify that educational message; it is therefore expedient that responsible dog ownership be worked on in parallel with excellent legislation such as this Bill.
It is unfortunate that the present Government have not addressed the working group or its future, although they have said that they will work with police, local authorities, animal welfare groups and veterinary groups on the concept of dog ownership. I am a good friend of the Minister, for whom I have deep respect, but I gently ask him what the Government mean when they say that they are working with police, local authorities and animal welfare groups to tackle the problem. Are those involved in the responsible dog ownership working group involved in discussions with the Government? Will they be able to make recommendations to the Government, as the working group could? How often are the Government talking to those they say they are working with? Will the Government confirm that they understand that responsible dog ownership is a vital component of tackling livestock worrying and attacks?
Much of the discussion today has focused on sheep and cattle, but it is important to note that livestock worrying and attacks also affect horses, ponies and donkeys. I also welcome paragraph 2 of the schedule, because we know the impact that livestock worrying can have on camelids such as alpacas and llamas. I have met alpaca farmers who have impressed on me how important it is that the legislation cover camelids.
Despite my constructive questions to the Minister, I reiterate my wholehearted support for the Bill and urge colleagues across the political divide to support it, as I am sure they will.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s helpful contribution. I assure him that a date will emerge in due course. I am very happy to offer the Government’s support for the Bill.
Dr Hudson
Before the Minister finishes his remarks, I want to ask him one question. He said he would talk about what the Government are doing on responsible dog ownership. This discrete, and welcome, piece of legislation will do a lot to protect animal health and welfare, but it is part of a package of measures. We need to ensure that people who own dogs source them responsibly, train them responsibly, socialise them responsibly and manage them responsibly. How will this Government continue the work of the Conservative Government, who set up the responsible dog ownership working group? How will they ensure that the medium and longer-term piece of work, which will not be easy, is done in parallel? Legislation has been passed about XL bully dogs in the last couple of years—another discrete piece of legislation —but there must be work in parallel on responsible dog ownership. I would be grateful if the Minister said what his Government will do in that space.
Daniel Zeichner
The shadow Minister is right; I meant to fold that into my previous answer. As he would expect, this new Government are taking stock. By supporting these private Members’ Bills, we are effectively finishing the work of the previous Parliament before we move on to our exciting new measures, and our approach to responsible dog ownership will form part of that.
Aphra Brandreth
Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mr Western; it has been a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the Minister for his support for the Bill and those who have worked incredibly hard on it behind the scenes. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have served on the Committee for taking the time to listen to why I and others feel the Bill is necessary, and for all their thoughtful contributions.
At the heart of this Bill are farmers and livestock. The Bill will give farmers greater confidence that livestock attacks will be dealt with in a timely, effective and appropriate manner, reflective of the damage an attack can do. It is our hope that deterrence in the form of greater penalties and powers for the police to investigate livestock attacks will reduce the number of those attacks. The fewer farmers who witness an attack, deal with severely injured animals in the aftermath and face the economic costs as a result, the better. They deserve this Bill, and I am sure that they, like me, are incredibly grateful to all who have given their support today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 1, schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) In subsection (2), omit ‘(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)’.
(3B) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless—
(a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or
(b) it is within sight of a person and the person—
(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and
(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.’”—(Ann Davies.)
This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Daniel Zeichner
May I endorse that and thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for the way she has conducted this process? We wish the Bill well, because it is very important to tackle attacks on and worrying of livestock. The Bill will strengthen the 1953 Act, so let us get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Neil Hudson ExcerptsWednesday 14th May 2025
(5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 View all Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak to clause 1 and the related amendments. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on bringing forward this important Bill, which is backed by huge expert and public support. It is great to see the Public Gallery so full. I must declare my allegiance to the cat community—although I am anxious about the ferret community not having quite the popularity. You will be pleased to know, Sir Jeremy, that I will not be naming my cats. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They have asked for anonymity—[Laughter.]
Frankly, action on a lot of the issues the Bill addresses is a long time coming, and much work on this subject has been done by previous hon. Members before the hon. Member for Winchester. This debate demonstrates the genuine cross-party support that exists on these issues. I am hugely supportive of the Bill’s provisions, particularly clause 1, which will protect young animals with a six-month minimum age limit, end the importation of mutilated animals, and prevent the transport of heavily pregnant animals.
As Members have already outlined, the Bill will go a long way in enabling us to tackle the criminals who take advantage of policy loopholes. It is vital that we uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader in animal welfare by taking a firm stand against cruelty and exploitation. But the Bill—particularly clause 1—is about more than animal welfare, as it also extends to the protection of public health. As has been outlined, some smuggled animals could carry harmful diseases that can be transmitted to humans. I urge colleagues to support clause 1 and the rest of the Bill as it goes forward.
While I am on my feet, I hope you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy. It is an animal welfare Bill, so I would like to press the Minister for an update on when the animal welfare strategy will be published. We are desperately waiting for it, and many of the private Members’ Bills that are coming forward would be aligned with that strategy.
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for his Bill and for asking me to be on the Committee, and I look forward to seeing the Bill progress into legislation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
I am delighted that we are here to discuss this Bill. I was the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884. Now, vets in the Commons are a little bit like London buses: you wait 130 years and then another five years, and then another one comes along. I am delighted to support my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester. Vets in the House of Commons are now a bit of a danger: we are breeding like rabbits. At this rate, we would probably be able to fill a car by the end of the century. But under this new legislation there would be a maximum of five vets per car.
I strongly support the Bill and cannot say how pleased and relieved I am to be here today opposite my friend the Minister. We served together on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee and have now swapped places. I am delighted that this Bill is now getting over the line with cross-party support. Can I also offer a shout out? This legislation was started under the Conservative Government: the clauses were in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and then the former Conservative Member of Parliament for North Devon, Selaine Saxby, had a private Member’s Bill identical to this one. I pay tribute to her. We are here today to push that work forward.
I, too, acknowledge the important work of the charitable sector and organisations in the animal space including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust—its former chief vet, Paula Boyden, spearheaded the campaign—Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which the hon. Member for Winchester and I visited yesterday in the light of this Bill, the RSPCA, FOUR PAWS and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Marc Abraham, a fellow veterinary surgeon, has also done a lot of work on this issue.
In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, did a number of inquiries on this issue, one of which was on the movement of animals across borders, and we looked at a lot of the situations that are highlighted in these clauses. Our inquiry on pet welfare and abuse highlighted some of the issues that clauses 1, 2 and 3 set out and made important points about biosecurity. I welcome the measures in the clauses to increase the minimum age to six months, which will be important for the health and welfare of these animals.
I note—the Minister is well aware of these issues because we have been discussing them for many years—that some measures are not included in the Bill, and I hope that he will keep them under review and consider introducing future secondary legislation. They include the institution of pre-importation health checks for animals, the reinstatement of rabies titre checks, and an increase of the wait time after a rabies vaccination to 12 weeks. That would help to enforce the change to a minimum age of entry of six months.
I very much welcome the commitments in the clauses on the stage of gestation for cats and dogs coming into this country. The EFRA Committee heard harrowing evidence about heavily pregnant animals that are smuggled in, give birth and are then smuggled out, often with fresh suture wounds from caesarean sections. They are just shipped in and out, so hopefully the Bill will close that loophole. The requirement for import not to take place in the last third of gestation is very important. It is currently banned in the last 10% of gestation, but it is very difficult to judge the stage of gestation, so that is an important change.
We have talked about mutilations. The Bill will tighten the requirements and, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, bring down the smokescreen. People are importing dogs that have been horrifically mutilated.
Aphra Brandreth
Ear cropping in dogs is a cruel and clinically unnecessary procedure, and is illegal in the UK. The shadow Minister has long campaigned to raise awareness of that. Does he agree that images of dogs with cropped ears have been normalised, and that many owners are still unaware of the cruelty of the practice, so we must continue to highlight its impact?
Dr Hudson
I very much agree. Ear cropping has been normalised in popular culture, but a recent survey by Battersea found that 50% of respondents had no idea that it is illegal. The fact that it is normalised in the media and popular culture means that people, sometimes unwittingly, try to source one of those animals.
Ear cropping is an absolutely horrific procedure, and it is increasingly prevalent. There is absolutely no clinical indication to crop a dog’s ears—it is just a barbaric practice. The EFRA Committee has taken evidence on it, and it is suspected that it is unfortunately taking place in the United Kingdom illegally, potentially with online dog cropping kits, which are still available, and without analgesia. If a veterinary surgeon were to perform that procedure in the United Kingdom, they would be struck off and would not be allowed to be a veterinary surgeon, but unfortunately it still goes on.
One of my favourite films, which I have watched many times with my family, is the Disney Pixar film “Up”. It is a wonderful and very moving film, but some of the dogs in it have had their ears cropped. If families see these films, it normalises the practice: people say, “That’s a lovely dog. I’d like a dog that looks like that.” As recently as a couple of years ago, the lead character in the film “DC League of Super-Pets” had cropped ears.
As recently as this year, the “best in show” winner of the Westminster dog show in the United States was Monty, a giant schnauzer with his ears cropped. The show was reported on the BBC website with a picture of the winning dog, but with no disclaimer explaining that the procedure is illegal in the UK. Anyone looking at the website would have thought, “What a wonderful dog—he’s won the prize!” It needs to be pointed out.
Conservative MPs have written an open letter to film studios and media outlets, calling on them to be responsible in their portrayal of dogs in the media. When studios make films with dogs, they should not have them cropped—it is very simple. When the media publish reports on such dogs, they should include a health warning.
Sadly, it is still possible in this country to buy ear cropping kits online. We are calling on the Government to close that loophole and put pressure on online advertisers so that we can stamp out that practice. I am delighted that the Bill will help to address that, because we have to stop the importation of cropped dogs, stop normalising them in popular culture and stop making cropping possible in this country.
As the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South and for Rotherham mentioned, it is also very important that the legislation should cover the declawing of cats, an issue that Cats Protection has highlighted. It is a horrific procedure, with no clinical indication for cats whatever. Amputating at the level of the fingernails means that cats are no longer able to express themselves, use scratching posts or climb trees. People are sourcing declawed cats so that they can protect their furniture. That needs to stop.
The recommendations that have been made about stages of gestation and about age will help to address issues with biosecurity and specifically with rabies. The importation of dogs carries zoonotic risks, including risks of rabies and brucellosis, so it is important to keep that under review. Many dogs that are rehomed from eastern Europe have brought diseases in with them. People bring them in unwittingly, thinking that they are helping, but actually it is putting dogs and people in this country at risk. I urge the Minister to consider secondary legislation to add pre-importation health screening.
As we debated when considering the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, we should potentially reinstate the tick and tapeworm treatments that stopped in the EU in 2012. A few years ago, in Harlow, Essex, there was a case of babesiosis in a dog that had never left the country. Another dog must have come in and dropped a tick that the Essex dog then picked up, leading it to contract the disease.
It is important to be cognisant of animal and human health. The hon. Member for Winchester is a huge advocate of the concept of “one health” for animals and humans. We give a lot of affection to the pets we love and nurture; they give us a lot in return, and it helps our physical and mental health.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me push the Government to ensure that Bills like this one protect our biosecurity. In this context we are talking about a small animal setting, but the Animal and Plant Health Agency is pivotal in protecting not only against canine brucellosis, rabies and babesiosis, but against diseases such as African swine fever and foot and mouth disease. As I did at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on Thursday, I will push the Government to make sure that they rapidly redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge, Surrey.
His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition stand firmly—125%—behind the Bill. We wish it well.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for promoting this private Member’s Bill; as we have heard from a range of hon. Members this morning, it is an extremely important Bill for animal welfare and the safe movement of our beloved pets. I also thank him for the amendments that he has tabled, which I assure him the Government support.
I echo the witty comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, at the beginning. We have been through a long journey on this issue, and I am delighted that Parliament is at a stage where we can deliver it. The Bill will be welcome. I well remember the discussion of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and Selaine Saxby’s efforts, to which I pay tribute.
The Chair
I know the Minister will recognise that the latter list of animals is not covered by the Bill. However, out of the generosity of his heart, he may want to give a short answer on that. I come to the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson.
Dr Hudson
The measures in clauses 4 and 5 on the delineation between commercial and non-commercial movement of animals are important. The Opposition very much welcome the provision in clause 4 reducing the number of animals to five per vehicle or three per person. I know that many campaigners, including the Dogs Trust and various charities, wanted that figure to be three per vehicle, based on the surveys that they had done. However, if we think about what has happened with unscrupulous traders picking up foot passengers who potentially have four or five animals with them, five per vehicle in this legislation is a darned sight better than potentially 20 per vehicle. I urge the Minister to keep the limit under review; if there is evidence that anything is being exploited, I am sure that reducing the five down to three would be very much welcome across the sector.
A key point that I want to stress in clause 4 is the difference between commercial and non-commercial transportation. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and animal charities have found that people have been flipping between commercial and non-commercial transportation of animals to get away from the authorities. I urge the Government to keep a watching brief on that issue. If there is evidence that people, because of this legislation, are flipping between the two, the Government must stamp down on what would be an alarming development.
Finally, I briefly turn to amendment 5 to clause 4. I very much understand the methodology and the reasons for tabling it, but the Government, who are supporting and drafting this amendment, need to clarify what is meant by “exceptional or compelling circumstances”. We have heard some examples, but some in the sector, such as the RSPCA, have expressed some reservations that amendment 5, while well intended, might unfortunately create a loophole.
In his summing up, can the Minister give clarity that the Government will keep a watching brief on that issue and be very clear about who we mean by “exceptional and compelling circumstances”? As with any legislation, unintended consequences and loopholes can develop, and we know that in the animal smuggling sector bad people, who are doing bad things to animals, exploit loopholes. I urge the hon. Member for Winchester and the Government to clarify that amendment 5 will be okay.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for all the contributions on this very important part of the Bill, and I will try to address briefly some of the points that have been made. On bringing the numbers down from five per person to a maximum of five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger, I hear the points made by both the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole.
The Government strongly support the reduction, but a limit of five pets per vehicle gives flexibility for individuals travelling with assistance dogs alongside their other pets, as well as family and friends travelling together, as the hon. Member for Winchester explained in his introductory comments, while also significantly reducing the risk that non-commercial pet travel rules will be abused. Clearly, we will always monitor the way in which this works and act accordingly. The limit of five pets per vehicle and three per air or foot passenger was recommended by the EFRA Committee back in April 2024.
In passing, I will also reference the Veterinary Surgeons Act. We are well aware of the need to update it, and it will be in the programme in future—it is a question of finding legislative time, but we are very keen to proceed. The Government also strongly support the Bill’s introduction of a requirement for pets and their owners to travel within five days of each other—that is really important. It will link a pet’s movement to their owner’s, closing a loophole that we know is exploited by unscrupulous traders.
As explained by the hon. Member for Winchester, amendment 14 is a clarificatory change to make it clear that the existing definition of pet animal is not affected by the measures in the Bill; some of these finer points are really quite important to ensure that we do not introduce unintended consequences. The amendment seeks to maintain the status quo by clarifying that the Bill is not changing the definition of pet animal, to avoid any unintended consequences that may impact the operation of the pet travel regime. I urge Members to support that amendment.
Turning now to amendments 4 to 8, we all recognise the importance of the measures in clause 4 to prevent abuse of the pet travel rules and to close existing loopholes. However, to address the point raised by the shadow Minister, sometimes exceptional circumstances arise where strict adherence to those rules may be impractical or negatively impact individuals, such as those—but not only those—with protected characteristics. In our view, an intentional and tightly controlled exemption is entirely appropriate, but I give an absolute assurance that it will be in very limited circumstances. The Government will be able to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis to ensure that groups such as those with protected characteristics are not adversely impacted, but there has to be sufficient justification for an exemption.
The purpose of the amendments is to give us flexibility and to allow the objective of introducing tighter restrictions on pet travel to be balanced with the need to ensure that genuine pet owners are not penalised in emergency situations, and that those with protected characteristics can, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, travel together. We are trying to get the balance right, and obviously we will see how it plays out in practice. I genuinely believe that the exemption upholds our commitment to ending puppy smuggling while offering flexibility, providing that individuals can demonstrate that their movements are genuinely non-commercial. The exemption would not create any blanket exceptions from the rules, and its application would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
My officials will be working with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop clear operational guidance outlining exactly what circumstances might justify an exemption and what evidence would be necessary. That will be communicated to the public ahead of the measure coming into force. For those reasons, I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
“2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if—
(i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and
(ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Consequential provision
Dr Hudson
I rise to support clause 6 and the subsequent clauses within the Bill. I will be very brief; I just want to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have the highest standard of animal welfare in the world, and with legislation like this, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. Animal welfare, as we have seen today, unites us in humanity across the House, and it is so important that we support such legislation.
I thank everyone involved with this Bill: the DEFRA team, the Clerks, Hansard, the Bill Committee, the Doorkeepers, and the public for coming, watching and engaging with this process. I thank my friend and veterinary colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester, for introducing this important legislation. I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament, as a shadow Minister, as a co-sponsor of the Bill and as a veterinary surgeon. It has my full support.
Daniel Zeichner
I echo the comments from the shadow Minister. This is a very important piece of legislation and I am very pleased that it is finally happening. It builds on the recommendations from the EFRA Committee, it addresses multiple concerns raised by stakeholders about the current pet travel rules, and it supports the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling. I am delighted that we are making good progress, and I am very much looking forward to seeing it continue to progress through its remaining parliamentary stages.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Regulations
Amendments made: 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That subsection (1) of clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 7 on page 4.—(Dr Chambers.)
Ordered,
That clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 21 on page 5.—(Dr Chambers.)
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dr Chambers
I appreciate your chairmanship throughout our proceedings, Sir Jeremy, and I want to thank everyone who was involved. I will thank my team in Winchester, again. I am so effusive in my thanks because, for a brand-new MP, trying to learn how to set up an office and then negotiate the complexities of a private Member’s Bill, this has been a huge amount of work, and my team—Sophie Hammond, who is currently on maternity leave, and Tom Wood and Hayley Puddefoot, who took over from her on this—have now become experts in animal movement.
There has been a lot of work from everyone, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs staff. I was a member of the British Veterinary Association policy committee more than 10 years ago, and we campaigned on this issue. I know that applies to so many other organisations: the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS and Blue Cross. I was at Battersea yesterday, with my friend the hon. Member for Epping Forest. So many organisations have been working on this issue for so long, and I think I can speak on behalf of the veterinary profession when I thank every Member who is here today to make this legislation happen, because it is seismic for animal welfare. The veterinary profession has wanted it for years and it will have a huge impact on animal welfare and on those who work with animals every day.
We know that the Bill will put an end to the sight of dogs with cropped ears. Whether they are imported from abroad or whether the procedure occurs in the UK, there will no longer be an excuse to own a dog with cropped ears, and that will be something we can all celebrate, because it is a very cruel procedure. It is not the only mutilation that we see; it is not the only unnecessary mutilation that we see, but it is so common. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said earlier, so many of the public are not even aware that it is a mutilation. I think many believe they are seeing normal anatomy, and that is a huge problem in itself.
On that note, and although this is not part of the Bill, I look forward to working with the Government—along with other vets in Parliament—to ensure that we deal with other animal welfare issues where the public simply do not understand that they are causing cruelty. A very good example is flat-faced—brachycephalic—dogs. They shot up in popularity by over 300% between 2010 and 2020. Some of these dogs are bred to such an extent that they need surgery even to be able to breathe. Again, it is not a niche issue. More French bulldogs were registered in the UK than labradors, so this is a very common problem, and we need to work together to both educate the public and, potentially, legislate as we are doing today to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, even if it is caused by well-meaning people who do not understand the amount of suffering that they are causing.
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?
The Chair
Order. I point out, before the hon. Member for Winchester responds, that we seem to be moving on to his next private Member’s Bill, so let us deal with this one first.