Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Public Bill Committees

on animal welfare. I am pleased to support the Bill today, ensuring that a little more is done.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s helpful contribution. I assure him that a date will emerge in due course. I am very happy to offer the Government’s support for the Bill.

[Dr Hudson]

Before the Minister finishes his remarks, I want to ask him one question. He said he would talk about what the Government are doing on responsible dog ownership. This discrete, and welcome, piece of legislation will do a lot to protect animal health and welfare, but it is part of a package of measures. We need to ensure that people who own dogs source them responsibly, train them responsibly, socialise them responsibly and manage them responsibly. How will this Government continue the work of the Conservative Government, who set up the responsible dog ownership working group? How will they ensure that the medium and longer-term piece of work, which will not be easy, is done in parallel? Legislation has been passed about XL bully dogs in the last couple of years—another discrete piece of legislation —but there must be work in parallel on responsible dog ownership. I would be grateful if the Minister said what his Government will do in that space.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The shadow Minister is right; I meant to fold that into my previous answer. As he would expect, this new Government are taking stock. By supporting these private Members’ Bills, we are effectively finishing the work of the previous Parliament before we move on to our exciting new measures, and our approach to responsible dog ownership will form part of that.

[Aphra Brandreth]

Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mr Western; it has been a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the Minister for his support for the Bill and those who have worked incredibly hard on it behind the scenes. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have served on the Committee for taking the time to listen to why I and others feel the Bill is necessary, and for all their thoughtful contributions.

At the heart of this Bill are farmers and livestock. The Bill will give farmers greater confidence that livestock attacks will be dealt with in a timely, effective and appropriate manner, reflective of the damage an attack can do. It is our hope that deterrence in the form of greater penalties and powers for the police to investigate livestock attacks will reduce the number of those attacks. The fewer farmers who witness an attack, deal with severely injured animals in the aftermath and face the economic costs as a result, the better. They deserve this Bill, and I am sure that they, like me, are incredibly grateful to all who have given their support today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendment proposed: 1, schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) In subsection (2), omit ‘(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)’.

(3B) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless—

(a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or

(b) it is within sight of a person and the person—

(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and

(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.’”—(Ann Davies.)

This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Question negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[Dr Hudson]

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

May I endorse that and thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for the way she has conducted this process? We wish the Bill well, because it is very important to tackle attacks on and worrying of livestock. The Bill will strengthen the 1953 Act, so let us get it on the statute book as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

You will be pleased to hear, Sir Jeremy, that I will be very brief and focused in my support of clauses 4 and 5. I would like to say that I could namecheck that I had a cat called “Sir Jeremy”, but I cannot do that.

[The Chair]

Not yet.

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I rise to support clause 6 and the subsequent clauses within the Bill. I will be very brief; I just want to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have the highest standard of animal welfare in the world, and with legislation like this, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. Animal welfare, as we have seen today, unites us in humanity across the House, and it is so important that we support such legislation.

I thank everyone involved with this Bill: the DEFRA team, the Clerks, Hansard, the Bill Committee, the Doorkeepers, and the public for coming, watching and engaging with this process. I thank my friend and veterinary colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester, for introducing this important legislation. I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament, as a shadow Minister, as a co-sponsor of the Bill and as a veterinary surgeon. It has my full support.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I echo the comments from the shadow Minister. This is a very important piece of legislation and I am very pleased that it is finally happening. It builds on the recommendations from the EFRA Committee, it addresses multiple concerns raised by stakeholders about the current pet travel rules, and it supports the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling. I am delighted that we are making good progress, and I am very much looking forward to seeing it continue to progress through its remaining parliamentary stages.

Amendment 9 agreed to.  

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Regulations

Amendments made: 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.—(Dr Chambers.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,  

 That subsection (1) of clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 7 on page 4.—(Dr Chambers.) 

Ordered,  

That clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 21 on page 5.—(Dr Chambers.) 

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.  

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Dr Chambers]

I appreciate your chairmanship throughout our proceedings, Sir Jeremy, and I want to thank everyone who was involved. I will thank my team in Winchester, again. I am so effusive in my thanks because, for a brand-new MP, trying to learn how to set up an office and then negotiate the complexities of a private Member’s Bill, this has been a huge amount of work, and my team—Sophie Hammond, who is currently on maternity leave, and Tom Wood and Hayley Puddefoot, who took over from her on this—have now become experts in animal movement.

There has been a lot of work from everyone, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs staff. I was a member of the British Veterinary Association policy committee more than 10 years ago, and we campaigned on this issue. I know that applies to so many other organisations: the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS and Blue Cross. I was at Battersea yesterday, with my friend the hon. Member for Epping Forest. So many organisations have been working on this issue for so long, and I think I can speak on behalf of the veterinary profession when I thank every Member who is here today to make this legislation happen, because it is seismic for animal welfare. The veterinary profession has wanted it for years and it will have a huge impact on animal welfare and on those who work with animals every day.

We know that the Bill will put an end to the sight of dogs with cropped ears. Whether they are imported from abroad or whether the procedure occurs in the UK, there will no longer be an excuse to own a dog with cropped ears, and that will be something we can all celebrate, because it is a very cruel procedure. It is not the only mutilation that we see; it is not the only unnecessary mutilation that we see, but it is so common. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said earlier, so many of the public are not even aware that it is a mutilation. I think many believe they are seeing normal anatomy, and that is a huge problem in itself.

On that note, and although this is not part of the Bill, I look forward to working with the Government—along with other vets in Parliament—to ensure that we deal with other animal welfare issues where the public simply do not understand that they are causing cruelty. A very good example is flat-faced—brachycephalic—dogs. They shot up in popularity by over 300% between 2010 and 2020. Some of these dogs are bred to such an extent that they need surgery even to be able to breathe. Again, it is not a niche issue. More French bulldogs were registered in the UK than labradors, so this is a very common problem, and we need to work together to both educate the public and, potentially, legislate as we are doing today to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, even if it is caused by well-meaning people who do not understand the amount of suffering that they are causing.

[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.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate, which provides an opportunity to examine the matter further. I also congratulate colleagues from across the House, and across the country, for their powerful contributions referencing the glass manufacturers, pubs, breweries, distilleries and other affected businesses in their constituencies.

As we have heard, pubs are an important part of our local communities, and of our social and family interactions, in both happy and sad times. A number of pubs have been namechecked today, and we have had a cider tour. I believe that even Heineken was namechecked, and, from memory, it refreshes the parts that other beers cannot reach.

The hon. Member for Rotherham made a powerful speech in which she advocated very strongly for Beatson Clark, a major manufacturer in her constituency that plays an important role in producing the amber glass for medicine bottles.

We Conservatives have a proud record of environmental stewardship. Between 2010 and 2022, we successfully reduced the amount of waste going to landfill by 47% and the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 46%. We also introduced a simpler recycling collection system to make it easier to recycle, saving people time and preventing confusion to boost recycling rates. Additionally, our introduction of the single-use plastic bag charge in 2015 saw a remarkable 95% cut in sales of plastic bags in major supermarkets, significantly reducing plastic waste.

We also passed the landmark Environment Act 2021 and set targets to tackle some of the biggest pressures facing our environment. That includes ensuring progress on clean air, clean and plentiful water, less waste, a more sustainable use of our resources, a step change in tree planting, a better marine environment, and a more diverse, resilient and healthy natural environment. In addition, the Act includes a new, historic and legally binding target to halt decline in species by 2030.

However, we must acknowledge that challenges persist. Concerningly, household waste recycling rates have plateaued. The latest published data from December 2024 showed a small decline from 44.6% in 2021 to 44.1%. However, there were some positives: notably, a rise in packaging waste recycling from 62.4% in 2022 to 64.8% in 2023.

The previous Conservative Government laid the foundations for progress in recycling and enhancing the circular economy by embracing the “polluter pays” principle to drive up recycling and improve resource efficiency. The Labour Government have attempted to take up the Conservative baton, but as ever with their implementation, the devil is in the detail. Although further action is needed to drive up recycling rates, significant concerns have been raised about the extended producer responsibility scheme in its current form, including issues relating to fee calculations, consistency across the devolved nations, cross-border business implications and the timing of the scheme’s roll-out, given the new financial challenges that this Government have bestowed upon businesses.

Although some aspects of the EPR scheme have come into effect, including data reporting, businesses are yet to feel the fee element. For example, waste disposal fees—otherwise called waste management fees— which need to be paid for packaging that is classified as household packaging, commonly binned packaging or glass household drinks containers, will be invoiced from October 2025. That invoice will be for fees for packaging placed on the market in 2024.

Modulated fees—an extension of waste disposal fees—are scheduled to come into effect in 2026 and will add a financial incentive or penalty, taking into account the environmental impact and recyclability of specific packaging formats. Therefore, hard-to-recycle packaging may face a higher fee.

This debate is focused on glass, and Members will no doubt be aware of concerns raised by the British Glass Manufacturers Confederation about waste disposal fees. Although it is welcome that the Government have clarified that they are looking at weight-based fees, there are concerns that glass will still be significantly impacted. As has been said today, there is much uncertainty about how the fees will be calculated, thereby penalising glass.

The spirits industry is an important part of the UK economy, and there are many spirit businesses operating across the UK. The UK Spirits Alliance has also raised concerns about the potential economic impact of those fees on the industry, which supports more than 446,000 jobs and contributes £13 billion annually to the UK economy. Disproportionate treatment of glass could threaten that vital sector. I understand that DEFRA has suggested that 80% of the cost of EPR will be passed on to the consumer. Small and medium-sized producers, including independent distillers, will have to make the difficult decision either to absorb the cost or pass it on.

The British Beer and Pub Association estimates that EPR fees will add 5p to 7p per beer bottle, equating to £154 million in additional annual costs. Alarmingly, the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that EPR is unlikely to have a material impact on recycling rates, which raises questions about whether this iteration of the scheme is effective in achieving its environmental aims.

With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government believe that glass, which is 100% recyclable, should have higher or lower waste disposal fees than plastic or aluminium. Furthermore, will she confirm what assessment has been made of the potential damage to the glass industry from the waste disposal fees, taking into account both the economic cost and the impact on jobs? Is she concerned that high waste disposal fees for glass may result in a shift in packaging to plastic, which may ultimately undermine the UK’s environmental goals?

Will the Minister also outline how the UK Government are working with the devolved nations to implement the EPR? What differences will there be nation to nation? What impact will that have on businesses operating across borders? For example, how will the Scottish Government’s decision to include glass in the DRS impact the roll-out of England’s EPR? It is so important to have joined-up thinking and policy implementation across our United Kingdom in sectors that span our domestic borders. Will the Minister also clarify whether the Government have ambitions to expand the EPR scheme to any other industries? If so, will impact assessments be carried out? In the light of the OBR’s assessment of the EPR, how will the Government seek to increase recycling rates?

I mentioned the timing of the roll-out of the EPR, and it is important to highlight how significant that is. The scheme, which imposes additional costs on businesses, is being introduced at a time when the Labour Government have caused significant uncertainty and pressure for businesses. The introduction of Labour’s jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions—means that businesses face an extra £900 in national insurance costs per employee. For many businesses, that may lead to job cuts, wage freezes or investment being put on hold. Sadly, in some cases, it may lead to businesses being shut down. If a business is able to survive, it is likely that those additional costs will be passed on to consumers.

Given that context, it is only right to consider whether it is appropriate to add further costs on businesses, however commendable the aim. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will continue to scrutinise these developments closely and ensure that the concerns of businesses and consumers are not ignored, while we continue to protect our precious environment.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, will you try to leave a short time for the proposer to wind up the debate?

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Avian influenza, sadly, is still very much with us, having devastated both wild and domestic birds in recent years. With bluetongue still here, African swine fever on our doorstep and, alarmingly, foot and mouth outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, we face significant threats to our biosecurity. Disease surveillance, vaccination and control are crucial, centred with the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which I thank in these challenging times. When will this Government finish the work that we Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion in 2020 to redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge? Labour’s repeatedly re-announced £208 million is a start, but when will it commit the further £1.4 billion for this critical national infrastructure, for the sake of UK agriculture and our national security?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words and his praise for the APHA. These are extremely important subjects. We face a range of threats. That is why the Government have increased security in terms of personal imports through the short straits in particular. On his point about Weybridge, we have had this discussion before. There is a major programme under way, which will take a number of years. It is already a world-leading facility, and this Government are committed to providing the funding that Weybridge needs to do its job. We are absolutely committed to that, which is why we have announced £208 million this year.

Global Deforestation

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank everyone for their important contributions, and I am grateful to my good friend, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), for bringing forward this important debate. I have extremely fond memories of our time serving together as members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament.

Caring deeply about the world we live in, our precious environment and the people and the creatures that live within it unites us in humanity across this Chamber. Given the hon. Gentleman’s clear and passionate commitment to the natural environment, it is no surprise that he has chosen to bring this topic to Westminster Hall. I thank him again for doing so and congratulate him on his thoughtful and powerful speech.

There have been excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the House, including from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked powerfully about what is going on in Indonesia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) made a powerful speech about the implications of Drax. We heard from the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones). The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is a powerful advocate of the work of Chester zoo, which I will talk about later.

As the Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, it is an honour to speak for His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition on protecting our precious forest. My constituents know of Epping Forest’s important role as the heart and lungs for north-east London and our part of Essex.

As Members highlighted, it is vital that we address the drivers and risks of global deforestation. Deforestation is the second leading cause of climate change globally, and is responsible for approximately 10% to 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all the world’s vehicles combined. To put it starkly, if deforestation were a country, it would rank third behind only China and the USA for carbon dioxide emissions.

Forests host approximately 80% of the world’s wildlife on land. In the last 60 years, more than half of tropical forests globally have been destroyed, reducing biodiversity and endangering species. Alarmingly, it is estimated that every hour—less than the length of this debate—an area of rainforest equivalent to 300 football pitches is cleared to make way for unsustainable palm oil production. That not only contributes to climate change but leads to a huge decline in precious wildlife such as orangutans, tigers and elephants, jeopardising their very survival as species.

I thank and pay tribute to Chester zoo, which does great work, and indeed all zoos across the world for their work on conservation species. Chester zoo has worked on a responsible sourcing policy for the use of sustainable palm oil produced with the lowest possible environmental impact and without deforestation.

The facts and figures we have heard today are truly shocking and leave us in no doubt about the urgent need to tackle deforestation and the threat it poses to us leaving the world in a cleaner, greener state than we found it. Although there have been positive steps in the right direction in recent years, including a significant reduction in deforestation in some countries, there is still clearly much to do.

For example, a 2024 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation found that while deforestation rates have declined in forest-rich countries such as Brazil and Indonesia—but there are still problems there, we must remember—

“climate change is making forests more vulnerable to abiotic and biotic stressors such as wildfires and pests”.

With demand for wood projected to significantly increase by 2050, it is more important than ever that the Government ensure that the UK continues to play a leading role in protecting the world’s forests.

As the Minister will know, I am proud that the previous Conservative Government had a strong record on tackling deforestation, both at home and abroad, cementing the UK’s position as a global leader. We passed the landmark Environment Act 2021 and supported the recovery of England’s globally rare temperate rainforests, while playing an important role in supporting efforts to reduce global deforestation. In the Amazon, for example, under the previous Government, the UK became one of the largest contributors to Brazil’s Amazon fund and supported measures to address the underlying drivers of deforestation.

That is not to mention the important work that we spearheaded during the UK’s COP26 presidency, including securing a commitment from 141 countries, representing more than 90% of the world’s forests, to work collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. We have heard that those commitments were made, but we need to hold people to account on that. I was privileged to attend COP26 and see the previous Government in action, working hard on the global stage to tackle deforestation and looking more widely at sustainable ways of using our land, including in agriculture, and making those ways more affordable and achievable across the world. International co-operation is the only way that countries across the world can tackle the threat to our planet and livelihoods that deforestation and climate change more widely pose.

Furthermore, at the COP28 nature day in December 2023, the Conservative Government set out plans to ensure that supermarket essentials are no longer linked to illegal deforestation. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that important work, and on the Government’s plans to ensure that the UK continues to lead international action to protect the planet’s forests.

Experts recently warned that Governments must take immediate steps if we are to meet the important commitment to restore the world’s forests by 2030, with a key recommendation that countries must strengthen trade agreements and regulations to stop deforestation-linked products from entering global markets. What assessment has the Minister made of such reports? What plans does her Department have to ensure that the UK is promoting deforestation-free trade?

Speaking of upholding our environmental standards worldwide in our agreements and trade, it is important that we likewise uphold other standards in trade agreements, such as animal welfare standards, not least in the current negotiations with the United States. We must hold firm on banning the importation of chlorine-washed poultry, ractopamine-fed pork and hormone-treated beef and dairy. These are red lines, not only for the sake of animal and bird welfare, but for our fantastic UK farmers, who farm to the highest standards of animal welfare, and must not be undercut in an attempt to cut a deal.

This is about not protectionism, but standing up for our values. In that, we, the United Kingdom, can be a beacon to the world by driving up animal health and welfare standards globally. Can the Minister confirm that the current Government will do all they can to uphold environmental and animal welfare standards internationally in their international trade negotiations?

Returning to global deforestation, the previous Government introduced world-leading due diligence provisions to help to address illegal deforestation across UK supply chains through our groundbreaking Environment Act. Ministers in the current Government have said that they will set out an approach to ensure that UK consumption of so-called forest-risk commodities, such as beef, soy and palm oil, is not driving deforestation. They have said that they will do that “in due course”, but they are yet to do so. Can the Minister provide an update on that today? Will she confirm whether the Government plan to introduce the necessary secondary legislation to enact measures in the Environment Act in key areas such as schedule 17?

As the Minister will be aware, campaigners are urging the Government to introduce such secondary legislation before COP30 this November. That is spurred on by recent reports that the UK’s imports of forest-risk commodities are linked to the destruction of forests the size of major cities such as Newcastle, Liverpool or Cardiff over the past year. I acknowledge that the process has not been without its difficulties, but will the Minister set out a timeline for introducing the necessary secondary legislation?

Finally, I would like to mention forest finance. The previous Government doubled the UK’s commitment to international climate finance to £11.6 billion from 2021-22 to 2025-26. ICF has been an important part of the UK’s work to protect the world’s forests, enabling us to work side by side with Brazil to tackle deforestation in all nine Amazon states, and to carefully monitor deforestation across the Amazon region. As we know, the Government recently announced a reduction in funding for overseas development, but they have yet to give details of the projects and initiatives that they will be funding. It is therefore unclear what, if any, projects relating to the rainforests, biodiversity and the protection of sensitive ecosystems the UK Government will support. What engagement has the Minister had with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about such funding, and will she shed light on the Government’s funding priorities with regard to tackling global deforestation?

In conclusion, there is a clear consensus across the House that serious cross-party efforts must be taken to address the threat of global deforestation around the world. While much has been done, much more still needs to be done by the Government and in collaboration with nations around the world to protect our precious environment, the people and the creatures that live within it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government intend to pick up the baton from the previous Conservative Government and deliver those global environmental protections for the sake of our planet, and for generations to come.

Draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 General Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument. I pay tribute to the UK pig industry, which does so much for our economy, food production and food security. I am very proud that under the previous Conservative Government, new powers were introduced in the Agriculture Act 2020 that allowed the introduction of regulations to address unfair trading practices in agricultural sectors.

In March 2024, the House considered the draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations, which related to the rules governing the relationship between buyers and sellers operating in the dairy industry. I am pleased to say that the Minister, when he was then shadow Minister, welcomed those regulations. I am happy to say today that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are supporting these similar and very important draft regulations for the pig sector.

The backdrop to the crisis that faced the UK pig industry in the years following 2020 was a perfect storm of the pandemic and concomitant labour shortages, leading to animals tragically dammed back on farms, with abattoirs and processors unable to process them. There were huge animal welfare consequences: adverse behavioural issues, respiratory diseases and, tragically, more than 60,000 healthy animals culled on farms.

The former Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on which I sat, worked hard on that issue and was grateful for the engagement of Conservative farming Ministers to work with the sector to try to mitigate the horrific situation. However, it was a crisis—economically, for animal welfare and, importantly, for the mental health of those people involved in the situation. These draft regulations are crucial.

In 2022, the previous Conservative Government held a consultation on contractual relationships in the pig sector. Findings showed that 89% of respondents were supportive of written contracts, and 64% of respondents reported issues with honouring sale agreements, including price and quantity disputes. Bearing that in mind, I ask the Minister: why has there been a delay in laying the regulations? With the introduction of the family farm tax, the withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive and the significant reduction in delinked payments, it is clear that our farming communities—today we are talking about our pig farming and dairy farming communities—desperately need our support.

The draft regulations introduce important safeguards and tackle the noticeable disparity in the commercial relationship, which has sadly led to farmers being vulnerable to unfair trading practices and to the risks of contracts that impose commercially harmful terms and provide little legal protection. During the passing of the milk regulations, the then shadow Minister—the current Minister—commented that he did not think that the Government had

“really approached this issue with the pace and urgency that are required”. —[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 March 2024; c. 6.]

In a similar vein, I put it gently to the Minister: why has it taken the Government so long to lay the current regulations?

I also note that the draft regulations, as the Minister has said, make an important amendment to the milk regulations, concerning exclusive contracts. I would be grateful if he could provide an update on the implementation of the milk regulations to date. Specifically, has the Secretary of State had to use his power to issue a monetary penalty or to order compensation, since the regulations came into force in 2024 for new contracts? Have the Government had any representations from dairy businesses and buyers who are amending their contracts, ahead of the deadline this year for pre-existing contracts, to fall in line with the regulations? I urge that the change is kept under close review to ensure that it is working as it was intended and does not undermine fair contractual practices in the dairy sector.

Furthermore, while this instrument provides a degree of flexibility, it is essential that those flexibilities are not open to misuse, and that the draft regulations genuinely benefit producers. Will Minister, therefore, give assurance that the Government will commit to keeping the regulations under regular review and to making any amendments, where necessary, to ensure that they remain robust and effective?

Finally, could the Minister update us on the progress of introducing regulations to address unfair practices in the poultry sector or the fresh produce sector? As delays have harmed dairy farmers in the past, timely action is critical for other agricultural industries. Farmers deserve robust protection across all sectors, and I strongly encourage the Minister to prioritise introducing similar regulations.

His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition strongly support the draft regulations and look forward to their implementation to protect and support our vital and hard-working UK pig farmers, and to improve fairness and transparency in the industry.

Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 General Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this instrument. This SI enacts policy from the groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act brought in by the Conservative Government in 2023. While this instrument specifically introduces measures on precision-bred plants, as it relates to that Act I must declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon.

I would also like to make it clear that when debating this issue, we are discussing gene editing or precision breeding rather than genetic modification. It is incredibly important that we make that distinction because the methods are very different. Gene editing is different from genetic modification, in which genetic material from an exogenous, or unrelated, species can be introduced. That does not happen in gene editing, a process in which any changes must be equivalent to those that could have been made using traditional plant or animal breeding methods. Gene editing therefore speeds up the natural process. Does the Minister agree that that distinction is acutely important and we must articulate it, particularly as there are concerns among the public about the use of genetic modification? This enabling legislation, further to the groundbreaking 2023 Act, is a fantastic innovation that we need to welcome and embrace. If we clearly articulate it to the public, they will come on board with us.

To return to the instrument that we are considering today, I very much welcome the Government’s decision to follow the Conservatives and lay these regulations. As I said earlier, this instrument implements the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, introduced by the last Government. Precision breeding has incredible potential; for example, it could lead to increased resilience to pests, diseases and the adverse impacts of climate change. As this instrument relates to plants, it will help to support food production by introducing desirable traits in plants and crops that could otherwise take many years to develop.

The measure could help to improve the nutritional content of plants, or make them more resistant to the threats that they face, including disease and extreme weather events. All that will be a vital tool in the fight for food security in the UK and around the world, with climate-resilient crops meaning a reliable supply of the food on which those living in certain climates depend. It also has environmental benefits, as it reduces the need for pesticides and fertilisers. In other words, this can be a win-win for producers, consumers and the precious environment alike.

Clearly, the most significant component of the regulatory framework of precision breeding must be safety. I hope the Minister will take a moment to reassure us that DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency will regularly review risk, and ensure that all precision-bred plants and crops are safe to be marketed for use in food and as a feedstuff. Does the Minister agree that precision-bred products should not be authorised if they are in any way a risk to animal or human health?

I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are very happy to support these regulations, although I hope that the Government will work at pace to deliver on the other potential benefits for which the previous Government’s legislation set the foundation, specifically gene editing for precision breeding of animals and birds, which once again has huge potential to combat diseases.

In the light of the extremely concerning developments in Europe in recent weeks, including foot and mouth disease in Germany, Hungary and now Slovakia; African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe; and diseases already present in the UK, such as avian influenza and bluetongue virus, will the Minister give the sector a timeline for the introduction of further secondary legislation on animal and bird breeding?

As an example, much work is being done to develop resistance to avian influenza in birds, and to develop pigs that are resistant to porcine reproduction and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS. Facilitating the roll-out of such innovative research and technology will be of huge assistance with that mission. It will also help to reduce the need for certain medicines and to combat antimicrobial resistance, as well as indirectly, and also very directly, helping human public health. I note that the territorial application for this SI is England only. What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations about ensuring that this technology can benefit all the United Kingdom?

The Minister will be familiar with my repeated calls for action on the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge. Once again I ask her, as I have asked her colleague many times, to make the case to the Treasury for the £1.4 billion of additional funding urgently needed to redevelop its headquarters. That programme was started under the Conservatives, with £1.2 billion committed in 2020, and I note that the Labour Government have committed an additional £208 million. For the sake of agriculture, animal health, rural mental health, biosecurity and national security, please will the Minister and her DEFRA colleagues continue to press that case with the Treasury?

I conclude by reiterating that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are pleased to support this statutory instrument, and we look forward to the Government speedily introducing further legislation on animals and birds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the most loyal Opposition for their support with this SI, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. It is incredibly important that we make clear the distinction between genetic modification and what we are talking about here, and that we note how different the two things are. I welcome the Opposition’s support with that clarification.

I will take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species’ traits we can benefit from. The overwhelming scientific advice is that it is not proportionate to apply existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnology when those plants could have resulted—this is the key point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made—from traditional breeding processes. These regulations provide a science-based approach and are proportionate.

I will cover some of the points that have been raised. On animals and birds, I recognise the professional view and real feelings of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and he is keen to know more about the Government’s plans for implementing the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for animals. While we are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration, no decision has yet been taken on introducing legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to precision-bred animals. I have no further information about that, because only plants are in scope of this SI.

[Dr Hudson]

I note that no decision has been taken on animals, but I asked about animals and birds. We have the pressing situation of avian influenza, and technology is under development in this country to breed birds that are resistant to that horrific disease. Can I press the Minister to make the case to DEFRA for enabling precision breeding of animals and birds forthwith? Will she write to the Committee with an update on when DEFRA will bring forward that SI?

[Emma Hardy]

I am happy to clarify that I was talking about animals and birds. I can attempt to provide further information, but without wanting to appear deliberately vague, no decision has been taken. However, if and when one is, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman knows.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the Minister give way on one final point?

[Emma Hardy]

Only because it is the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Hudson]

Can the decision be made quickly?

[Emma Hardy]

I will take that point back to the Farming Minister.

As for the assurance on risk, the advice is consistent across scientific sources and is supported by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, as well as institutions such as the Royal Society and the European Food Safety Authority. These principles also underpin regulatory approaches adopted abroad, where England is now aligned with countries such as Canada, Japan and Argentina. I reassure hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that there is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest: we are not talking about the same things.

Devolved Governments were also mentioned. We recognise that there are concerns about divergence in the UK, and that is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Governments. The Farming Minister recently sent letters to his counterparts in the devolved Governments to invite them to discuss these matters further. We recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved nations on these issues and we look forward to those meetings.

On the EU position, which the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned, although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission has published a proposal for the regulation of plants by new genomic techniques. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and note the recent progress made by the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. The proposal is similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, but it will take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU. However, we do not have time to wait.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

Capitalise.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—we can capitalise on the opportunity, because we will be the first country that takes this through. As I have noted, the EU position seems to be moving, but we recognise that that will take some time, whereas I hope we will agree to this SI today. On that note, I thank everybody for their contributions and the Opposition for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, for this important debate on the impact of quota negotiations on UK fishing. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I thank him for his thoughtful opening remarks about science and sustainability, and his interesting comments about species such as pollack, Dover sole and bluefin tuna, and bycatch.

We have had thoughtful contributions from hon. Members from all parties. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on the importance of fishing for food security were echoed by many colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) talked about the opportunities for UK fishing, after our departure from the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about the importance of not using fishing as a bargaining chip in EU negotiations, the importance of the UK as an independent coastal state, and the important issue of spatial squeeze.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) talked about the importance of the quota negotiations and what they mean to people in communities throughout the country, and made important points about paper fish and sustainability. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the diversity of businesses and the people that depend on UK fishing.

I am sure that Members need no reminding of the importance of our fishing industry. Fishing has always been vital to the UK across our four nations. It has been the lifeblood of many communities up and down our country. Island and rural communities are particularly reliant on a strong fishing industry for their local areas to thrive. It is incumbent on all of us in this Chamber to make sure that the views of fishing communities are heard.

We Conservatives admit that we did not get everything right in negotiations on fisheries while in government— I am very open on that point—but as we head towards 2026, we have at least made some progress. When we were in government, we worked to secure the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement for fisheries in 2021. The TCA represented the UK’s first domestic fisheries legislation in nearly 40 years, and the last Government took advantage of the agreement to increase our fishing quotas. In 2024 the UK negotiated 785,000 tonnes in quota, worth almost £1 billion to the UK fishing industry—a major achievement and an important step in the right direction for UK fisheries. By 2026 that will amount to £146 million, or 25% of the previous annual EU catch from UK waters. Significant quota increases have benefited the pelagic sector, particularly for species such as herring and mackerel. We also secured new deals with other coastal states, including Norway. These agreements, negotiated by the last Conservative Government, were designed to get the best outcomes for the fishing industry.

After June 2026, the Labour Government must take a strong stance in negotiations with the EU to secure the fishing industry’s long-term future. Despite attempts to reassure the industry, it is undeniable that many people remain concerned that the Labour Government will simply use fishing as a bargaining chip in their attempts to negotiate a reset with the EU. It is vital that the Government do not cede fishing grounds to France or other countries as the price for a closer relationship with the EU, as any such deal would be a major blow to our UK fishing industry.

I note that when asked about that by the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), in Defence questions on Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence failed to deny that fishing could be a sacrifice in discussions on defence. It is absolutely incredible that we are hearing reports out of Europe that the UK may be excluded from the £125 billion EU defence fund unless the UK capitulates and gives the EU what it wants on fishing rights. Our collective EU defence and security that the UK contributes so much to must not be jeopardised, and nor should our fishing communities be used as a bargaining chip. Will the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs confirm today, as the Secretary of State for Defence did not on Monday, that the Government will not bargain away our fishing industry in such important deliberations about our international security?

There are already questions to be raised over the negotiations for fishing opportunities concluded by the Government in 2024. DEFRA’s own research on the economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities in 2025 has shown a 38,000 fall in tonnage for this year’s quota compared with last year, a decrease of 5%. Negotiations with other coastal states saw a 15% fall in tonnage for this year’s quota compared with last year, representing a loss of £65 million. It is vital that the new Government secure good deals for the fishing industry. I urge the Minister and the Government to provide more clarity on why the quota negotiated for this year has gone down.

It is also important to note that the benefits of negotiations are seen not just in the raw numbers of tonnes secured, but in ensuring that we have a proper process, using rigorous scientific data, so that the right types of fish are also available to UK fishermen and the fishing industry, meeting economic and environmental concerns under the Fisheries Act 2020. As we have heard today, pollack is abundant in UK waters, but the UK has only 24% of the pollack quota. The previous Government put in place support in this regard, and again we ask the Minister what the Government will do in the future about the management of pollack.

It is important that we fish sustainably. I note that in Scotland around 70% of key commercial stocks are fished at sustainable levels. Although that shows scope for improvement, the upward curve from a figure of around 35% in 1991 is welcome. The UK can be proud that our fishing industry follows the science and looks to care for our waters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan articulated so strongly, no one has a greater vested interest in the health of their seas and the health of their fish stocks than the very communities whose livelihoods depend upon them.

The need for proper rigour in process must extend to energy policy, including offshore wind policy, to ensure that while we certainly do what we can to meet our energy security needs, we are not at the same time enforcing a spatial squeeze on our hard-working fishing industry without properly ensuring that we are meeting our needs under fisheries legislation and policy. As with much of our environmental approach, we should make sure that the right projects are pursued in the right places, balancing competing priorities fairly. I shall be grateful if the Minister assures us that his Government are looking to do this.

Although economic considerations must properly be considered in debates such as this one, it is important that we do not lose sight of the human element and the welfare of protected marine species. Both are important to ensure that the fishing industry can continue to succeed and precious natural resources are protected from the impact of quotas.

Also important for the future of fishing is the mental health of the people in our fishing communities. Fishing is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry, and the stress and anxiety that comes with the job is only made worse by the financial pressures and uncertainty that many fishing communities face. The fishing industry does incredibly tough and dedicated work to support the UK’s food security, and I urge the Government, as I have done previously, to work on a cross-party basis to improve safety and access to mental health support for all those working in the industry.

In the last Parliament, after an inquiry that I initiated, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its cross-party report on marine mammals. In particular, the report highlighted the issue of bycatch, where seals, dolphins and other sea life are tragically snarled in fishing gear. The Minister and I have debated and discussed this issue a lot. An estimated 650,000 marine mammals are believed to die each year worldwide after being needlessly caught and snarled in fishing gear, including more than 1,000 in UK waters. Steps have already been taken to end these unnecessary deaths, including work on the introduction of remote electronic monitoring that began under the last Government, yet it remains clear that more action is needed.

The last Government’s ultimate goal was to make electronic monitoring systems on fishing vessels, including non-UK vessels, mandatory once we were in a position to do so. According to the Marine Management Organisation, only six marine mammals were reported by fishing vessels to have suffered bycatch injury or death in 2023, yet the last Government’s bycatch monitoring programme had estimated that between 502 and 1,560 harbour porpoises, 165 to 662 common dolphins, and 375 to 872 seals were captured as bycatch in UK fisheries in 2019. Do the Government believe that bycatch of marine mammals remains under-reported? Also, can the Minister provide further clarity on the timescale for introducing electronic monitoring systems in a sensible and pragmatic way?

The UK also has a very important role to play with our global soft power. Like all Members, I am sure, I strongly oppose the hunting of any cetaceans—dolphins, whales or porpoises. There is no humane way to kill a whale, so that barbaric practice must end. Although there is a tradition in the Faroe Islands of killing pilot whales and dolphins for meat and other products, the previous Government long expressed their concern about the welfare issues surrounding those cetacean hunts and the domestic regulation currently in place. Ministers in the previous Government urged the Faroe Islands to look at alternatives and encouraged its representatives to consider the many economic and social benefits that responsible cetacean watching can bring. We very much welcome the fact that the Government recently secured 2,000 tonnes of fishing in this year’s round of quota negotiations with the Faroe Islands, but will the Minister comment on whether the Government used our soft power to set an example to the world by raising our stance on those hunts with international partners such as the Faroe Islands, and on whaling more widely in negotiations and international meetings, given that, horrifically, whaling is still practised by countries such as Norway, Iceland and Japan?

The next few years will be decisive for the UK fishing industry. As we approach June 2026, when the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement expires, the Government must make clear their plans for negotiations to secure the best outcomes for the fishing industry. In any negotiations we must ensure, as a sovereign coastal state, that our fishermen and women retain unrestricted access to our own waters. The Opposition will work tirelessly to scrutinise any deal put before Parliament to ensure our fishermen and women get the best possible outcome. National security, food security and energy security are all critical, and need to be addressed sensibly and strategically in their own right, but our fishing communities must not be treated like a bargaining chip within these domains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Hudson]

Will the Minister give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

The Conservative Government protected over 600,000 properties from flooding, introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and committed to a £5.2 billion investment in flood protection. However, we know that the mental health impacts of flooding remain long after the waters subside. Rural communities face unique challenges, including outbreaks of diseases such as avian influenza and foot and mouth—a clear and worrying threat, given the recent cases in Germany and Hungary. Unfortunately, this Labour Government are exacerbating such stresses with their family farm tax and by scrapping the farming resilience fund, which supports mental health. Can the Minister confirm, for the sake of mental health, what support will be offered to rural communities in place of the scrapped fund?

[Emma Hardy]

That all started so well—we nearly managed to get through the question with me agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right about this issue, which he has mentioned before. I am in complete agreement with him about the impact of flooding on mental health, and I know that we all take it seriously. We are investing £500,000 in mental health charities to support rural communities, but I completely recognise the devastation that flooding causes, and I am always happy to work with Members from across the House on how we can support people’s mental health.

Draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 General Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a delight and a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the Minister for laying these important regulations.

I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are happy to support this measure, which will help to ensure that Flood Re can continue to operate effectively. As the Minister articulated, the Flood Re scheme is vital. Since its inception in 2016 under the Conservatives, many people have relied on the scheme. We have sadly seen increasingly frequent extreme weather events in recent months and years, with the number of named storms continually going up, so it is important that people have coverage. When those extreme weather events cause flooding in the United Kingdom, they have brought horror and devastating consequences to many people’s livelihoods and finances.

The Minister and I have great mutual respect. We have talked a lot about the severe financial implications when floods hit, and about the human implications—the mental health impacts, the stress and anxiety of people who worry about being flooded and then the trauma when they are. The Flood Re scheme is vital to mitigating, to some degree, the things people go through. Enabling the effective use of Flood Re to support those affected by flooding will not only mean that people receive the financial support they need, but reduce harm to their mental wellbeing, because they know that some support is there when they need it most.

With that, and given that not having an effective Flood Re scheme may result in high-risk households being left without flood insurance, it is a clear and common-sense decision to support this statutory instrument. The increase in the levy is therefore a pragmatic decision, which I note takes into account inflation. According to the Government’s assessment, the cost of the increase in the levy, which will most likely be passed on to consumers through the premiums, is estimated to be about £1.60 per policy.

Although I welcome reaffirming the importance of Flood Re, I hope to see more ambition from the Government about the scheme’s future expansion—I have talked to the Minister about that before. There is potential to expand the scheme, and we have talked a lot about whether businesses can come under its umbrella. What discussions has the Minister had with businesses about the potential merits of expanding the scheme to include them? Equally, there are people who live above their business, so a composite home and business could be affected by flooding. Again, in the spirit of cross-party consensus, I hope the Government will move forward to help more people when floods hit.

Furthermore, the eligibility for Flood Re states that a home must have been built before 1 January 2009. Although I appreciate that regulations have since been strengthened to consider flood resilience, the Minister will be aware that properties continue to be built on at-risk floodplains. In the light of the central, top-down Government targets that are coming for house building, which may mean that more houses are built in at-risk areas, will the Minister ensure that homes built after 2009 have the security of flood insurance? Will she consider expanding the Flood Re scheme to include homes built after 1 January 2009? Labour Back Benchers have also called for that.

Helping people who are traumatised by flooding is above party politics. I have been calling for the expansion of the Flood Re scheme for some time. I hope that the Minister, her colleagues and her officials in DEFRA can look at its merits and talk to the Treasury about that too.

More broadly, as well as insurance, prevention is key. The last Government protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding between 2010 and 2024, and published a policy statement to make England more resilient, with 40 actions and five ambitious policies stemming from that. Furthermore, in March 2020, it was announced that the flooding budget would be doubled to £5.2 billion over the next six-year spending period to deploy more flood schemes. The Minister has confirmed that the Government will bring forward a flood resilience strategy. When can we expect it to be published, and will it include specific targets?

The Government have also launched the floods resilience taskforce. At the last count, we believe it has met only a couple of times recently—if it has met more than that, I stand to be corrected—despite the increase in drastic and devastating flooding. We want it to meet more frequently. Can the Minister assure us that it will meet regularly, and sometimes in advance as these frequent events come down the pipeline? We know flooding will happen in the winter months, so can the taskforce meet more regularly? What has the taskforce done to tackle flooding, especially after the storms that have recently hit the UK? How will it protect residents, farmers and businesses from the next set of storms that we know will come?

For properties that are sadly flooded, support is required. The last Government introduced the frequently flooded allowance, which was a ringfenced fund of £100 million to protect areas that had been affected by repeated flooding. The Government have yet to confirm whether that funding will continue and whether it will be ringfenced. Can the Minister enlighten us on the Government’s plans?

The support available to handle the aftermath of flooding, such as the Flood Re scheme that we are talking about today, has also included discretionary funding, such as the Bellwin scheme. Again, the Minister and I have had exchanges across the Dispatch Box on this issue. When such events happen, can she assure us that there will be cross-Government talks to make sure these support schemes can be activated on a pragmatic, compassionate and case-by-case basis?

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that engagement must happen with councils as well? North Yorkshire has suffered very badly from floods recently, but the engagement with North Yorkshire council has often been lacking, from not only this Government but previous Administrations. That is largely based on cost, but that engagement is key.

[Dr Hudson]

I totally agree. There needs to be joined-up thinking at all levels of government, including local authorities. There also needs to be engagement with local emergency resilience groups, many of which are volunteers. When storms and floods hit, can people get the information they need? DEFRA could work with the Environment Agency, local authorities and emergency resilience groups to help people when they are flooded. There needs to be a co-ordinated effort that considers things such as planning, insurance, flood prevention, support and response. I hope that my questions are constructive in helping people when they experience dreadful flooding events. We support helping Flood Re to do its excellent work.

[The Chair]

Before I call anyone else, I remind hon. Members that the regulations increase the levy from £135 million a year to £160 million a year. Could Members focus their comments on the topic of the regulations?