Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations.

The Government are right to focus on strengthening trade in the internal market and ensuring that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged in any way by de-listing. Maintaining a wide variety of product choices and availability is crucial: not only does it benefit consumers, but it encourages competition. However, it is important to consider the regulations in the broader context of the Government’s economic policies.

Unfortunately, recent measures taken by the Chancellor, such as the increase in national insurance contributions, have led to significant increases in costs for business. Although the draft regulations exempt small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, they do not exclude medium-sized or large businesses, which together account for 53% of private-sector employment in the UK. The impact assessment sets out that, over a 10-year period, businesses will face between zero and £53.8 million in total one-off labelling costs, including package redesign and the costs associated with setting up new product lines, and between zero and £279.4 million in total ongoing labelling costs, including product line changes and transportation. That is a considerable cost to push on to businesses in the full knowledge that it may ultimately be paid for by consumers. What assurances can the Minister provide today that the regulations will not add to inflation, which is something that the Government have yet to get under control?

The draft regulations set out that the intention is to provide businesses with the opportunity to comply with any notice before a fixed monetary penalty is imposed. They therefore allow a sufficient period of time to be granted to businesses to make the necessary changes. The period can be extended by agreement, where a business has demonstrated sufficient progress but has been unable to become fully compliant in the timeframe allowed. Can the Minister outline how many businesses he expects to seek an extension and what the cost will be for local authorities to process applications for extension?

I would also like to ask about Labour’s proposed new deal with the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the deal will facilitate trade across the Irish sea, and what impact that might have on these regulations? Although we do not want to see customers in Northern Ireland suffering as a result of the unavailability or insufficient supply of retail goods, we have concerns that the regulations will be considered another blow to business confidence and business finances, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give reassurances on those points. We look forward to scrutinising the matter further and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about the potential consequences of the draft regulations for businesses in an increasingly difficult climate.

Draft Marking of Retail Good Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations.

The Government are right to focus on strengthening trade in the internal market and ensuring that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged in any way by de-listing. Maintaining a wide variety of product choices and availability is crucial: not only does it benefit consumers, but it encourages competition. However, it is important to consider the regulations in the broader context of the Government’s economic policies.

Unfortunately, recent measures taken by the Chancellor, such as the increase in national insurance contributions, have led to significant increases in costs for business. Although the draft regulations exempt small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, they do not exclude medium-sized or large businesses, which together account for 53% of private-sector employment in the UK. The impact assessment sets out that, over a 10-year period, businesses will face between zero and £53.8 million in total one-off labelling costs, including package redesign and the costs associated with setting up new product lines, and between zero and £279.4 million in total ongoing labelling costs, including product line changes and transportation. That is a considerable cost to push on to businesses in the full knowledge that it may ultimately be paid for by consumers. What assurances can the Minister provide today that the regulations will not add to inflation, which is something that the Government have yet to get under control?

The draft regulations set out that the intention is to provide businesses with the opportunity to comply with any notice before a fixed monetary penalty is imposed. They therefore allow a sufficient period of time to be granted to businesses to make the necessary changes. The period can be extended by agreement, where a business has demonstrated sufficient progress but has been unable to become fully compliant in the timeframe allowed. Can the Minister outline how many businesses he expects to seek an extension and what the cost will be for local authorities to process applications for extension?

I would also like to ask about Labour’s proposed new deal with the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the deal will facilitate trade across the Irish sea, and what impact that might have on these regulations? Although we do not want to see customers in Northern Ireland suffering as a result of the unavailability or insufficient supply of retail goods, we have concerns that the regulations will be considered another blow to business confidence and business finances, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give reassurances on those points. We look forward to scrutinising the matter further and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about the potential consequences of the draft regulations for businesses in an increasingly difficult climate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

This month, the National Audit Office’s “Resilience to animal diseases” report laid bare the startling reality about our biosecurity, stating:

“Defra and APHA would struggle to manage a more severe outbreak or concurrent serious outbreaks”,

and the risk of site failure at the APHA site at Weybridge is at its maximum rating. As I have raised 16 times in this Parliament, a fully funded and urgent rebuild of APHA in Weybridge is critical. It got no mention at all by the Chancellor in the spending review; it merely has repeated partial funding from the Department. When will the Government wake up, get a grip, and press on with this vital project as soon as possible, before disaster strikes?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I take this issue very seriously. I gently point out to him that this exact situation was pointed out by the National Audit Office during the last Parliament. The previous Government had 14 years to get the principles in place, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives. I can tell him that we have a £208 million investment this year; that is what was asked for. I can assure him that there will be funds in future, because we take biosecurity very seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The National Audit Office report says that the Government really need to step up their border checks. As the Government have admitted in answers to me, 72,872 kg of illegal meat imports were seized between January and April this year, close to the 92,000 kg seized in the whole of 2024. With foot and mouth disease and African swine fever on our doorstep in Europe, I shudder to think how much potentially infected meat is slipping in undetected. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Will the Government act urgently to strengthen our biosecurity and our border checks before it is too late?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have acted with speed and haste to make sure that we are protected. We have banned personal imports, and we are absolutely committed to giving the Weybridge facility the support that it requires—we have given it what it asked for. The question is why we were in that position in the first place when we came into Government. What were his Government doing for all those years? These are not new problems.

Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on leading this debate.

I declare a strong professional and personal interest in animal health and welfare as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We have heard some very thought-provoking and wide-ranging speeches today. I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, from whom I always enjoy hearing. She is an incredibly powerful and passionate champion of animal welfare. More strength to her elbow—keep going.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) brought his expertise in the porcine sector and talked about the key safety issues, especially in relation to pig husbandry techniques. We heard from the hon. Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), and the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke about the importance of biosecurity, which is pivotal in his part of the world, as it is across the entire United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke powerfully about the moral and ethical aspects of our duty of care to animals under our care. We heard wide-ranging speeches from across the country, including from the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), a powerful advocate for animal welfare, made some very thoughtful comments about the principles of labelling.

The speeches culminated in the presentation from my friend and veterinary colleague the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Full credit to him for quoting James Herriot—I must remember to do that next time.

Like all petition debates, we are having this debate because more than 100,000 people across the country signed the petition. As it stands today, more than 105,000 people have signed this petition, including 182 in my constituency of Epping Forest, and many others have written to me on this issue. I thank them all for allowing us to debate this important animal and bird welfare issue. It is important to have this opportunity to hold the new Government to account on their plans to improve animal welfare.

As Members are no doubt aware, the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in improving animal welfare, such as banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, with the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, and increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021. Pivotally, we enshrined animal sentience, which we have heard a lot about today, in UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the very important Animal Sentience Committee, which ensures that any new legislation pays due regard to animal welfare.

We should be incredibly proud that, in the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards. As I have said many times before, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world in that regard. I again pay tribute to our farmers, growers and producers who help to feed the nation and nurture our precious environment.

However, it is right that we continue to raise the bar, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss further the use of cages and crates for farmed animals. The Opposition have made it clear—I did so just this month, on 3 June, during a debate on animal welfare standards in farming—that we support banning cages or close confinement systems where clear scientific evidence demonstrates that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the UK’s existing legislation on the use of cages and crates, including: the ban on keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; the ban on keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and the ban on the use of battery cages for laying hens, introduced in 2012. Under the previous Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates no longer to be used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states:

“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.”

On poultry, it is also welcome that the market has been very influential in moving away from using cages for laying hens, and instead working towards alternative systems, including free range and barn. It is greatly welcome that this has also been driven by retailers acknowledging their role in raising welfare standards, with the transition to non-cage egg production being accelerated in recent years by major supermarkets committing to ending, by 2025, the sale of shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages, with some supermarkets also extending that commitment to products containing liquid or powdered egg.

About 75% of British eggs come from free-range, barn and organic production systems, which is a clear testament to the improved picture of bird welfare that we have seen in recent years. In particular, it is a testament to all those across the supply chains, from farmers to retailers, who have acted in the interests of bird and animal welfare. I very much acknowledge that today.

Further work with farmers—I stress “with” rather than “to” farmers—has been a key take-home message from today’s debate. Further work is still needed with farmers, supermarkets and other retailers to ensure that the figure increases in the years to come, and I hope the Government can commit to that today.

To return to the porcine sector, the Government have been asked whether they have plans to support free farrowing systems or to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates for pigs. The Minister has previously confirmed that the Government are “considering very carefully” the use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals, including farrowing crates, and I am sure we will hear more about how he is considering things closely. It is essential that we make good progress towards a system that both works commercially and ensures the welfare of the sow and her piglets. Tragically, as we have heard, sows can lie on their piglets and crush them unintentionally. We must ensure that any new approach safeguards both the mother and her young.

Farrowing crates used for sows and piglets have been raised as a particular area of focus by the RSPCA and other organisations, such as the British Veterinary Association, the National Pig Association, the NFU, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, FOUR PAWS, and Compassion in World Farming. I note that the British Veterinary Association has called for the phasing out of farrowing crates, saying that the Government should provide a 15-year transition period by which all new builds cannot contain farrowing crates except where already agreed, to be followed by a shift from a crate system to alternative methods, such as adaptive farrowing accommodation or free farrowing systems, as soon as possible. I hope the Minister can provide further clarity on how the Government intend to approach this issue, and I am sure he will do that today.

In the revision of the animal health and welfare pathway in March, the Government stated that a “transition out of cages” was one of their priorities, and that they are “exploring potential reforms” in this area. That raises questions, which I hope the Minister will answer, about the Government’s process in looking at this area. First, can he confirm whether any future decision on the use of cages and crates will be put to an evidence-based consultation?

Likewise, on process, can the Minister confirm that, in any future decisions, the Government will consider a plan that takes into account the needs of the industry, and the impact of any moves? The National Pig Association and the building suppliers forum concur with the British Veterinary Association that at least 15 years would be required to move from conventional farrowing to flexible or free farrowing, and it is noted that there are significant costs to replacing practices that would be banned.

If the Government plan any reforms, will they work with industry to make sure they are affordable, practical, effective and, at their heart, promote animal and bird welfare? It is essential that we make swift progress towards systems that ensure the welfare of animals and birds, and that work pragmatically and viably for the sector.

While the UK can be proud of our domestic track record on animal welfare, we must not lose sight of the global scale of animal welfare issues. The previous Conservative Government made it clear that the UK’s high standards were a red line in trade negotiations, and that there must be no compromise on environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. That is why, although we may not have got everything right on these issues, the free trade agreements signed by the previous Government with countries such as Australia and New Zealand included important dedicated chapters on animal welfare—the first of their kind in any such trade deals. It is also why, when she was Trade Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition stood up for our animal welfare standards during trade negotiations with Canada, stepping back from talks to ensure that there were no concessions on our red line of banning the importation of hormone-treated beef.

Whether Labour or the Conservatives are in government, we must continue to uphold animal welfare standards in trade deals. It is not simply a case of upholding high animal welfare and ensuring that food is safe to eat; it is about ensuring that our hard-working farmers are not unfairly undercut by other countries where standards may be lower. Our high standards must not be put at risk as this Government seek to negotiate new trade deals, specifically the bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, bovine somatotropin dairy, chlorine-washed chicken products, and the use of antibiotics as growth promoters—practices that are illegal in this country.

I have said this many times before, and I will say it again, as a Member of Parliament and as a veterinary surgeon: keeping firm on these standards makes it clear beyond all doubt that we as a nation are committed to animal welfare. Other countries will then know that, should they wish to trade with us, they must meet our standards and our values. That now extends to using cages and crates for imported animal products. Despite the UK having legislated to end the practice long ago, many countries, including the United States, still allow the use of sow stalls. Can the Minister assure us that no animal products will be imported to the UK where sow stalls have been used?

Just last Thursday, on 12 June, the Government finally provided their response to the previous Conservative Government’s “fairer food labelling” consultation, no doubt due to repeated prompting from His Majesty’s Opposition in recent days, weeks and months. In their somewhat sparse response, the Government stated that they

“will consider the potential role of method of production labelling reform as part of the UK Government’s development of an overarching approach to animal welfare and the wider food strategy.”

I look forward to the Minister elaborating on that somewhat economical response to a major consultation.

First, greater clarity for sectors affected by any change would be very much welcome. As such, will the Government outline a timeline for when they expect to be able to publish their new strategy on animal welfare, and for any legislative changes in the area of labelling?

Secondly, can the Government clarify why, despite the closing of the consultation in May 2024, they were able to respond only last week? Even accounting for election to office in July, it has still taken 11 months for those who took the time to contribute to the consultation to receive that somewhat limited response. Will the Minister therefore assure the public that this is not an indication of any lack of interest in this area from the Government? Labelling will help with many facets of the debate, allowing UK consumers to make informed decisions about the food they purchase, as they will be able to see the provenance of the food and how it was produced.

I have raised this with him many times, but can the Minister further clarify how he will address the loophole that still exists in Government buying standards in public procurement, allowing public bodies to deviate from high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost? On the procurement point, we cannot be a beacon of animal welfare for countries around the world if we do not have our own house in order. I would greatly appreciate an answer to that point, as I have asked the Minister about it a few times.

It is vital that we uphold our rigorous standards on animal welfare and retain the UK’s status as a world leader on animal welfare issues. I urge the Government to treat the matter with the seriousness and urgency it deserves, and not to allow any backsliding on existing legislation as they seek to secure new trade deals with the United States and other countries.

To have high animal welfare standards, we need healthy animals. For that, we need strong biosecurity. I have repeatedly called on the Government to urgently redevelop the headquarters of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge, Surrey. The APHA is critical in protecting against devastating diseases—such as foot and mouth disease, seen this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, and African swine fever—advancing up the continent of Europe. The Minister knows that I will keep pushing the Government on this matter.

In the spending review last week, the Chancellor did not mention DEFRA, animal health or farming once in her statement, nor was there any mention of reversing the catastrophic family farm tax. There was no mention of the APHA project in the spending review—in either the statement or the blue book. Will the Government finish the work that the Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion to redevelop the HQ? Labour keep reannouncing a pot of £208 million, which is a familiar figure to the Minister. It is a start, but when will they commit the further £1.4 billion for this infrastructure, for the sake of British farming, food production and national security?

I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. I thank our fantastic farmers, who keep food on our tables. It is clear that there is much interest across the House in this issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughtful response.

Animal Welfare in Farming

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss this critical matter further. We have heard powerful contributions from right across the House. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in animal health and welfare as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

In the United Kingdom we have brilliant farmers, who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that fact. In that regard, we have heard today that we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. I am extremely proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on improving animal welfare standards in farming and right across the board. That includes the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which enshrined animal sentience into UK law and established the Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare; and the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences affecting the health and welfare of farmed animals, zoo animals and pets.

Furthermore, in 2023, the Conservative Government launched the animal health and welfare pathway—a partnership between farmers, vets, the wider industry and the supply chain that supports continual improvement in farm animal health and welfare. It includes access through funded vet visits to testing for priority diseases and to advice, to continually improve the health, welfare and productivity of farmed animals.

His Majesty’s official Opposition support banning cages or close-confinement systems if there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal or bird health and welfare. For example, the keeping of calves in veal crates was banned in 1990, the keeping of sows in close-confinement stalls was, as we have heard today, banned in 1999 and the use of battery cages for laying hens was banned in 2012.

The market itself has also been trying to drive the move towards alternative systems for laying hens—primarily towards free range and barn—and away from the use of cages. That transition to non-cage egg production has been accelerated in recent years by the major supermarkets that pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by 2025. Some supermarkets extended that to products containing liquid or powdered eggs.

Egg producers and consumers should rightly take pride in the quality of British eggs, with around 75% coming from free-range, barn and organic production systems. I hope the Government will continue to work with our farmers, supermarkets and other retailers to help ensure that that figure increases in the years to come.

Positive action taken by the previous Conservative Government is ensuring that animals are slaughtered domestically in high-welfare UK slaughterhouses, which have been fitted with CCTV since 2018. However, Members will be aware of the challenges facing the small abattoir sector, including a shortage of skilled workers, primarily because the jobs are relatively low paid and many people do not consider it an attractive industry to work in.

In 2007, the UK was home to almost 100 small abattoirs. Now it is estimated that only 49 small red meat abattoirs remain in England, Wales and Scotland. If closures continue at the current rate, it is estimated that none will be operating by 2030. It is important to mention that small abattoirs make a significant contribution to supporting the rural economy, enabling farmers to sell their meat locally in farm shops. Importantly—this goes to the point of this animal welfare debate—that maintains good animal health and welfare by reducing journey times to slaughter. The last Government launched the £4 million smaller abattoir fund to support small abattoirs. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what action the Labour Government will take to ensure the long-term viability of the small abattoir sector so that we can reduce journey times for animals to slaughter.

Following our departure from the European Union, the last Government prioritised ensuring that we had some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We must ensure that we do not row back on those standards. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will not weaken any of our high animal welfare standards as part of any shift towards dynamic alignment? Where we have higher standards than the EU—for example, with our ban on live animal exports for slaughter and fattening—does the Minister agree that we should use our influence to encourage the EU to adopt those higher standards?

Furthermore, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for breeding animals and birds that are protected from contracting harmful diseases. That could, for example, mean that birds are resistant to avian influenza, and we have seen the scourge of avian influenza across our country in recent years, devastating some of our poultry flocks. It could also mean developing pigs that are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. This technology can be a win for animal and bird health and welfare, in addition to protecting the environment and public health and—as we have heard today—mitigating antimicrobial resistance by reducing the usage of medicines. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the Government intend to lay the secondary legislation that will enable precision breeding in animals and birds, as they recently did—with cross-party support—for plants and crops? Can he also confirm that, as a result of the recent UK-EU summit, vital legislation on precision breeding will not be repealed or derogated?

We have heard a lot today about negotiating trade agreements, and it is important that within those agreements we uphold our high animal welfare standards. The last Government secured vital animal welfare chapters in both the Australian and the New Zealand trade deals. The UK Government must establish clear red lines in any trade deal with the USA and other countries, ensuring that products such as chlorine-washed poultry, hormone-treated beef and ractopamine-fed pork, or products in which antibiotics have been used as growth promoters, are not permitted to enter the UK market.

Just last year, when the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), served as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade negotiations with Canada due to its insistence on including hormone-treated beef in the agreement. That decisive action sent a strong message that the UK will not compromise on its ban on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork and chlorine-washed chicken products, which are illegal in this country. Standing firm on those standards demonstrates our commitment to animal welfare and signals to the world that if other countries want to trade with us, they must meet our values and our standards. I hope that the current Government continue to follow that Conservative example.

To have and maintain high animal welfare standards on farms, and to ensure the viability and resilience of the sector, the Government must prioritise biosecurity—I have deep affection and respect for the Minister, and he knows where I am going with this. The official Opposition recently supported the statutory instrument, which we laid the foundations for, that removed the 16-week derogation period. As a result, free-range egg producers and packers can label and market eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, as called for by the chief veterinary officer in response to avian influenza, however long that may last.

We have heard a lot today about labelling. The last Government ran a consultation on food labelling, which considered proposals to introduce clearer labelling requirements on the country of origin and the method of production for certain foods. Those proposals sought to improve transparency and consistency around food labelling, making it easier for consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing food and allowing them to choose products that align with their values. The current Government are yet to respond to that consultation, so I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on where they are with that.

In addition, will the Minister please clarify when the Government will close the loophole in the Government buying standards for public procurement, whereby public bodies can deviate from high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost? To set an example to the world, we must get our own house in order, so I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on that.

To have high animal welfare standards, we need healthy animals, and for that we need strong biosecurity. I have long called on the Government to rapidly redevelop the Animal and Plant Health Agency headquarters is in Weybridge, in Surrey. We are extremely grateful for all that it does to keep us safe and for its vigilance in terms of disease surveillance and management on the frontline. It is pivotal in protecting against devastating diseases such as foot and mouth disease, seen this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, and African swine fever, which is advancing up the continent of Europe. Will the Government finish the work the Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion in 2020 to redevelop the APHA headquarters? Labour has repeatedly reannounced £208 million. That is a start, but when will it commit the further £1.4 billion for that critical national infrastructure, for the sake of UK agriculture and our national security?

I pay tribute to all our farmers, growers and producers and to everyone else involved in producing food in our country. Food security is paramount for us, and we must uphold high animal welfare. We owe the people working on the frontline a debt of gratitude; thanks to them, we in this country enjoy a wide range of high-quality meat, poultry and dairy products that have been produced in high welfare standard conditions.

Sadly, farmers face an array of challenges because of the Labour Government’s punitive decisions, from the family farm tax to the closure of the sustainable farming incentive scheme. For the sake of our food, national security, animal health and welfare, and rural mental health, I strongly urge the Minister to consider the consequences of those policies and to stand up for farmers and animals in this country.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I ask him to leave a little time for the mover of the motion to sum up the debate.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Neil Hudson 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

Committee stage
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.