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

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Hudson]

Will the Minister give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

To have growth in agriculture we need healthy animals, and for that, farms need biosecurity. Crucial to that is the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which deserves our thanks in these challenging times. With the alarming recent foot and mouth outbreak in Germany, avian influenza again surging, bluetongue still with us and African swine fever at our doorstep, we must act urgently. Please can the Government release the further necessary £1.4 billion to redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge? The programme was started under the Conservatives, with £1.2 billion committed in 2020. For the sake of agriculture, animal health, rural mental health, biosecurity and national security, please will the Minister act now?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important set of points about the biosecurity needed to protect our country. Over the past few weeks we have had a series of questions across the Dispatch Box about the foot and mouth outbreak in Germany and avian influenza. We have had this discussion about the investment in Weybridge, and I am delighted that this Government have brought forward a £280 million investment there. Of course, we need to do more in future, but what on earth were the previous Government doing over the past 14 years?

Foot and Mouth Disease

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s emergency contingency response to the recent confirmation of foot and mouth disease in Germany?

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

The whole House will be aware of the concern across rural communities about the potential threat of foot and mouth disease. It is a severe, highly contagious viral disease of livestock that can have a significant economic impact, and a truly devastating effect on farming and rural communities when outbreaks occur, as we know from history.

I assure the House that the UK is currently free of foot and mouth disease, and has been since 2007. But following confirmation on 10 January, foot and mouth disease in the German state of Brandenburg, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken rapid action to protect the UK, including suspending the commercial import of susceptible animals from Germany and restricting personal imports of animal products from across the European Union.

I assure the House that the Government will do whatever it takes to protect our nation’s farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth. We have increased risk levels in the UK to medium. Last night, the chief veterinary officer and I spoke directly with the German Federal Minister and his officials. The Government have taken decisive and immediate action. The import of cattle, pigs and sheep from Germany has been stopped to protect farmers and their livelihoods. We will not hesitate to add additional countries to the list if the disease spreads. I can inform the House that this morning the chief veterinary officer has confirmed that while Germany’s surveillance continues to be ongoing, it has not as yet detected any further cases.

Foot and mouth disease guidance is available on gov.uk and livestock farmers are urged to be extra-vigilant and report any suspect disease to the Animal and Plant Health Agency immediately. The UK chief veterinary officer is also urging livestock keepers to remain vigilant to the clinical signs of FMD. I reiterate that there are no cases in the UK currently. I also reassure the House that FMD poses no risk to human or food safety but it is a highly contagious viral disease in cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals. Livestock keepers should therefore be absolutely rigorous about their biosecurity.

The Government are absolutely focused on responding to the animal disease threats we face, protecting animal health and welfare. Upholding high biosecurity standards is paramount for protecting and promoting food production and food safety, both animal and human, and supporting our economy and trade. That is why we have invested a further £200 million in the UK’s main research laboratory testing facilities at Weybridge to bolster protection against animal disease.

While we stand ready to protect our livestock from the threat of foot and mouth and other exotic diseases, we also offer our support to our European neighbours as they face this threat to their livestock, farming and rural communities. I can assure the House that the Government will be decisive and take the necessary action to protect our farmers from foot and mouth disease.

[Dr Hudson]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I declare a strong personal and professional interest. As a veterinary surgeon I supervised some of the animal culls in the 2001 outbreak, witnessing sights I never want to see again.

The confirmation on 10 January of foot and mouth disease in Germany, with subsequent slaughter and movement restrictions, is sending shockwaves around Europe and the UK. We have requested this urgent question as no statement was provided to the House on Monday or Tuesday. The shadow DEFRA Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is unable to be with us today as she is at the LAMMA show in Birmingham speaking to agricultural manufacturers and farmers.

In 2001, the foot and mouth outbreak resulted in more than 6 million animals being culled and cost £12.8 billion in today’s prices. It devastated the farming community, and farmers want reassurance that action is been taken to protect our borders, their livestock and their livelihoods.

The mental health impacts of foot and mouth cannot be overstated. Can the Minister reassure us that the announced movement restrictions are fully in place for animals and products coming to the UK from the affected area? Will the Government think about extending the ban to personal imports of meat and milk products unless accompanied by veterinary documentation? Can the Minister update us on the work tracing possible movements of products from Germany? What advice is there about movements of people and vehicles from the area in terms of fomite transmission of the virus? And, heaven forbid, if foot and mouth ever enters the United Kingdom, what is the situation regarding vaccine supply and potential deployment?

Finally, I pay tribute to the chief vets and the veterinary and animal officers and scientists and officials at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, who do so much to keep our country biosecure. This foot and mouth disease wake-up call is yet more evidence that the Government must now commit to fully fund the redevelopment of the APHA HQ in Weybridge. I urge the Government from the bottom of my heart to fully fund that redevelopment, to make sure that the burning pyres of slaughtered animals, as well as the economic and mental health devastation of foot and mouth disease, remain resolutely confined to the history books.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I fully appreciate the expertise and passion the hon. Gentleman brings to this subject; he knows of what he speaks. I hope I made it clear in my initial reply just how seriously the Government take these issues. I spoke to him earlier this morning ahead of a Delegated Legislation Committee to make it clear that we would work on a cross-party basis to tackle this, should it come to our shores.

I will try to address the hon. Member’s questions, particularly those around vaccination, because that is always raised and is always of concern.

We are absolutely ready in case that is a control that we need to implement. According to the general advice with regard to control measures, if an outbreak were to occur in the UK, vaccination is a control option that would be considered by DEFRA and devolved Administrations at the outset, in addition to culling and immediate movement controls. I can assure the shadow Minister that the UK vaccine bank holds vaccines for a range of foot and mouth disease serotypes. I can also assure him that there is good, close working with the devolved Administrations on this matter and that we are working in harmony.

On the movement of personally carried goods, I remind the shadow Minister that this Government strengthened those controls at the borders. I am confident that we are doing everything possible at the moment to ensure that we are following the right procedures, given the risk assessments that have been carried out. Our sincere hope is obviously that this does not extend beyond the Brandenburg area, but we are absolutely ready to deal with those issues.

On the investment at Weybridge, as I have said, we have committed an initial £200 million. This is a debate we have been having for some time, and I am afraid that we are working with the resources we have now. However, I am confident that we have a very good set of procedures in place to tackle any potential incursion.

Biosecurity

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), not just for securing this important debate—and for winning South Norfolk, which is very precious to me—but for his continued commitment to championing our agriculture sector. East Anglia is a crucial part of the UK’s livestock and, in particular, arable sectors and provides quality produce that underpins our nation’s food security and is in demand across Europe and beyond.

We have had a thoughtful and sensible discussion this morning. Let me start by reiterating the Government’s total commitment to all those who work in the agriculture and horticulture sectors, and all those beyond. They are on the frontline, not only producing our food but protecting our national biosecurity. I was struck by the passionate interventions by all speakers this morning. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talking about the impact that bovine TB has on people. I was struck by the account that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) gave of walking through Thetford and seeing the dead birds after the avian influenza outbreak. Of course, I could not help but be struck by the way my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) summed up biosecurity as being like a Yorkshire wall—solid, well-built and designed to keep out things we do not want here. I paraphrase, but he gave a very good account of what we are trying to achieve.

I also listened closely to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). I do not think anyone could have failed to be moved by his powerful personal account of the foot and mouth outbreak, and I echo his warm words for those in our Government Departments, such as the chief vet, Christine Middlemiss, for the work they do. I think there is actually a lot of agreement in the Chamber this morning about the importance of the issue and our support for those working on it.

Biosecurity is vital. It underpins safe food, protects animal and plant health, and supports a prosperous economy and trade. It is a joint endeavour: Government, animal keepers, horticulturists and the public must do everything we can collectively to keep disease out. As we have heard from Members this morning, the costs are significant. Plant diseases alone are estimated to cost the global economy over $220 billion annually, and up to 40% of global crop production is lost to pests each year. Those are huge numbers, and are sadly unlikely to reduce as climate change drives the geographic expansion and the host range of pests and diseases. Healthy plants and animals are not just an important tool in the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss, but contribute directly to many of the UN’s sustainable development goals—in particular, ending hunger, achieving food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture.

Pests and diseases know no borders. New and emerging threats are often the result of trade and globalisation, and are then further exacerbated by climate change. Safe trade is essential to food security in a thriving economy. We want healthy trade to support food security and the economy, but at the same time we need to protect ourselves from risks. That is why DEFRA is a key delivery Department of the UK biological security strategy, which takes a UK-wide approach that strengthens deterrence and resilience, projects global leadership and exploits opportunities for UK prosperity. In parallel, the environmental improvement plan sets out how we will improve our environment at home and abroad, including through enhancing biosecurity. I can assure the House that we have in place robust measures to maintain and improve our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond and recover from outbreaks that affect animals and that affect plants.

One of our first defences is to understand the threats and monitor the risks, which we do through established expert groups, the veterinary risk group, the human animal infections and risk surveillance group, and the plant health risk group. Our programmes of research support the expert groups. For example, for plant health, DEFRA has invested more than £8 million into ash dieback research, including the world’s largest screening trials for resistant trees, the Living Ash Project, while for animal health, DEFRA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council are funding £6.5 million of research projects to better forecast, understand, mitigate and avoid vector-borne diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks.

Our second line of defence is detection through strong surveillance systems. Our network of official laboratories, veterinary investigators, border inspectors and bee, fish, and plant inspectors all contribute to the early warning detections for signs of disease or antimicrobial resistance.

Thirdly, prevention is key. As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure, so this Government will take action to prevent pests and diseases from arriving in the first place. Preventing an outbreak of African swine fever in the UK, for example, remains one of our key biosecurity priorities. Although, as has rightly been said, we have not had an outbreak of ASF in the UK, the overall risk of an incursion is currently assessed to be medium. We continue to prepare for a possible outbreak.

To help prevent ASF incursions in the UK, robust safeguards are in place, prohibiting live pigs, wild boar, or pork products from affected European Union areas from entering Great Britain. Enforcement is carried out by Border Force and Port Health Authority officers at seaports and airports. Under the enhanced safeguard measures introduced in the autumn—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for referencing them—travellers are no longer allowed to bring pork products into Great Britain unless they are produced and packaged to the EU’s commercial standards and weigh no more than 2 kg. DEFRA and its agencies continuously review the spread of ASF and other diseases, and are ready to introduce further biosecurity restrictions, should they be deemed necessary, in response to new scientific and risk data.

Our fourth line of defence is our response capability. Our disease contingency plans and underpinning legislation are regularly reviewed to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, and that we have the necessary capacity and capability to respond. We exercise our plans regularly and work closely with stakeholders on their own preparedness.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is turning to the contingency plans, so let me take us back to African swine fever, as he has not really touched on my question in that regard. Will there be the capability to have random spot checks within the port of Dover itself? We know that the inland centre will be up and running, but it is so important that unscrupulous people coming in know that they could be targeted within the port, so that these illegal meat imports can be snapped out.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We are working closely with the Port Health Authority to make sure that everything that needs to be done can be done.

As I was saying, we exercise our plans regularly and work closely with stakeholders on their preparedness. The ongoing response to bluetongue and highly pathogenic avian influenza are cases in point. Officials from across the UK are working closely with sector representatives on the implementation of control measures.

Early identification was crucial in enabling a rapid response to the bluetongue outbreak. DEFRA provided free pre-movement testing to animal keepers in counties at the highest risk of incursion from infected biting midges originating from the continent. A restriction zone covering the counties affected by bluetongue has been established. That measure has been carefully considered to protect the free area from disease spread while allowing the free movement of animals in the zone, keeping business disruption to a minimum. On the question asked by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, permitted use of the BTV-3 vaccine is available, and I am told that just over 14,500 animals have been vaccinated so far.

To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, I am aware of reports that some meat processors may have taken unfair advantage of the bluetongue outbreak to reduce prices. That is dreadful; I do not condone that behaviour at all, not least since bluetongue does not affect the meat. My understanding is that it is not a widespread issue, and that prices paid to farmers for beef and sheep continue to be stable and at five-year highs. That is a good example of why this Government consider fairness in the supply chain to be critical for farmers across all sectors. I also reassure hon. Members that the bluetongue virus is not a public health threat and does not affect people or food safety. While no sick animal should enter the food chain, meat and milk from infected animals is safe to eat and drink.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of virus yellows. A lot of work is going on with British Sugar, particularly at the John Innes Centre, which is just outside Norwich; I understand that there is a project involving the biotech company Tropic. I have stood in fields and looked at sugar beet suffering to varying degrees from yellows. Our proposals on genetic engineering may provide a solution in future, but in the shorter term some new innovations are being looked at. Those should give us better ways of tackling this disease, which is serious, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said—particularly for our region in the east of England.

On plant health in general, joint working with the horticultural sector takes place with the Royal Horticultural Society and the Horticultural Trades Association through the plant health accord, the tree health policy group and plant health advisory forum, and the Plant Health Alliance, which leads the plant healthy certification scheme.

As I have said, biosecurity has to be a shared endeavour. The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and we are working with the European Union to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit. We have been clear that a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could boost trade and deliver significant benefits to the European Union and the United Kingdom, but delivering new agreements will take time. It is important that we get the right agreement, meet our international obligations, and protect the UK’s biosecurity and public health throughout the process.

Furthermore, maintaining our high standards requires constant investment. The hon. Member for Epping Forest made a powerful case about the Animal and Plant Health Agency at Weybridge. This Government are not in the business of making unfunded commitments, but we have announced £208 million for the next phase of the redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s Weybridge laboratory. I echo the powerful praise from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for Jenny Stewart and her staff—we should thank all those, right across the piece, who work on our behalf.

We believe that the £208 million investment will help to safeguard and enhance the UK’s capability to respond to the threat from animal and plant diseases, help to protect public health, and underpin the UK’s trade capability with animal export products, which are worth £16 billion per year to the UK economy. The APHA is also looking to grow its external income streams over the coming years to support the delivery of key services, recognising the efficiencies that we all need to deliver in these challenging times.

I have talked about bluetongue, so let me turn to the threat to our poultry sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I have a lot of respect for the Minister and I like him a lot as a person, too. I will ask a question about the APHA before he moves on from it. I acknowledge that the Government have put forward £208 million. The previous Government committed £1.2 billion. The APHA still needs £1.4 billion. I know that he cannot make Treasury commitments on behalf of the Chancellor, but please can he give assurances that DEFRA will keep making representations to the Treasury that the refurbishment we have discussed needs to be undertaken in full? The £208 million is a start to help with the transformation, but more money needs to be committed for national security. Please will he and his DEFRA colleagues make that case to Treasury? If the money cannot come from the DEFRA budget, it can come from the Contingencies Fund.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear and respect the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I gently point out to him that the country is in an economic mess and we can only spend the money that we have. That point will be reiterated in debate after debate. Every part of our rural economy, indeed every part of our country, needs a sound economic basis upon which to proceed. The previous Government did not take that view, but we will.

In response to the detection of two new cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry in England this autumn, DEFRA and the APHA have stood up the well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and assist the recovery of local communities.

We are in a better place than in previous years, but there is absolutely no complacency. Hon. Members regardless of party have referred to the situation that we are in. It is too early to predict the outlook for future seasons, and risk levels may increase further this winter; obviously, we hope that they do not. However, this situation is associated with the migratory pattern of wild waterfowl and the environmental conditions becoming more favourable, sadly, for virus survival. As I have said, I was very taken by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk about the impact on the wild bird population as well as on our kept birds.

So, we continue to monitor closely the avian influenza outbreak and any effects it might have on bird keepers, poultry producers and processors, in addition to those wild bird populations that have been mentioned, particularly those of conservation concern. We urge all bird keepers, whether they have pet birds, commercial flocks or just a few birds in a backyard flock, to maintain stringent biosecurity in order to protect the health and welfare of their birds.

Slaughtering of turkeys and other birds for the Christmas market has already begun and we do not currently anticipate avian influenza to have any impact on supplies. Further information on the latest situation and guidance on how keepers can protect their birds from avian influenza can be found online from Government sources.

Fishing Industry

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes an important point—one that I used to make when in opposition, and one that I have impressed on officials. The effort has been made to ensure that is considered wherever possible. It is not always easy to find the right times, but we are doing everything we can.

This Government will always back the British fishing industry. We are absolutely keen to boost trade, deliver benefits to UK businesses and push for sustainable fishing opportunities for British vessels; but we recognise the huge challenges that the sector is facing and are engaging closely with industry to create a more secure, sustainable and economically successful fishing industry that we believe will in turn support local communities.

On some of the specifics raised around post-2026 access, as I am sure hon. Members will be aware, a full and faithful implementation of the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels to the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is significant. We will always listen to what the EU has to say on the matter, but we are absolutely determined to protect the interests of our fishers and continue to fulfil our international commitments to protect the marine environment.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly asked who would be leading those discussions; they will be led by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office. He asked who would speak up for UK fishers; the answer is the UK Fisheries Minister, which is me. I admired the slight cheek of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in challenging me not to let fishers down in those negotiations. I do not want to dwell on past misery, but let us say we are determined to do much better.

[Dr Hudson]

Does the Minister not acknowledge that in the last year, the tonnage secured for the United Kingdom was greater, and that was one of the benefits of the negotiations? Does he not acknowledge the fact of tonnage?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I recognise that there have been some opportunities—not many, but some—and we will do our very best to make more of them. But I do not get a general sense that people in the fishing sector look back and think that was our finest hour. We can do better.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I am grateful that the Minister is acknowledging the importance of protecting marine mammals while harvesting from the seas and oceans. When he is around the table with his officials, will he address the other countries, such as Norway? Perhaps it will be his colleagues in the Department for International Trade when they are negotiating arrangements with Japan. On talking about the horrific nature of whaling continuing in the 21st century, can he assure everyone that this UK Government will stand firm and use their power in those rooms to put an end to whaling right across the world?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think we can speak with one voice from this Parliament on those kinds of issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at events such as the G20 and the G7 that I have attended, we have raised those important questions.

I turn to the coastal state negotiations on quota shares.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Hudson and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Food security is national security, and underpinning it are farmers and farmland. Labour’s ill-judged and heartless family farm tax will put all of that in jeopardy: family farms lost; tenant farmers unable to continue farming; communities hollowed out; rural mental health damaged; and precious food-producing land lost to developers or investors. No farms, no food. No farmers, no food. Will the Government please now admit that they have got this catastrophically wrong? Will they do the right thing by reversing this farm tax to protect our country’s food security?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Let me say once again that it is important to treat this subject carefully. We must look at the facts and listen to people who know about it. I was asked earlier by someone else whether this measure was wrong, but we should look at what Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other tax experts have said. There are many ways in which this can be managed, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to join me in reassuring British farmers about their future.