Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

Perran Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says. GMB and Beatson Clark have been fantastic on this issue, as have other unions. We should never forget the human impact of the debates that we have in this Chamber. When we talk about numbers, percentages and import tariffs, we forget that it is the people making the products who are suffering the most and facing the uncertainty.

A survey conducted by British Glass found that nearly half of businesses say that they have already switched away from glass, or plan to do so, due to EPR fees. Once those decisions are made, and once investment is committed to new packaging formats, they are unlikely to be reversed. Glass manufacturing is not easily replaced. Furnaces represent long-term capital investment—often hundreds of millions of pounds. Decisions about whether to rebuild or reinvest are already being delayed or cancelled, meaning hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in the UK is already being lost.

When production shifts overseas and capacity is lost, it is almost impossible to rebuild. I am not talking about short-term disruption. I am talking about permanent industrial decline. If left unchecked, the policy will not just reshape the packaging market; it will hollow out an entire industry. With that decline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) said, comes something even more serious: job losses.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

In my constituency we have three breweries—Verdant, Keltek, and St Ives Brewery based in Hayle. Does my hon. Friend agree that those breweries are about not just producing excellent product—which they all do—but the communities that grow up around them? Does she agree that there is a risk of social damage if we are unable to support those small breweries, and that this proposal risks that happening?

[Sarah Champion]

That is absolutely my concern. People do not talk about the impact on the supply chain. We already know that at least 350 jobs—more than 5% of the direct workforce—have been lost so far, but we do not know about the impact on the supply chains and associated businesses. These are not abstract numbers; these are well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs, concentrated in industrial communities like mine, where, to be honest, such opportunities are at a real premium.

Since I first raised these issues nearly two years ago, I have been contacted by a range of businesses and industry groups, including: UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the UK Spirits Alliance, the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates, O-I Glass, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, GMB, Unite, AB InBev, the all-party parliamentary beer group, the APPG on packaging in the circular economy, the Packaging Federation, Teva Pharmaceuticals, British Glass, and the Campaign for Real Ale. Their concerns are strikingly similar.

The EPR is not just affecting glass. Across the packaging sector, businesses are struggling in the face of this poorly designed, poorly implemented policy. Graphic Packaging International employs 57 people in my constituency, and upwards of 1,700 across the UK. It produces a range of fibre-based packaging for household goods, supplying major UK retailers with sustainable and innovative products, which are largely made from renewable or recyclable raw materials. However, like glass, they face unfairly high fees on the basis of being a heavier than their plastic equivalents.

That distortion is even greater for fibre-based composite packaging. Industry groups have identified what appear to be substantial errors in the methodology used for DEFRA’s EPR fee calculations for fibre-based packaging. By way of example, in the EPR fee cost breakdown, the cost of FBC collection is more than twice that of paper and board, yet it is collected for recycling with paper and board. How can the costs to local authorities be so radically different?

Similar anomalies are observed with other EPR cost categories, including sorting, residual collection and handling and disposal overheads. Costs for managing FBC should be similar to those for paper and board, yet are wildly disproportionate. Industry groups believe that that results from DEFRA seeming to have used data for another, wholly distinct type of FBC—beverage cartons—in its FBC fee calculation. Such elementary errors risk undermining the EPR’s core objectives. The Alliance for Fibre-Based Packaging has already reported evidence that long-standing shifts away from plastic towards more sustainable alternatives are slowing and, in some cases, reversing altogether.

Animal Abusers

Perran Moon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier]

I think that is a separate issue, but legislation on XL bullies already exists and it needs to be properly enforced.

Animal abuse convictions are most often made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and sexual abuse is covered by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. An individual convicted under the Animal Welfare Act can face up to five years in prison and can be subject to a court-issued disqualification order preventing them from owning animals for the rest of their life, although the court decides the specific terms of the order.

The experts I spoke to in preparation for this debate—I thank Claire McParland, Dr David Martin and Mark Randell—agree that the current legislative framework is a significant improvement on the previous legislation, under which animal cruelty was largely prosecuted as criminal damage and sentences were often a little lenient for organised crime. The Government note in their response that all

“offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are currently stored on the Police National Computer. This information may be shared with appropriate organisations”

and with members of the public in specific circumstances. However, the records of convictions under the earlier legislation are less comprehensive.

Under the current system, the reporting of suspected offences is an inevitable challenge. Most reports of animal abuse come from the public, which makes enforcement more reactive than preventive. One risk of a national register is that it could make people less likely to report, because they may assume that the authorities already have the matter in hand. Once the RSPCA begins to investigate a report, it can request information from the police about any previous convictions, but that process can be slow and there is no guarantee that the police will release the information. A dedicated national register would, of course, make that easier.

Another route through which animal abuse can be investigated is when police forces discover abuse while investigating other reports. Dr David Martin, who has decades of experience as an expert witness in animal abuse cases, stressed to me that the collaboration between the police and the RSPCA is very effective in England, Scotland and Wales. Local teams know who to call when they have a query or come across animal abuse in their day-to-day activities. On the other hand, Mark Randell, a former police officer who has spent decades campaigning for improvements to the police response to animal abuse, said that identifying animal abuse is not standardised across police forces, and understanding of how animal abuse fits into broader safeguarding varies greatly between police forces across the country. We should consider standardised training so that there is not a postcode lottery.

Despite the difficulties, the RSPCA successfully prosecutes hundreds of cases each year. Although disqualification orders are at the discretion of the court, the petition requests that bans be made automatic upon conviction. That might reduce instances of animal abuse, especially if coupled with a national register available to vets and rehoming charities. However, in a liberal democracy, we evaluate proposals for punishing crimes based not simply on how effectively they prevent recurrence, but on whether the punishment is proportionate, and it is not clear that automatic lifetime bans are proportionate.

An automatic ban has no regard for whether the perpetrator is entirely responsible for their crime. For example, they could be in a coercive or controlling relationship, or could themselves be a victim of abuse, which might drive them to inflict harm on animals. In such cases, it is harder to establish with certainty that they are responsible for the crime, so an automatic ban may be disproportionate.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Across Cornwall, there are dozens of cases of animal abuse every year and animal abuse is a blight on our duchy, so I welcome the principle of an abuser register. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not just add perpetrators to the register, but ensure that the threat of custodial sentences is strong enough that they know they will be punished for their crimes?

[Jacob Collier]

I agree. The threat of prosecution was strengthened by the 2006 Act, which has aided in preventing abuse. When the Government review the animal welfare legislation, they should take that into consideration.

A lifetime ban ignores the possibility that offenders may change their ways. In this country, we believe that those who break the law can be rehabilitated into law-abiding society. Imagine a case in which a child or young adult commits abuse against an animal. What if they are locking that animal in a cupboard to protect it from a violent parent? A lifetime ban would mean that they would be unable to have such a pet in their retirement, which feels disproportionate.

When the argument is considered from that perspective, the discretionary nature of disqualification orders appears to be a strength: judges have the freedom to consider the offender’s circumstances, which may have motivated the crime. None the less, it may be the case that disqualification orders need to be issued more regularly to prevent recurrence. Guidelines could be changed to make them time-limited orders when a certain level or kind of abuse has been committed.

As for the national register, the RSPCA has repeatedly stated that it is unreasonably difficult for it to access the history of an alleged offender. How the register works in practice must be considered carefully. Bea wants the register to be accessible to appropriate organisations, but not the general public, which would avoid giving rise to animal abuse vigilantism, the likes of which we have seen spreading on social media in other cases.

Alongside access, there is also the question of what information the register should contain. A public register may be less effective if it is simply a snapshot of past offending. As I noted earlier, convictions under the Animal Welfare Act are only part of the picture, and a register of convictions is not as detailed as the archive of RSPCA intelligence. Information must be comprehensive and up to date if it is to be truly effective for relevant agencies.

A more useful alternative might therefore be a disclosure scheme akin to Clare’s law, which enables police to disclose information about an individual’s history of violence or abuse where there is a credible risk to their partner. That scheme is on a statutory footing, requiring police forces to give reasons if they do not wish to make a disclosure. The family of Holly Bramley have been campaigning for an animal abuse register and police disclosure scheme since her tragic murder in 2023. Holly’s killer was a prolific abuser and killer of animals and he used the threat of animal abuse to control Holly. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence cannot be ignored, and it is key to this debate. We owe it to Holly to take action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all my constituents and everybody else who signed the e-petition. Of course, I also thank Bea, who is in the Public Gallery today, for bringing this issue to light.

This topic matters deeply to people across the country, including in my constituency. People expect those who cause suffering to an animal to face serious consequences. More than that, they expect the law to prevent another animal from ever being put at risk again. At home, our dog Foggy is a treasured member of our family, and that is how most people feel about their pets. They rely on us, they trust us and they absolutely deserve to be safe in our care.

I recently received a letter about today’s debate from a 13-year-old constituent, who is worried that someone convicted of animal abuse could go on to have another animal and cannot understand why someone who has already shown cruelty towards an animal should be given another opportunity to cause harm. It was a powerful letter, not because it came from a young person—although that certainly made it all the more striking—but because it put the matter so plainly: why should we wait until another animal has suffered before we act?

As we have heard, important powers are already available to the courts under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those convicted of an offence can be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them, taking part in their care, influencing how they are kept, dealing in them or transporting them. Those powers absolutely matter. Increasing the maximum sentences for the most serious animal cruelty offences was an important step forward, but the petition raises a fair question: is the current system clear, consistent and practical enough to stop people who have been banned simply going elsewhere and acquiring another animal? A conviction may be recorded and a disqualification order may be made, but what happens when someone approaches a rescue centre, a breeder or another organisation to take on an animal? How does that organisation know whether the person standing in front of them has a history of serious cruelty or has been banned by a court from keeping animals? At present, the answer seems far too uncertain.

[Perran Moon]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we surely need to close the loophole whereby banned owners can give their pets or farm animals to their wife or husband to own, and still live with them?

[Lee Pitcher]

Absolutely; there is no place for legal loopholes like that in our country, where we love our animals so much.

The Government have referred to the police national computer and to existing arrangements for information sharing. I recognise that there are important safeguards around personal information and data protection that we must be aware of, but a record held somewhere in the system is not the same as a practical safeguarding tool that can stop a banned person acquiring another animal. That is the point behind the petition, and it is a point that we should take very seriously. This Labour Government were elected on a commitment to strengthen animal welfare, including through action on puppy farming and smuggling, snare traps, trail hunting and hunting trophies. We should now look carefully at whether the animal protection provided after a cruelty conviction is strong enough in practice.

I believe there is a serious case for a properly governed national safeguarding scheme for those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences and subject to ownership bans. It would not need to be a public database. This should not be about naming and shaming people or allowing uncontrolled access to sensitive information; it should be a proportionate safeguarding measure, with clear rules on who can make a check, when they can do so, and what information they can receive. It can be managed, is what I am saying.

Animal rescue and rehoming organisations, veterinary professionals, local authorities, licensing bodies and responsible breeders should be able to establish whether an individual is prohibited from keeping an animal before an animal is placed in that person’s care. We rightly recognise that information sometimes needs to be shared to protect children, vulnerable adults and the wider public. I believe we should be willing to consider a careful and proportionate approach that protects animals from people with a proven record of cruelty or neglect.

The petition calls for automatic life bans following convictions for animal abuse or neglect. I understand why it has attracted such strong support. For the gravest cases, particularly those involving deliberate, sustained or repeated cruelty, the future protection of animals must be at the heart of the court’s decision. There should be a strong presumption that someone who has shown such serious cruelty should not be entrusted with the care of an animal again. Courts must retain the ability to consider the individual circumstances of the case, but where a serious offender receives only a short ban, or no ban at all, there should be clear reasons for that decision.

This is not simply about punishment; it is about prevention. Animal cruelty can be part of a wider pattern of harm, as we have heard. It can sit alongside coercive control, domestic abuse and violence within a household, which makes early identification and effective safeguarding even more important, so I ask the Minister to look carefully at what more can be done. Will the Government consider consulting on a national animal welfare safeguarding disclosure scheme, so that responsible organisations can check whether a prospective owner has been convicted of serious cruelty or banned from keeping animals previously? Will the Government consider whether the law should create a stronger expectation of lengthy and, where appropriate, lifetime ownership bans in serious and repeated cases? Will they also publish clearer information on the number of disqualification orders made, how long they last, how often they are breached, and what action is taken when they are ignored?

My 13-year-old constituent is not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for a system that works, before another animal is intentionally harmed. That is a basic test of whether our animal welfare laws are doing what the public expect them to do. For my 13-year-old constituent, for Bea, for all those who signed the petition and for every wonderful, beautiful animal we love, we should always try to meet that test.

Oral Answers to Questions

Perran Moon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure about this, but I call Perran Moon.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Horticulture plays a significant part in the farming economy of Wales, as it does for Wales’s Celtic cousins in Cornwall. The seasonal worker scheme is only announced at the end of the year, when the horticultural industry begins picking—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That was a poor effort, to be honest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her excitement at having the first ever bathing water designation in the city of London. There will obviously be extremely high standards when it comes to any waste water that comes from any treatment plant. One thing we are doing through the White Paper—in fact, I met Sir Chris Whitty yesterday—is to look really seriously at public health and waste water, and what we can do to ensure the highest possible standards so that it is safe for people to enjoy all designated bathing areas.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Some 80% of the world’s cut daffodils come from Cornwall. The horticultural industry is totally reliant on the seasonal worker scheme, but the numbers for that are only announced annually at the end of the year, whereas the daffodil harvest begins in Cornwall in January. Can Ministers help me to lobby the Home Office for a rolling two-year scheme announced no later than October each year?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I lobby the Home Office constantly on quite a lot of things; I will certainly make sure that daffodils are also taken into account.

Woodland Creation

Perran Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this important debate.

Many people move to Cornwall precisely because of our natural beauty and our woodland areas. For us Cornish, those areas represent a vital aspect of Cornish wellbeing and our identity. Many of our woodland areas are globally significant, and include Cornish native mountain ash and Cornish elm, and our high Cornish hedges are home to entire ecosystems. But on the evening of 8 January this year, residents across Cornwall received alerts on their mobile phones of a red weather warning. Winds reached up to 111 mph in some locations, blasting roofs from buildings, bringing down telephone lines and ripping huge trees from their roots to the ground.

Tens of thousands of trees were toppled in west Cornwall alone, as the storm blew in from the Atlantic. Some of them had stood for 90 years, surviving the second world war and even the great storm of 1987. The first to suffer some of the most severe damage were on the Isles of Scilly, including the island of Tresco, which I know well, where trees—huge, ancient trees—were brought down in the world-famous, tropical Abbey Garden. St Michael’s Mount lost around 80% of the trees on its northern slopes, with many more so badly damaged that they will now have to be felled. Considerable damage extended across my constituency, into and around Mawnan Smith, Trebah garden and Glendurgan.

While our communities and those charged with protecting our unique woodland areas have shown remarkable resilience, Storm Goretti has brought into sharp focus the urgent need for future-proofing and for increased support for planting, maintenance and long-term woodland recovery after what are likely to be ever more frequent storms. Though organisations such as Forest for Cornwall have established thousands of trees across the duchy in recent years, we need a comprehensive woodland creation strategy—and the funding to support it—for mitigation, resilience and long-term woodland protection. It must recognise the vulnerability of Cornwall’s position on this island and our unique landscape, and ensure that our woodland areas are restored, nurtured and protected for generations to come.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Perran Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on securing the debate.

There is much in the animal welfare strategy on which I think we can agree. I welcome the moves to ban puppy farming and introduce a close season for hares. However, there are also areas of great concern. We are in danger of effectively exporting many jobs and much of our farming industry abroad. We are increasingly going to see low-welfare standard meat and eggs coming into this country. I urge the Government to address that.

I think all Members in the debate welcome any improvement in animal welfare standards in our farming industry. However, we do not wish to see low-welfare meat coming into this country with the consequence that our industry is replaced, British jobs and British producers are taken away, and more animals are killed at welfare standards that are substantially below the welfare standards we have in this country today. I certainly do not think that that is the Government’s intention, but there is a danger that it is what we will deliver. I urge the Minister to ensure that any products imported into this country match the welfare standards we expect of our farmers in the United Kingdom.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report highlighting the massive illegal imports of meat that already occurred when his party was in government?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I thank the hon. Member for highlighting that. I think it shows that, across parties, we want to see something done about this matter. I would certainly support the Labour Government making moves to address it.

Another area of great concern to me is non-stun slaughter. I am not going to go through how barbaric that is and how much pain we put animals through as a result, but we are seeing an ever-increasing number of animals being killed by non-stun slaughter. In just two years, the number of sheep slaughtered by non-stun slaughter has increased from 22% to 29%. Under the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, animals must be stunned before slaughter so that they are unconscious and do not experience unnecessary pain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is good to be able to discuss the animal welfare strategy after the Government announced it on 22 December—after Parliament had risen and just before Christmas—in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this debate, which I believe is her first in Westminster Hall—what a great topic to bring to the House, because it finally gives all Members of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the strategy.

We are a nation of animal lovers, as has been made clear by the contributions to the debate. Members have mentioned the pets at home that they care for deeply—including Roy the dog, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I hope that it was not just Roy the dog that managed to get the hon. Member elected, and that it was his good work as well, even though Roy appeared on his leaflets.

It is right to point out that since leaving the European Union we have had greater freedom to determine our animal welfare law. We passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised the sentience of vertebrates. Powers conferred by the Act have also seen octopuses and lobsters recognised as sentient beings. The Act also created the Animal Sentience Committee, which provides expert advice to the Government on future animal welfare reforms.

The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 delivered on the previous Government’s commitment to ban the export of live animals, a practice that extended the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury caused by export. In 2016 and 2023, the previous Government made changes to the law to require dogs and cats retrospectively to be microchipped in England, ensuring that they can be reunited with their owners; I visited Oakworth Boarding Cattery and Yorkshire Cat Rescue, in my constituency, which very much welcomed the measure. In 2019, wild animals were banned from circuses, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum possible sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.

However, there is much work to be done. We welcome a good proportion of what is in the animal welfare strategy, including banning puppy farming, but I will spend most of my contribution talking about the recommendations that impact our farming sector. The Government must work with our farmers, listen to the concerns of the industry and ensure that any reforms are affordable, are practical, are effective and, at their heart, promote animal welfare. I therefore concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) and the hon. Member for Hexham that any food we import into this country must meet our animal welfare standards.

When we are putting additional pressures on our farming community through employer national insurance, the minimum wage and the family farm tax—which are hindering the investment our farming businesses and wider supply chain need to make to deal with the additional challenges associated with animal welfare regulation—there is a fear that British domestic food production will be unable to compete with imported food. We have seen an increase in the amount of food not produced at our standards coming into this country.

The British Poultry Council has recognised this issue. It states:

“Welfare will continue to be a top priority for our members…However, welfare does not exist in isolation from all the other pressures we face, and our guiding light right now has to be feeding the nation through supporting our food producers not hindering them.”

That is why it was so frustrating to learn this week—despite the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire about eggs being imported into this country—that the Government have extended for a further two years the relationship whereby Ukrainian eggs can be imported into this country, despite those eggs not being produced at the high standards that we require in this country and industry concerns around salmonella. I hope that the hon. Lady shares my concerns about the Government’s extending that relationship, despite the concerns raised by the wider egg industry.

One point that has not been mentioned in today’s debate is the Government’s desire to change the welfare practices associated with lamb castration and tail docking, about which many sheep farmers have raised huge concerns. The castration of male lambs is an important management practice to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and tail docking is essential to prevent and reduce the risk of fly strike. Those are significant animal welfare issues.

The Government have launched a consultation, but they need to listen to our farming communities and learn from their insight. The current proposals will be detrimental to animal welfare, reduce our ability to compete and have a negative impact on the sector. Simply dictating that an anaesthetic must be used is wholly impractical and, I dare say, adds to the level of uncertainty about animal welfare. When dealing with very small lambs, it is very difficult to get the dosage of anaesthetic right. That is just one illustration of the Government’s naivety in relation to how food is produced in this country.

The Government also wish to introduce further animal welfare controls for broiler breeding—the meat chicken sector—to promote slower-growing breeds. I again urge them to continue to engage with the sector through the consultation that they will no doubt undertake and to adopt an evidence-based approach that considers domestic food security and consumer demand. Chicken is of course a very important meat product, and the Government’s direction of travel is causing concern in the broiler industry.

I also want to talk about ending beak tipping in the poultry sector. As birds age, there is huge risk associated with pecking. That issue has high animal welfare status, and hatcheries use skilled operators and precision equipment in beak tipping. The Government aspire to ban the practice, but that is not necessarily in the best interests of the industry, so I urge them to engage with the poultry sector through the consultation. There was a real opportunity in the animal welfare strategy to be really tough on food labelling, and it is therefore frustrating that there is no real ambition in that regard. Compassion in World Farming and Members in this Chamber have expressed their disappointment that the strategy does not include proposals on food labelling.

Our in-house vet, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), said that there was a missed opportunity to tackle the issue of dogs with facial conformation challenges. He made the point that between 2010 and 2020, there was a 3,000% increase in flat-faced dogs. I will not repeat the terminology, because I am not familiar with it, but there was a missed opportunity to tackle that conformation in dogs.

It is also disappointing that there was no ambition to reform the veterinary sector. The strategy fails to include much-needed urgent reforms and actions for the veterinary sector, which faces a workforce shortage. The sector not only maintains standards but should be driving the enhancement of animal welfare and animal standards. The Opposition are clear that the Government need to make that a priority, so I ask the Minister what their intentions are.

Another area of concern, which we debated in this Chamber earlier this week, is fireworks. That issue was raised not only by the RSPCA but by more than 376,000 people who signed petitions on the subject. There was a huge missed opportunity in the animal welfare strategy, which does not address the hugely negative impact of fireworks on pets, other animals and livestock.

[Perran Moon]

I have listened intently to hon. Gentleman, but I am struggling to understand the Opposition’s position on trail hunting. Will they join Reform in supporting it or Labour in banning it?

[Robbie Moore]

I am very clear: fox hunting was banned in 2002, and any fox hunting that is seen to be taking place is illegal. The fact that trail hunting has been included in the animal welfare strategy is an indication of the Government’s naivety about what is happening. This is not an animal welfare issue; the Government are removing liberty, freedom and the ability for private individuals to conduct an activity on their land. The Opposition’s position is that there are much, much more important things that the Government should be focusing on.

Rural Communities

Perran Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I am very proud to be the Member of Parliament for Banbury, where I was born and grew up. I am keenly aware that I am the MP not just for that town. I am proud to represent the small towns of Chipping Norton and Charlbury, as well as the villages and countryside of north Oxfordshire. Many people in those places put their trust in me and in Labour for the first time. They did so because the Conservative party lost the trust of the British people in rural areas, just as it did in the rest of the country. People in those areas remember the Conservatives dragging them out of the European Union on broken promises to reduce immigration, a better deal for farmers and more money for our NHS. They remember a Conservative Prime Minister who partied during lockdown. They remember a chaotic mini-Budget that sent mortgages skyrocketing and nearly crashed the economy.

I raise all that because the Tories try to pitch division between rural communities and our towns and cities where there is none. The reality is that while they are different, the people in those areas have exactly the same issues and concerns. The Conservatives left our communities with sky-high NHS waiting lists. They left village schools that were literally crumbling. They left terrible infrastructure and country roads riddled with potholes. They left rivers like the Cherwell in decline, clogged with sewage. Today we have been reminded that they have learnt absolutely nothing. We have learnt that they would do nothing for the residents in Claydon in my constituency who are suffering harassment because they complained about their pets being killed, their gardens wrecked and their children terrified as dogs and horses from the Warwickshire hunt run through their village under the smokescreen of trail hunting.

I will acknowledge that the issue of agricultural property relief has caused concern for many farmers, but the chief reason for their concern is not just changes to tax. They are concerned because they were let down by the Conservative party for so long. They know that the Conservatives sold out farmers and undercut them in the trade deals with New Zealand and Australia.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is not just the constituents of Banbury who know they were let down by the New Zealand and Australia trade deals, but the Conservatives themselves. My Conservative predecessor said of the Australia deal that it was

“not actually a very good deal for the UK”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

First, I welcome the changes to inheritance tax, to agricultural property relief and to business property relief. Farming is essential to our rural economies, and with new investment I will continue to work with colleagues to champion food security, sustainability and the key challenges around the sector, which are a result of serious decline over the past decade. I thank Ministers for their time to discuss these important issues and for listening to my views and of those of my constituents.

As an MP of a semi-rural area, I am aware of the challenges faced by living in a rural community, which include connectivity, access to work, services and education. I am aware of the impact that the cuts to bus services and outreach services such as Sure Start had on my community and our ability to thrive. Further cuts are now proposed by Warwickshire’s Reform county council to our school transport, potentially making children walk down unlit, unrestricted roads on their way home from school for a proposed 5 miles, which is simply dangerous.

I want to focus in particular on crime. I am proud to see a cross-departmental approach to addressing rural crime, ensuring that the Government’s safer streets mission benefits every member of our community. Local farmers have repeatedly raised concerns about the level of rural crime with me, so I was pleased to see that over £12.7 million-worth of stolen machinery was recovered last year, including £800,000 from abroad.

Theft of machinery is not the only criminality that our farmers face. One of my local farmers reported on the day a number of dogs from the local hunt broke away from the pack and ended up on his land, filled with sheep. Although none of the ewes was killed, two later aborted, losing two rare-breed lambs and thousands of pounds in stock and vet’s fees, before even considering the emotional damage. That farmer’s story is not isolated. Residents across Nuneaton regularly contact me concerned about the activities of our local hunts and matters such as missing pets and damage to gardens.

There are still many serious questions over Warwickshire police’s handling of those offences; indeed, they were forced to release details of a secret protocol signed in 2022. In spite of a subsequent review, residents tell me that the deal seems to have only emboldened Warwickshire hunt. Of the 5,000 reports of criminal activity, only 75 prosecutions against 58 individuals were successful between 2004 and 2024.

[Perran Moon]

On rural crime, earlier this week the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner resigned from the Conservative party and is standing as an independent for the rest of her term. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is symptomatic of the Conservatives’ attitude to rural crime?

[Jodie Gosling]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is symptomatic of just a disregard and a whitewashing of issues in my communities.

Rural communities agree with this Government’s aims to make farming more profitable, to reduce rural crime and to tackle the barriers to their prospering and thriving. If we are to achieve those aims, we need to continue listening hard to our farming communities and embed that into MPs’ communications, to make sure those communities’ views are heard. We need to make sure that the safer streets mission benefits everyone and take firm action to stop hunting, once and for all, and them acting with impunity.

Fresh and Nutritious Food: Inequality of Access

Perran Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gordon McKee]

I agree with my hon. Friend; she makes a very important point.

If we look at a map of the areas with a lack of access to healthy food and a map of the poorest areas in Britain, we will more or less be looking at the same map. In those areas, rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease are much higher. Adults in the poorest areas eat almost 40% less fruit and veg than those in the richest areas. In Scotland, the poorest adults are 10% more likely to be overweight than the richest adults. So nobody will be shocked that life expectancy in Castlemilk is eight years lower than the national average. When the only option is ultra-processed foods, maintaining a healthy diet becomes not just difficult but financially impossible.

[Perran Moon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As he suggests, those in the most deprived communities often face the highest obesity rates, and that is closely linked to limited access to fresh fruit and nutritious food. It may surprise some to know that coastal communities experience higher obesity rates on average than non-coastal communities. In my constituency, childhood obesity rates at reception and year 6 are significantly higher than the averages in Cornwall and the rest of the country. Without detracting from the challenges elsewhere, does my hon. Friend agree that entrenched inequalities in access to healthy food are particularly difficult to address in remote coastal areas?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I am going to take it that that was your speech, Mr Moon. I will not call you subsequently.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Perran Moon Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Stuart; it is a rare honour to serve under your chairship. I am pleased to speak in this debate. The petition, “End the Badger cull and adopt other approaches to bovine TB control”, had received 102,458 signatures at the final count, 389 of which were from my constituents in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—the fifth-highest number across all parliamentary constituencies. I will join them, making it 390.

It is worth noting that many of the constituencies with the highest number of signatures are in the south-west of England—I note that half of Cornwall’s representatives are here today—and Wales, where the issue is particularly resonant. As has been pointed out, bovine tuberculosis is a chronic infectious disease that primarily affects cattle. It is caused by Mycobacterium bovis, which can spread to humans, so it has implications both for livestock and for public health.

I am proud that so many of my constituents have expressed concern. Their engagement reflects the fact that Cornwall and the south-west of England are considered high-risk areas for bovine TB, according to the Badger Trust. I make clear to the Minister the strength of feeling among my constituents. Few of us—perhaps none—can claim to be an expert on bovine TB, but we can all understand the impact of the disease on cattle farming, and the deep sadness that many people feel about the culling of badgers, which are the largest remaining carnivores in Britain.

At a time of renewed interest in protecting our natural environment, including efforts to rewild parts of the UK and reintroduce species such as the beaver in parts of Cornwall, this debate is especially important. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a step change in tackling this devastating disease, and the progress that they have made towards vaccinating badgers to support healthier populations. Does the Minister agree that the aim of Government policy in this area must be to preserve our wildlife—including badgers, which play such an important role in our ecosystem—while protecting our farming communities, which are so vital to the nation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Perran Moon Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady, but with respect, the response was in my original answer. As I confirmed, the water restoration fund is continuing as planned. Successful projects have been notified, and money has been announced and given. As I have stated, all the money collected from water fines will be diverted into nature projects to help clean up our rivers, lakes and seas across the country—and yes, that money will be ringfenced.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

The interim Cunliffe report on the water sector has highlighted weak, disjointed and reactive regulation by various regulators. If the commission’s final findings confirm the assessment of the regulators, can the Minister confirm that she will act swiftly and decisively to reform regulation of our water companies?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important work that the commission has been doing. I do not want to get ahead of any announcements the commission may make—it is not long to wait now, Mr Speaker; it is only a few weeks—but clearly regulation has not been working, so action is needed.

Thames Water

Perran Moon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Water is indeed a human right, which is why this Government are taking every step necessary to sort out the broken water system that we inherited from the previous Government.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

The situation at Thames Water is deeply disturbing, and in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—the home of Surfers Against Sewage—there is now deep anxiety that this commercial insecurity will spread. With only three prosecutions and no meaningful penalties under the previous Government, is it not clear that the Conservatives prioritised the polluters instead of protecting the environment and customers?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to congratulate Surfers Against Sewage on its fantastic work highlighting the failures of the water sector under the previous Government. I am sure both my hon. Friend and the charity will welcome the 81 criminal investigations we have launched in order to find out where lawbreaking is happening, to take action against it and to hold those who are responsible accountable for once.