Animal Welfare in Farming

Sadik Al-Hassan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers.

Britain has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We should take real pride in that, but we must also protect it, both for the sake of the animals in our care and the farmers who work hard to uphold those standards every single day. Pride alone is not enough. If we want consumers, both at home and abroad, to understand and support the standards we have set, we must clearly communicate them. That is why I would strongly support the introduction of a standardised mandatory animal welfare labelling scheme on meat, eggs and dairy—not voluntary but mandatory. Such a scheme would allow shoppers to make informed choices about the products they buy and to support British farmers, who uphold some of the highest standards in the world. Data from the Labour Animal Welfare Society suggests such a scheme could boost profits for British farmers by over £40 million per year, and improve the welfare of up to 110 million chickens, 700,000 hens and half a million pigs annually. That is not a marginal improvement; it is transformational.

While we rightly lift our own standards, we must ensure farmers are not undercut by imports produced in inhumane conditions abroad that would be illegal here in the UK. Our farmers are proud to meet high standards, but they should not be punished for having to compete against cheap imports raised in low-cost, low-welfare conditions abroad. Phasing out low-welfare imports within five years and requiring all imported food to meet our domestic standards would level the playing field for British farmers and end the silent support of animal cruelty abroad, which I know many of our constituents have contacted us all about over the years. Humane slaughter rules already apply to meat imports—as we have heard—so why should welfare standards afforded to animals during their time on the farm be any different? That is not protectionism; it is moral leadership. As one of the world’s largest economies, and with a particularly large amount of our food imported, we must use our influence and privileged position to encourage others to rise to our standards.

Across the North sea, Denmark has already launched an animal welfare labelling scheme, and we have its eight years of experience to draw on. Under the slogan, “A hold on your heart”, that welfare labelling scheme has seen knowledge of animal welfare conditions skyrocket among the populace and has led to a profound change in shopping habits for the better, for consumers and animals alike.

Animal welfare is not a niche concern. According to a poll conducted by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board last year, 84% of shoppers think animal welfare is important, yet they are currently given little information about the standards involved in the products they buy.

Labour has pledged to boost animal welfare in a generation. Let us make good on that promise while shoring up the competitiveness of our struggling farmers. By introducing animal welfare labelling, we can reward those who work hard to treat animals well. We can empower consumers to reject low-welfare imports and encourage countries that wish to access our large and lucrative market to rise to our standards—a win for all.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Sadik Al-Hassan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Western. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to serve on this Bill Committee, the first in my parliamentary career—that is a tick in the box. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for this opportunity and I look forward to discussing her important private Member’s Bill.

It is fitting, both as a representative of a rural constituency, Caerfyrddin, and as a dairy farmer, that my first Bill Committee concerns a matter that impacts us too much in the countryside. The Bill aims to do what it says on the tin: to protect livestock from the very real threat of worrying and attacks by dogs at large on farmed land, by increasing and improving evidential and enforcement powers. I fully welcome those aims and it is clear that all farmers do as well.

NFU Mutual figures revealed that farm animals worth around £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023, up 30% on the previous year. The figure for Wales alone was over £880,000. Although those figures decreased slightly in 2024, the problem persists. More than 80 dog attacks on livestock were reported by North Wales police alone in 2024. People want that to change. Last year, over 20,000 people signed an NFU petition calling on police and crime commissioners to implement changes to legislation to prevent dog attacks in farmed animals.

It is clear that legislation, as it stands, is not sufficient to protect livestock from such attacks. The 1953 Act, which this Bill amends, is more than 70 years old and generally regarded as unfit for purpose. The Farmers’ Union of Wales finds that it does not reflect the significant welfare, emotional and financial impacts of dog attacks on livestock. Change is long overdue, and indeed has been in the pipeline for many years. Prior to this Bill, a private Member’s Bill with the same text was introduced by the former Member for Suffolk Coastal, Thérèse Coffey, in 2023 and considered by a Committee. That was before my time, but that Bill might have passed then, if the then Prime Minister had not called a general election in May 2024.

Farming organisations have highlighted clause 37 of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill as an example of strengthening definitions within current legislation to provide necessary clarity—and here comes my amendment, which seeks to do just that: to fill the gap to define when a dog is “at large” for the purpose of livestock worrying offences, in exactly the same way as the Conservatives’ Bill, but by amending the 1953 Act. The definition informs the Bill’s provision and would give dog owners—and for that matter farmers—clarity on what constitutes keeping their dog under control when livestock is present, and on what is expected of them. The Bill sets out consequences for when a dog owner does not meet those expectations.

This is not a perfect amendment and it would not fix everything, but it calls for all dogs to be kept on a lead in fields near or adjacent to livestock, which is something that the Minister himself wanted to add to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill when it was in Committee. My amendment would provide some extra definition to help to tackle the issue of dog attacks on livestock. It does not reinvent the wheel, but rather tries again to put into legislation what was already in motion and had been supported in the past.

I want to give a few figures. In a survey last month, 87% of farmers said they had experienced dog attacks on their sheep flocks in the last 12 months, and 78% said that dogs had not been put on a lead during those incidents. Some 80% of farmers reported negative experiences from the dog owners, and 43% had to euthanise the sheep after a worrying attack. These are just statistics, but they are important—they represent people’s lives and their livelihoods.

A lack of awareness and responsibility among dog owners will likely remain an issue in the tackling of livestock worrying by dogs, but my amendment would provide some of the clarity that we need on owners’ responsibility when controlling their own dogs or dogs in their charge, and what that means. I hope that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is open to supporting the amendment, as it was first proposed by her own Government.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. Farming plays an important role in the local economy of North Somerset. Since being elected last year, I have met scores of hard-working farmers beset by a wide range of issues, not least rural crime and the inadequate protections currently provided to their livestock—their livelihoods. I pass on my thanks to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing the Bill, and to the Minister for supporting it.

Farming is not just an industry. It is a way of life that shapes our landscapes, sustains our rural economy and preserves the ancient character of our communities, yet farmers I have spoken with have too often told me harrowing tales of losses sustained during dog attacks. According to data provided by the NFU, last year alone an estimated £1.8 million-worth of animals were killed or severely injured across the UK due to dog attacks. Behind every one of those incidents is a farmer who has had to deal with the financial and emotional toll of such attacks.

Farmers in my constituency will be grateful for the certainty and security that the Bill will provide. It is not about punishing dogs or pet owners. As an animal lover myself, I could never support any such legislation. We all value our countryside and our right to walk and explore the land, but with those rights come responsibilities. The right to roam must never mean the right to cause harm. By making clear the consequences for irresponsible behaviour, we encourage responsible dog ownership, which is good for both farmers and dog owners.

The Bill will give police the power to collect evidence and seize dogs when needed. It equips law enforcement to act swiftly and effectively. When people know that the law has teeth, they think twice about conducting themselves irresponsibly. Farmers have waited long enough for such measures. This is practical, balanced legislation that will finally give farmers the peace of mind they deserve.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important legislation.

Farming plays an important role in my constituency. Livestock worrying can cause serious injury, immense suffering and, in the worst cases, death to farm animals. These incidents are not only traumatic for farmers but result in significant financial losses. According to data from NFU Mutual, insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023.

This Bill makes several improvements to the existing law. First, it creates a distinction between worrying and attacking livestock. That is important, because it allows the strengthening of police powers to respond more effectively to actual attacks. Currently, it is difficult for the police to collect evidence following an alleged attack. It is too easy for an owner to prevent police from collecting evidence, such as by taking samples of blood on fur. The Bill fixes that, ensuring that officers can act to collect evidence so long as they have reasonable grounds to believe an attack has happened.

The Bill will also allow officers to seize and detain a dog that is believed to have caused an attack. Unfortunately, too many dogs that worry livestock are what we might refer to as repeat offenders. This measure makes it easier to prevent the most dangerous dogs from causing further harm to livestock.

Perhaps the most important element of the Bill is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the scope of the existing legislation. As anyone who has ever tried to drive down a country lane will know, it is not uncommon for livestock to cross the lanes between fields. At the moment, if an animal is attacked when it is not in one of the farm fields, the responsibility falls on the farmer, rather than the owner of the dog, to prevent the worrying. Including roads and paths in this legislation is a simple measure to close this loophole and ensure that dog owners have to control their dogs around livestock at all times.

Lastly, I support the move to include camelids within the definition of livestock, which will protect the llamas and alpacas at the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow in my constituency. I am delighted to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing it forward.

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

Sadik Al-Hassan Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Lady is completely right that the surge in demand for pedigree cats has also led to a surge in demand for the illegal import of cats, and cats struggle more medically with stress than most other animals.

Paired with the illegal trade of puppies is the emerging practice of moving heavily pregnant dogs into Great Britain to sell their litters. There is anecdotal evidence that these animals are brought into Great Britain to give birth and then transported back to breed again in low-welfare conditions abroad. If we do not act now to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, it is a worry that traders may turn to this tactic when we raise the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens. The British Veterinary Association reported last year that one in five vets reported seeing illegally imported puppies in the previous 12 months.

There is also a concerning demand for importing cropped and docked dogs into Great Britain, even though it has rightly been illegal to carry out a non-exempt mutilation within Great Britain for more than 15 years. That loophole creates a smokescreen for ear cropping and tail docking to be carried out illegally in the UK, where it is not done by a vet and probably not done under anaesthetic, causing a huge amount of physical and psychological damage. The loophole allows individuals to claim that these dogs have been legally imported. Ear cropping reports have increased sevenfold in the past five years, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill will provide the powers to improve welfare for our beloved pets, including powers to close these loopholes exploited by unscrupulous commercial traders and prevent these abhorrent pet-smuggling practices.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and all those involved for bringing this legislation to close those loopholes. I have two cats myself, Cookie and Sprinkles, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his private Member’s Bill that will allow a safe practice for people to have pets, which will rightfully help their mental health. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Bill is vital and much needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I thank the hon. Member for the proposals in this Bill on behalf of my constituents in North Somerset and on behalf of Cats Protection, which has sent me numerous emails about this clause regulating the number of animals allowed in a vehicle. I think he will agree that these vital changes need to be made, to ensure that we end the horrible atrocity of the smuggling of puppies, cats and ferrets.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I spent many happy years living in his North Somerset constituency while I was teaching at Bristol Veterinary School at the University of Bristol. He must be very proud that there is such an institution, which does so much to improve animal welfare, in his constituency.

To close this loophole, subsection (4) of clause 4 reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be brought into Great Britain from a third country in a single non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle, including vehicles on board a train or a ferry, and to three per person for foot or air passengers. This represents a significant reduction in the number of pets that can travel in a single, non-commercial movement. It is, however, a proportionate intervention that balances the need to disrupt illegal trade while minimising the impact on genuine pet owners.

The new caps are high enough to ensure that family and friends travelling together with their pets have enough flexibility to transport their pets non-commercially when they have genuine and legitimate needs to do so. They are also high enough to ensure that individuals are able to travel with assistance dogs and still have enough space to travel with any additional pets. The new limits in clause 4 also align with industry practice. Eurotunnel, which sees the greatest volume of pet movements, has capped the number of animals moving non-commercially on its service to five per vehicle.

Importantly, these restrictions would not preclude the movement of larger consignments of animals. A person who wishes to move more than five pets per vehicle or three per person for air or foot passenger travel would still be able to do so under the commercial import regime.

Currently, the pet travel rules also allow the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret into Great Britain within five days by a person authorised by the owner to carry out the movement on their behalf. Unfortunately, there is evidence from APHA and anecdotal evidence from stakeholders that this rule is also being exploited. Some individuals are known to pose as authorised persons to move animals under the non-commercial rules, when they are actually bringing them into Great Britain for sale. These pets should be moved under the commercial import regime, subject to more stringent requirements.

To prevent the misuse of these rules, clause 4(5) amends the existing pet travel rules to directly link the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret with its owner, in order to ensure that a pet can only be moved by an authorised person if it is within five days of the owner’s completing the same journey. Subsection (6) also makes amendments to the non-commercial pet travel regulations to ensure that only an owner, and not an authorised person, is permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog, cat or ferret is non-commercial.

Amendments 5 and 8 together, with consequential amendments 4, 6 and 7—provide the appropriate authority with powers enabling it to grant exemptions in certain circumstances from the requirements affecting non-commercial movements of pet animals in new articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation.

Farming

Sadik Al-Hassan Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

As the representative for North Somerset, I, like many in this debate, represent a rural constituency, and thus a great number of farmers, whom I have had the privilege of meeting on a number of occasions since July. The farmers of North Somerset have not shied away from expressing to me their wide range of concerns, going far beyond merely changes to the inheritance tax regime. From those meetings, I have grown increasingly concerned that the outcry over changes to inheritance tax in this House, and the time subsequently given to the topic, have distracted us from the more fundamental questions about the future of farming. That is why I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate, and for making it clear in his application that he wished to debate farming more widely than merely a discussion of the merits of the inheritance tax changes.

I start by recognising that farming is an issue that arouses great passion. We have seen that in our own constituencies during visits in the past six months, and even on the very roads that surround this building with the protests that seem to occur every other week. From conversations with farmers in my constituency, I have quickly gained an appreciation that we are talking about not just a profession, but a lifestyle and often a calling. The constituents I have met are often working the soil that their fathers, their grandfathers and the generations before them worked—in some cases, back even beyond the creation of this Chamber. It is thus understandable why there is a widespread feeling among farmers that too often this place, so distant to so many, does not listen to their needs, does not discuss the issues so pertinent to their livelihoods, and too often imposes its will arbitrarily on them. If we are being fair, I think all of us would admit that this is not a new sentiment since the autumn Budget; this goes back decades and has been directed at all parties in turn.

I want to use my speech to talk about an issue that may not be grabbing the headlines currently, but which, from discussions with farmers in my constituency, I believe constitutes the greatest impediment to a thriving farming sector. A concern I hear again and again, no matter the product a farmer may choose to specialise in, is the excessive power of supermarkets in contract negotiations and the raw deal farmers get as a consequence. Too often, farmers I have spoken to have been subject to a “take it or leave it” negotiating position from these mega-corporations, which are able to dictate price and impose unfair conditions on farmers. Many farmers I have spoken to have had perfectly edible crop rejected due to minor aesthetic defects, excessive delays in payments and indeed, as some have told me, even instances of entirely arbitrary cancellations of orders with no reason given. The fear of retaliation keeps many of these instances from seeing the light of day, and that fear has arisen due to the oligopolistic nature of the supermarket industry.

In the flow from farm to fork, the supermarkets act as a great gatekeeper, siphoning a cut from the passing traffic. While this issue is not unique to the UK—after all, a mere five companies control 80% of the global trade in grain—I think it fair to say that in recent years our constituents have become increasingly aware of the greedflation they see reflected every day in the increases in the prices they pay for food in supermarkets. These increases in prices are not benefiting the hard-working farmers who produce that food, but rather the shareholders, which are often not even based in the UK. Last year alone, we saw the big four supermarkets increase their profits by 97%, while farmers felt the continued squeeze from rising energy prices, rising fertiliser costs and rising labour costs—to name but a few things. If we are serious about improving the lot of farmers in this country, I think this is where we need to focus our attention and our efforts.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do the big six supermarkets not have the interests of farmers at heart, but two of them did not even pay corporation tax last year? It is critical to address that in this wider discussion.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I thank my hon. Friend for a worthy contribution to the debate, and I completely agree. It is fundamental that we fix some of the problems in the supermarket supply chain that are affecting farmers, and that companies pay their fair share to this country.

Farmers continue to feel the squeeze from rising prices, and I think we must strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator and give it real teeth, and thus empower farmers to fight back and get the fair deal they deserve. To do this, it will need to be properly resourced, and to that end I suggest that we look again at the levy supermarkets pay, which has not increased since 2018, despite a dramatic rise in prices and profits.

The farmers I have met do not shy away from telling me how much they love their profession, and how sad they are that their children do not see it as a viable future career. If we are to secure the future of farming, we must secure the future workforce, and to do that we must make farming a profitable business. Without fundamentally rebalancing the scales of power between those who grow our food and those who sell it, farming will continue to be an unprofitable venture and an unattractive career for young people. I note that the next review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator will start after this month, and like the farmers of North Somerset, I eagerly await to hear how my hon. Friends in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs intend to ensure that it is fit for the future.