Support for Farmers

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Terry Jermy]

The vast majority of farms in my constituency are small family farms. It was campaigning from constituency MPs like myself and others that got the changes to that policy so that it now works for the vast majority of those impacted.

Over the past decade or so, farmers have been at the sharp end of changing political landscapes, with Brexit and its fundamental change to farming policy being the most profound, because farming is an industry that plans years ahead. Decisions made today on investment, machinery, water infrastructure, environmental delivery and succession have consequences that last decades. Farmers can adapt to change and seize new opportunities when there is a clear direction of travel, but it becomes difficult for businesses to plan with confidence when there is a lack of certainty.

In countless conversations, farmers have told me they are desperate for that clarity, consistency and long-term thinking from Government. I hope that the farming roadmap developed under this Labour Government is the start of that approach. One of the biggest issues raised has been around profitability. The fundamental challenge that remains is in ensuring that farming businesses can generate sustainable returns. While discussions often focus on environmental schemes or regulation—this scheme or that scheme—as is the case with the Lib Dem motion before the House, neither environmental ambition nor long-term investment can be achieved if a farm business itself is not financially viable.

Farming continues to be treated as a political football. Cosplay Reform Members may have a Barbour jacket and a flat cap, but do they actually have a single farming policy? I note their absence from today’s debate. And what of the Tories, desperate as ever to be the face of rural Britain like it is some divine right, while completely ignoring the demise of farming under their watch? It was their withdrawal from the common agricultural policy that left our farmers exposed with no plan in place. It will be some years before many farmers will forgive that level of betrayal by the Conservatives.

Many farmers tell me that despite producing world-class food, margins are often squeezed by factors beyond their control. That limited agency over their destiny feeds into their frustration and the poor mental health of many farmers, which is a real concern.

Looking forward, I remain optimistic about the future of British farming. There are many significant challenges, but there are opportunities too. We have some of the most productive farmland to be found anywhere in the world, we have farmers who are innovative, entrepreneurial and committed to producing high-quality food, and we have growing opportunities around technology, precision agriculture, water management and sustainable food production. However, success is not guaranteed. It will require a recognition that food production and environmental improvements are not competing objectives. Done properly, they can and must go hand in hand.

To conclude, I have three main asks of the Government. First, with the Budget looming, we must raise the annual investment allowance and consider what I have called the green investment allowance, because incentivising investment in rural areas into things like reservoirs and revamping poultry sheds will deliver greater environmental benefits than many SFI schemes.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Yesterday I had the great delight of meeting with members of Derbyshire National Farmers’ Union. They agreed with my hon. Friend about making it easier for them to access capital, not just to invest in items like tractors, but in buildings and things such as reservoirs, to help them manage the change in climate. Does he agree that meeting regularly with our NFU members is a fantastic use of our time, and that they help to shape the recommendations we make to Government?

[Terry Jermy]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Government cannot pay for everything, but we can and should create an investment framework that encourages famers.

Secondly, we must significantly improve the availability of on-farm water collection and storage through amending planning laws and providing capital grants. Without that, land currently farmed will become unviable, with increasing drought and water scarcity. Thirdly, we must also focus on supply chain fairness, turbocharging a more co-operative model, such as that in New Zealand, using public procurement powers and tackling imports that have lower environmental and animal welfare standards than those that we permit here in the UK.

I could go on, but if food security really does mean national security, there needs to be tangible action and we need it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

To start off, we need to talk about the SFI scheme, which has been a painful subject in conversations I have had with my farming community. There is no way of sugaring this issue. I know that the Minister will diligently look at the process going forward, but I fear that this debate will focus on the symptoms, not the cause. The overapplication that we have seen is because profitability does not exist in the system of farming. We have so few schemes available that ensure that our farmers can get that profitability back, and we need to solve that problem.

I put it to the House that one thing we should consider is removing as many financial and regulatory burdens as we can from our farming community. Let us look at our Australian colleagues, for example. The Labour Government of Australia set themselves a farm gate value of 100 billion Australian dollars by 2030, and they have hit that figure three years in advance, because they have the farming resilience fund, which they have expanded over recent years. That ensures that in good years, farmers can put aside a tax-deductible lump sum. I believe we should be pursuing that on a greater level within the United Kingdom—maybe up to £500,000 a year—but there is something that we should do differently from our Australian cousins. We should ensure that if a farmer draws down on that scheme for reservoirs, new silos and grain stores, or investment in their livestock, for example, that remains tax-deductible. I estimate that would cost the Treasury about £100 million, and it would allow us to show our farming community, in good faith, that we are giving them a leg up, not trying to cut them down.

I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) that we need to streamline the planning process, and not just for on-farm reservoirs; we also need to look at how we can support diversification of our farming sector. However, this debate is not just about financial issues—it is bigger. We have the veterinary reform Bill coming up as well, about which I have had quite a few conversations with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). It cannot just be about domestic animals; we also need to look at how we support our veterinary practices to ensure that we can get profitability into the farming sector, because if we do not have a secure veterinary sector, the farming sector will fall apart very quickly.

The other aspect that flows from that point is biosecurity. I welcome the investment that the Government have made in our biosecurity systems over the past two years, but I still have concerns, especially about the port of Dover. A 27-mile gap until the inspection of meat and produce takes place is dangerous. When I visited the Agriculture Minister in Australia, I heard about the Australians’ concerns regarding the first flight of bird influenza to their country. They have been able to solve such problems because they take biosecurity so seriously. African swine fever is the real concern for us, and I would like it if the Minister could, in his winding-up remarks, expand on what we will be doing on that.

Beyond that, we also need to look at our trade arrangements, which are addressed in today’s motion. The motion mentions the Australian and New Zealand trade deal secured by the previous Government—which has been disastrous, especially to our upland farmers—but there have been good trade deals secured by this Government, such as the Indian trade deal. To be honest with the House, as a Member representing a huge sugar beet production area of the United Kingdom, I was extremely worried that a free-for-all on Indian sugar would fundamentally undermine our market. However, the Government took the right action and ensured that there was a carve-out. They have also taken the right action with the US trade deal, giving access to the beef market but not flooding our market. I do, though, politely recommend to Government Front Benchers that we ban Brazilian beef within the UK market; that would also be a gesture of good will to our European partners, who have done exactly the same. As we approach the sanitary and phytosanitary trade agreement, which will be vital to expanding our food sector, that sort of action would be extremely helpful to the UK.

[Samantha Niblett]

My hon. Friend is making an incredible speech without any notes, demonstrating his knowledge of this space. It is super impressive.

I met representatives of Derbyshire NFU yesterday. One of the things they talked about, as well as their concerns about Brazilian beef, was how often a consumer can go to the shop and think they are doing the right thing because they are buying something that has the Union Jack on the front—our proud British label—but if they turned over the label, they would find that the product is not from this country. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who has done a huge amount of work on fair labelling, that we in this country should be doing more to let people know where their food comes from, so that they can make the right decision and buy British?

[Ben Goldsborough]

My hon. Friend makes an impassioned plea against the flag-washing that we see in the United Kingdom. One of my concerns is that we are getting into a very easy situation of exporting our morality when it comes to food production. We cannot continue down this alley of increasing our standards to a certain level while other nations are undermining theirs. All that does is put our farming communities in a situation where they cannot fight against that race to the bottom. I would appreciate it if, when the Minister winds up, he would say what discussions he and his colleagues have had with our European partners, especially on the SPS agreement, to ensure that there will be a level playing field—when, for example, neonicotinoids are used in Hungary. Also, vitally, what are they doing to ensure that there will be a long transition period in the United Kingdom? We have an issue with black-grass, and if we lose our herbicides from our market, our yields will be harmed hugely.

In conclusion, today’s debate looks at the symptoms, not the causes. I urge the Minister to explain in his winding-up remarks what we are going to do to fix the underlying profitability issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks from a position of expertise. He is right that the more complicated we make a system, the more expensive it is to administer. I know that Ministers are looking into how a system that is not “first come, first served” might work; there are risks with that, and we should acknowledge that in this place. It is not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination.

I notice that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), did not mention the word “profitability” in his contribution. However, that is an essential point in any debate on farming. Baroness Batters’ “Farming Profitability Review” notes that the farming budget in England has hovered around that £2.4 billion figure since 2007, but the input costs are forecast to be 30% higher this year than in 2020. We need to be clear about the essential mission for farming. The aim is a countryside where farms are less dependent on subsidy and scheme windows, and more independent, resilient and sustainable—for people, profit and our planet. That is the thread that ran through the Batters review, and it is also the thread that ran through the Labour Rural Research Group’s report on the rural economy.

[Samantha Niblett]

My hon. Friend is talking about recommendations for the SFI going forward. When I met Derbyshire NFU yesterday, there was some concern about a proportion of SFI that was not accounted for—I am sorry, I do not have my notes to confirm the figure. Derbyshire NFU said that one of the key challenges was that when we were part of the EU, there had to be clarity about what money was spent where, whereas now it finds it much harder to get transparency on money that has been invested. Does my hon. Friend agree that this might also be a recommendation to Government?

[James Naish]

Absolutely. There is a lot of muttering from the Lib Dem Benches, but I am sure that the Minister heard that point.

I will conclude, because plenty of people want to speak. We should be clear that we need to fix the SFI system, and I am pleased that the Government have given indications of how they plan to do that. We must end “first come, first served”, so that the system works more fairly, but we must also collectively recognise that we must do better on the issue of profitability. I welcome the work that the Government have done to date, but we must accelerate the implementation of the Batters profitability review. I hope that we can work across this House to put those points into practice.

State of Climate and Nature

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend’s year 2s at St Michael’s show that you are never too young to start caring about the environment, but it is important that we nurture and protect that climate awareness and eco awareness. Often as kids go into secondary school, they can lose that. I am excited that we will have a new GCSE in natural history, so that children can learn about what they love—again, that is something being done under this Government, not the last.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Coton in the Elms in my constituency hit the national news for having recorded the UK’s highest temperature on Friday of 35.2°C—a reminder of the realities of climate change and the need to transition to renewable energy. Most of my constituents support that transition, but they are concerned that South Derbyshire is being asked to shoulder more than its fair share, particularly through the Castle Way energy proposal, and the concentration of battery storage linked to Willington and Drakelow grid connections. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the burden of hosting solar and battery storage infrastructure, and of nature protection, will be shared fairly across the country?

[Mary Creagh]

I commend my hon. Friend on getting through that quickly. She tempts me to go beyond my brief, and on to the subject of battery and solar energy. Solar installations can result in biodiversity net gains of up to 300%; there can be farmland, sheep-grazing grassland and solar alongside each other, and that can provide extra income for the farmer. On battery energy storage, I feel like that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Farming: Financial Sustainability

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. As I frantically go through the speech that I wrote before the statement today, I might end up saying a load of things that have been covered already, so I will snip it really short, mindful of the short amount of time that we have.

I want to raise awareness of something I have already written to the Secretary of State about: the recent introduction of crippling electricity standing charges in the farming sector. I also want to put back on the agenda using the sustainable farming incentive to fund increased uptake of leguminous protein crops, and recognising the value of those crops as nitrogen-fixing tools in arable rotation. That would allow growers to optimise the efficient use of artificial fertiliser alongside strategically and environmentally beneficial crop production methods that also support domestic food production.

I am mindful, as always, of the need to support our farmers—now more than ever. We need to show our farmers that we care by taking action to support and celebrate them. I very much look forward to reading in full this report in my hand. I could not be in the Chamber for the statement, but I look forward to watching that back and to listening to everybody else’s questions.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the animal welfare strategy for England.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and to have secured my very first Westminster Hall debate on animal welfare, which really means something to me. I am sure that colleagues present are equally compassionate and animal friendly.

The UK has a proud and long-standing history of championing animal welfare. Back in 1822, this country led the world with the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act, the first ever piece of animal welfare legislation anywhere on the globe. That legacy continues today in the incredible organisations we are fortunate to have here in the UK: the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Cats Protection; the Blue Cross; the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, which provides free veterinary services to sick or injured pets; Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; and South Derbyshire’s very own Wonky Pets Rescue in Swadlincote.

I am immensely proud that the Labour Government are committed to delivering the most ambitious animal welfare strategy in a generation. Whether we are talking about cats and dogs who share our homes, the working animals who give disabled people independence, or those who support our police force and airport staff in keeping us safe, we owe animals a huge debt of gratitude.

I grew up with pets, and until recent years my daughter did, too. Sadly, the demands of this job and the lifestyle it requires—and my personal lifestyle—make having pets impractical for me at the moment. It would feel selfish. But I have no doubt that my time will come again. I see how my mum and stepdad organise their entire lives around their little dogs Rosie and Oliver, which is why I often smile when people talk about pet owners—because in reality they own us. Or rather, they are family members.

Animals are sentient beings capable of feeling pain, fear and joy. That places a responsibility on us all to protect them. It is reassuring that 85% of UK adults agree that we have a moral duty to safeguard animal welfare.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for animals and for the people in her constituency, and I am grateful that she secured this debate. I want to thank all my constituents who have written to me to advocate for animals. We are clearly a nation of animal lovers. Last year, I wrote to the Government to request a ban on barbaric electric-shock collars and to raise concerns about the Warwickshire hunt and the damage it does to local wildlife. Does my hon. Friend agree that the animal welfare strategy will tackle those concerns, and that we must do all we can to protect our precious animals?

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know is a big animal lover herself—we certainly have that in common—that the welfare strategy will tackle those concerns. I will address some of those points later in my speech.

We have a moral duty to safeguard animal welfare, and most people agree with us, so I warmly welcome the Labour Government’s recent animal welfare strategy. What a wonderful Christmas present it was for so many of us. The strategy sets out clear ambitions, to be achieved by 2030, on improving the lives of companion animals, wild animals, farmed animals and animals overseas. It commits to addressing loopholes around breeding, to banning snare traps, to delivering on our manifesto commitment to ban trail hunting and to introduce standards for the humane killing of fish.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I feel the need to say that, like 52% of the population, I am a dog owner myself—I have the wonderful Nico Ingham—and I was so pleased to see that the Government will consult on introducing a registration scheme for dog breeders to get rid of dodgy breeders and puppy farms, which many of my constituents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages have written to me about. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strategy is a crucial first step towards a kinder future for dogs throughout the country?

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is a crucial first step. I cannot understand how anybody in all good conscience can run a puppy farm, but I understand how some people have the wool pulled over their eyes to buy from one. If we take away puppy farms as an option, those people will not be tricked.

The scale of this issue is vast. There are an estimated 35 million pets living in the UK, with the pet care market worth £8.2 billion and forecast to grow by 7% annually. At the same time, there are around 150 million farmed animals in England at any one time, comprising 22 million cattle, sheep and pigs and 133 million poultry. The livestock sector contributes £20.1 billion to the UK economy, thanks to the hard work of our farmers. While strengthening animal welfare standards here in the UK is vital, this must go hand in hand with Baroness Batters’s report and with genuine partnership working with farmers, who are already driving standards upwards. Crucially, we must ensure that they are properly supported and paid for this work.

I welcome the Government’s decision to transition to non-cage systems and to consult on phasing out enriched colony cages for laying hens. I support Compassion in World Farming’s “End the Cage Age” campaign. Cages severely restrict hens’ movement, preventing them from running, flapping their wings, dust bathing and foraging—behaviours that are fundamental to their welfare. At my most recent coffee morning in Burnaston, it was good to speak about farming again with my constituent Angela Sargent, this time about her concerns regarding salmonella in eggs from imported caged birds. I never buy eggs from caged birds, but I fully appreciate that not everyone can afford to make that choice and must take the cheapest option available.

This issue also has serious implications for British farmers, who are placed at a competitive disadvantage by the tariff-free import of eggs from caged Ukrainian hens. The same point applies for meat imports.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Animal welfare is a cause very close to my heart and to those of so many across my constituency. Will she join me in paying tribute to the local campaigners who have helped to keep these issues at the heart of the agenda, even while the Conservative Government was very slow to act?

[Samantha Niblett]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As MPs, we are pulled in every direction by many people, and it is hard to be in all places at all times, but the issues that cut through the most are the ones that are campaigned on the hardest and the heaviest. I am super grateful to the campaign groups that have helped to shape the animal welfare strategy.

I am reassured that the Labour Government recognise animal welfare as a global issue and have committed to continuing to work with organisations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health and the World Trade Organisation to champion high standards internationally and promote best practice. Public support for this approach is overwhelming: a 2021 National Farmers Union survey found that 86% of respondents believe that animal welfare standards for imports should match those in the UK, while a Which? survey found that 87% of people agree that imported food should meet our animal welfare standards.

Each year, approximately 40 million to 45 million male chicks from conventional laying-hen breeds are culled within 12 to 36 hours of hatching. It is encouraging that the UK egg industry is exploring technology to sex eggs before chicks are born, with the aim of eliminating the need for this practice. While I welcome the Government’s ambition to end the killing of day-old chicks, it is essential that we work closely with the farming industry to ensure that the costs are not unfairly passed on to farmers and that any transition happens on a realistic timeline.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. An assessment of male chick culling found that the cost to introduce in-ovo sexing of eggs in this country would be approximately 1p per egg. I visited a facility in the Netherlands on Monday, and it costs approximately €0.01 per egg there.

[Samantha Niblett]

I did not know that fact, and I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing it. One of the challenges is the lack of profit in farming. I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have committed to help our farmers to become more profitable. One pence per egg sounds very little, but it has a heavy impact on farmers’ productivity and profitability.

Similarly, we must listen carefully to farmers when considering how to move away from the use of farrowing crates for sows. While the crates are designed to protect piglets against being crushed, they also significantly restrict the sows’ movement and raise serious welfare concerns.

For many animal lovers, perhaps the most challenging part of the strategy is the issue of slaughter, even for those of us who eat meat. I will give a trigger warning now, because I am going to talk about things that might upset a few people.

Each year, just over 1 billion meat chickens are reared and slaughtered in the UK. I agree with the Government that all animals should be spared avoidable pain and distress at the point of killing, while also respecting the right of people to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. For example, a significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter to render them unconscious and insensible to pain. Slaughtermen are required to check for signs of consciousness between stunning and death. Certification bodies, such as the Halal Food Authority, enforce the standards through regular audits and inspections, combining ancient principles with modern safeguards. However, “a significant proportion” does not mean all animals, and I understand and share the concerns of those who are worried about the percentage that are not stunned before slaughter.

On the difficult subject of end of life for animals, I was grateful to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation for inviting me to a game dinner last November. I feel far more comfortable eating meat from animals that have lived a full life in open spaces in our beautiful Derbyshire countryside, and whose deaths were carried out swiftly by trained conservationists who play a key role in conservation, pest control and habitat management. I am grateful to those who help to manage our countryside and parks responsibly and humanely, even for animals we do not eat, such as grey squirrels that damage young trees.

To turn back to pets, I met vets Kathryn and Kieran Patel back in October—

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

We have seen a dramatic increase in the price of vet bills over the past couple of years. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need better regulation, more transparency and to bring bills down for our constituents?

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who picked the right moment because I was just about to address that issue. I met vets Kathryn and Keiran Patel in October at their newly opened independent practice in Bretby. They would like the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to be updated. They shared with me concerning insights about how a small number of large corporates dominate the sector, particularly in relation to fees and prescription charges.

In December, the Competition and Markets Authority published the provisional findings of its investigation of veterinary services for household pets, and it identified competition concerns. Many pet owners would welcome clearer pricing for common services, capped prescription charges and transparency around practice ownership. That said, the broader challenges facing veterinary practices and the cost pressures on pet owners deserve a debate in their own right. My good hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has been doing a huge amount of work in this space.

My constituent, David Llewellyn of Walton-on-Trent, is a strong advocate for reforming the regulations around puppy farming. I am delighted that our manifesto committed to ending puppy farming and puppy smuggling.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Puppy farming is a cruel practice, with puppies taken early from their mothers, kept in poor conditions and sold through misleading adverts. It also creates distress for the families who unknowingly buy dogs raised like that. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the animal welfare strategy’s commitment to end puppy farming, and call on the Government to ensure that the practice is ended as soon as possible?

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising the Government for putting an end to puppy farming. As we discussed earlier with other concerned colleagues, it is barbaric. So many people who buy from puppy farms have been tricked into doing so. It is absolutely right to put an end to it.

I am proud that the Labour Government passed the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, which bans the import of dogs and cats under six months old, those that have been declawed or had their ears cropped, and those that are heavily pregnant. However, my constituent Lexi Ireland is vice-chair of Basil’s Forever Sofa, which rescues Romanian dogs and rehomes them in the UK, and she contacted me with concerns that, unless carefully drafted, the legislation could inadvertently prevent legitimate charities from rescuing dogs with cropped ears or docked tails. I wrote to Baroness Hayman, who reassured me that all necessary exemptions will be provided through secondary legislation. I also welcome the Act’s power to prevent the supply to the UK of low-welfare pets, such as stray animals brought back from overseas holidays.

Cats Protection has raised concerns that the strategy does not go far enough in delivering what it describes as

“meaningful protection for cats and kittens”,

particularly around irresponsible breeding, including the breeding of bully cats. It has also called for a single point of search for cat microchipping—I must confess that I assumed that already existed.

I welcome the Government’s decision to reconvene the responsible dog ownership taskforce, which provides an opportunity to reduce dog attacks and improve safety in public areas. Although I believe that the previous Government made the right decision at the time in introducing the XL bully ban, given the tragic loss of life we were seeing, I recognise the heartbreak experienced by responsible pet owners whose well-loved dogs were cherished family members.

I share the Government’s concerns about the welfare implications of e-collars, and I support positive, reward-based training as the preferred approach. Later in this Parliament, we will consult on whether to ban e-collars, following the example already set in Wales.

The Hunting Act 2004 is 20 years old, yet concerns persist about illegal hunting taking place under the guise of trail hunting. I have heard from farmers and landowners who oppose trail hunting due to the land damage but feel under pressure to allow it. Trail hunting was banned on National Trust land in 2022, due to animal welfare concerns, and Forestry England and several local authorities and private estates followed suit, often citing environmental damage. I am glad we are banning it altogether.

I also support the Labour Government’s decision to end the use of snares. A YouGov poll in January 2025 found that 71% of adults in England believe snares should be illegal. I welcome the review of other traps, including those used indoors, while noting concerns raised by the British Pest Control Association that banning smaller traps could increase chemical use, which is a concern more broadly. My constituent Harriet Redfern contacted me after losing her beloved dog, because she believed that non-pet-friendly pesticides were to blame. Others have had similar experiences, including Lisa, who shared her anguish with me during a horse-safety ride that I attended, organised by Councillor Ann Hughes, chair of Overseal parish council.

I welcome the strategy’s commitment to exploring measures to prevent equines from being exported for slaughter, but road safety is an urgent issue in the UK that affects horses and their riders, who are disproportionally women. Mary Holland, who invited me to the horse-safety rides, is part of the Pass Wide and Slow campaign, which calls for better driver education to ensure that horses, riders and motorists are kept safe. I am sure campaigners would welcome provisions on that in future iterations of the animal welfare strategy.

I was struck by something that Sally Barker wrote on my Facebook post when I announced the strategy before Christmas. She said that

“whilst I applaud this, we are quite clearly no longer a nation of animal lovers, if we were, this would not be necessary”.

That is a valid point, and it really made me sad. There will always be awful people who do not treat animals right, so I am glad that our animal welfare strategy seeks to provide protections. It balances compassion with practicality, ambition with partnership and ethics with economic reality. From pets and farm animals to wildlife and working animals, from domestic change to global leadership, the strategy sets a clear direction of travel.

Animal welfare is not a niche issue: it speaks to who we are as a society in the main. I am proud that the Labour Government are rising to the challenge, listening to constituents, working with farmers and experts, and placing animal welfare firmly at the heart of public policy. I look forward to continuing this work and to seeing our commitments translated into a real and lasting change for animals across the UK and beyond.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I am immediately imposing a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, so not every Member will get to speak. However, if Members keep their speeches shorter, more people will get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Niblett]

I thank everybody for their contributions, and I encourage them to listen to the most recent brilliant New Scientist podcast, “The World, the Universe and Us”, in which the historian Rutger Bregman, who wrote “Moral Ambition”, asks what, in the future, we will look back on and be ashamed of. The way we treat animals is probably one of those things. I am reminded today that the animal welfare strategy is not an end game, but animal welfare is a moving goal.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the animal welfare strategy for England.

Rural Communities

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The irony will not be lost on farmers—in Norfolk and across the border in Fenland in my constituency—hearing the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) say how important farming is, after they voted for the family farm tax. That builds on a contradiction we saw at the general election. The Labour party said that it wanted to offer a new deal for farming, yet that new deal has —[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) wants to intervene she can, rather than chuntering.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Barclay]

Go ahead.

[Samantha Niblett]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way—although he is perhaps slightly less honourable because he has made false accusations about some of my colleagues, who absolutely did not do what was said.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Would the hon. Lady like to withdraw that comment?

[Samantha Niblett]

I suppose so—for inadvertently calling the right hon. Member dishonourable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I would like to think that the hon. Lady is not disrespecting me in that comment.

[Samantha Niblett]

I am certainly not disrespecting you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I do apologise if it came across that way. I wish to apologise to the right hon. Member if I have offended him.

[Steve Barclay]

That is fine. I do not know if the hon. Lady was referring to an abstention as opposed to a vote against, but the reality is that only one Labour Member of Parliament voted against the policy. People’s voting records are there for all to see.

Independent Water Commission

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady is quite right to point to the problems that we are experiencing because of the lack of reservoirs. As I said earlier, we are speeding up the consenting and the building of new reservoirs, so we have the means to catch the rain when it is falling and can use it during drier periods. She refers to leaks. The investment that we have secured will reduce leaks from water pipes, so we can help to conserve water for the purpose for which it is intended.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s statement. I am incredibly excited, not least because we have the beautiful River Trent, which separates my constituency from Staffordshire. It is home to the Staffordshire Swooshers, who have members from Derbyshire. They frequently have to avoid a “Trent tan”, but they extol the virtues of open water swimming. Does the Secretary of State agree that by having cleaner waters, we can encourage more great exercise to make the country healthier and improve wellbeing?

[Steve Reed]

A Trent tan is a very alarming and graphic image, but it captures what has gone wrong with our water sector for so long. The changes that we are announcing today will clean up our waterways across the country so that wild swimmers, as well as many other people who like to enjoy our precious rivers, lakes and seas, can get on and enjoy them without the kind of concern she alludes to.

Global Plastics Treaty

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

A number of my constituents in South Derbyshire have written to me, deeply distressed over the crisis of plastic pollution in South Derbyshire’s waterways, including in the River Trent and the Foremark and Staunton Harold reservoirs, and in our farmland, where farmers—already dealing with increasing floods due to the climate crisis—are left to deal with waste. To give credit where it is due, my constituents are also pleased to see responsible actions to reduce plastic use. At Bearded Theory, a music festival held at Catton Hall in Walton-on-Trent, the organisers use only reusable polypropylene cups that are taken off site to be washed and reused year after year.

Pollution is a global problem. There is not one corner of the world that has not been affected by the over-production of plastics—microplastics are ubiquitous; they have even been found in Antarctica—yet plastic production is projected to triple by 2060.

Only 9% of plastic globally is recycled. Most of the UK’s plastic is incinerated, with the number of incinerators surging from 38 to 52 in the past five years. Incineration is the dirtiest form of energy production in the UK, contributing to greenhouse gases that heat our planet and release toxic fumes that have serious and harmful health impacts. In South Derbyshire, we are expecting the result of an appeal into the proposed Swadlincote incinerator at Stanton by the end of July. I stand with my constituents in opposing the building of a new incinerator, but we also need to reduce our waste. The east midlands is the second worst region in the country for waste, with Derbyshire the worst offender. If we had less plastic, we would have less waste, and there would be no justification at all for any new incinerators.

Ahead of the next round of talks on the UN plastics treaty in Geneva in August, I urge the Government to continue to be ambitious in cutting plastic production. We will fail future generations if we accept a watered-down agreement. I call on the Government to introduce immediately a UK-wide moratorium on new incineration capacity and to secure a strong global target to cut plastic production at the UN plastics treaty negotiations.

Public support for action could not be stronger. More than 220,000 people across the UK took part in the big plastic count last year—a remarkable display of citizen science, which laid bare just how pervasive and persistent plastic is in our daily lives. More than 600,000 people have signed Greenpeace UK’s petition calling for a strong, meaningful treaty. That is a public mandate that this House cannot ignore.

As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to act both for the constituents whom we represent today and for future generations to come. Plastic pollution chokes our oceans, poisons wildlife and breaks down into microplastics that we find in our soil, our food, and our bodies. I urge the Government to reject half measures. Let us seize this moment to put people and planet before plastic. Let us use this opportunity for green job investment and move further towards a circular economy that necessitates less packaging and secures a legacy that future generations will thank us for, instead of the one that leaves so many young people fearful for their futures. We cannot let them down.

Waste Incinerators

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), my constituency neighbour, for securing this debate and giving me the opportunity to address this important issue.

I want to voice the concerns of some of my constituents about the proposed new incinerator in Swadlincote. I have met the lead campaigner against it and—for balance—the two companies that want to build and run it, so I want to start by acknowledging that we have a significant waste management challenge in our county. This has been identified and reported on by DEFRA. No campaigner against the incinerator denies this.

Shamefully, the east midlands is the second worst region in the country for the amount of waste sent to landfill. Even more shamefully, Derbyshire is the worst-offending county in our region, with almost 750,000 tonnes being sent to landfill and just over 308,000 tonnes being sent to incinerators. We produce a lot of waste.

A challenge in South Derbyshire is that existing incinerator facilities at Drakelow and in neighbouring Derby have struggled. The latter has rightly been mothballed since 2019, having never worked at all. The former has failed to reach its full potential because it is no secret that gasification technology, as used in these plants, has had a “litany of failures”, as described by experts including United Kingdom Without Incineration Network.

In Derbyshire, the proximity principle—which emphasises that waste should be treated as close as possible to its source—has been undermined by these two existing incinerators not solving the problem. We therefore need to transport waste over long distances to facilities outside of Derbyshire. Sending waste elsewhere not only impacts our carbon footprint but contradicts the very principles outlined in our local waste plan. We are exporting our waste to distant incinerators, including to northern Europe, and in doing so we miss an opportunity to truly address our local waste management issues. That is not to say that we need incinerators in local towns, as is being called out today.

In terms of local economic benefits in South Derbyshire, we have been told that the proposed incinerator promises over £200 million in investment and 39 skilled jobs. However, nothing more of benefit is being offered to the local community, which will have an eyesore to look at for something that does not solve our county’s waste problems. It is claimed that it will process 186,000 tonnes of residual waste. That still leaves us with almost 564,000 tonnes of waste going to landfill, so it is hard for people to believe that yet another incinerator is the answer. Are we not better to prioritise reducing waste in our county, region and country? Even when there are claims that new tech mean zero emissions, and when some of the outputs from incinerators can support sustainable practices such as creating sustainable aviation fuel from plastics as the aviation industry targets net zero by 2050, the truth is that where materials are burnt there will always be concern about the release of harmful chemicals and emissions into the atmosphere.

We must challenge ourselves to think beyond incineration and invest in a future where waste is managed sustainably and the environment protected for generations to come.