Gene Editing
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Let me congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay)—my near neighbour and colleague—on securing today’s debate on such an important policy area. He is clearly deeply knowledgeable on issues relating to EU negotiation and, as we have heard this morning, on matters relating to precision breeding. I will be watching later today to see whether he is seamlessly edited back on to his party’s Front Bench; I wish him well with that.
I found myself being taken back to what was for me one of the most rewarding times in Parliament—sitting on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee. We had many of the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has taken us through this morning. That Bill was a very good piece of cross-party work; there has been considerable cross-party consensus on this topic, although there are areas of disagreement.
This Government were elected just a year ago on a manifesto absolutely promising to kickstart economic growth. We want to work with industry to remove barriers to growth and to seize new opportunities. Key to achieving that is seizing the opportunities presented through harnessing innovative technologies. As the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, I genuinely want to realise the benefits of new technologies to help us address many of the challenges, set out today, that face our agricultural system: to meet our environmental goals, to support productive and profitable British farmers, and to meet the Department’s key priority of achieving food security. Food security, as we all acknowledge, is national security—but, in a world of many different challenges, it is becoming harder to achieve. Precision breeding can play an important role.
The right hon. Gentleman set out many of the opportunities associated with breakthrough precision breeding technologies and how they can help to transform and modernise our food system, making it fit for the future. I remember standing in fields near Bury St Edmunds with people from British Sugar and others, looking at varying degrees of decaying sugar beet plants attacked by virus yellows. We absolutely need to find ways of meeting that challenge. I was very struck by the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) about potatoes. Farmers face real challenges. We need to equip them to meet those challenges.
The Government have taken action in England by introducing a new science-based and enabling regulatory framework for precision breeding. With that cross-party support, we passed the secondary legislation needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for plants in England. It is absolutely vital that we support that work. It has also been recognised as a key part of engineering biology, a critical subsector within the Government’s recently unveiled industrial strategy. That is no surprise, because in our country we are renowned for scientific excellence.
I represent Cambridge. We are home to a world-leading fundamental plant science research base, with regional clusters of excellence across the UK. I pay particular tribute to the work that goes on in and around Norwich, particularly the John Innes Centre. I am very proud of the work that goes on in this area, including in and around Cambridge in my part of the world and including the work of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany.
The Government recognise the importance of unlocking the opportunities presented by precision breeding. I assure the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire that our commitment to financial investment is secure. In July 2024, we announced the latest round of crop genetic improvement network programmes—GINs—supported by up to £15 million in funding over five years to boost breeding research for key UK crops. The latest programme includes funding for research into precision breeding.
Earlier this year, under the farming innovation programme, the Department announced a £12.5 million competition focused specifically on precision breeding, which the right hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about. As part of the industrial strategy, at least £200 million was allocated to the programme up to 2030, which precision breeding will continue to be in scope for.
The right hon. Gentleman raised further concerns that I ought to address—in particular, the impact of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that we are working on with our European neighbours. He asked how precision breeding will fit into that. The new agreement will establish a common sanitary and phytosanitary zone between the UK and the EU, making agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier by cutting costs and red tape for businesses who export to and import from the European Union. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, on the day that was secured, many food businesses were very pleased, because of the problems they have had over the last few years.
On the precision breeding point, the EU has accepted that there will be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. With the principles and framework of a deal agreed, we will now need to negotiate the detail of an agreement. The Government have been absolutely clear about the importance of supporting new and innovative technologies, so we remain committed to moving forward with the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and we have engaged with industry to help inform our approach to further discussions with the EU. We will continue to do so.
Although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, published a proposal for the regulation of plants by, to use the EU terminology, “new genomic techniques”. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and will continue to do so as progress is made in trilogue discussions. Those proposals are similar to those that we brought forward in the 2023 Act, but I fully acknowledge that the EU is behind us. That has been the argument for some years—indeed, going back all the way to that 2018 court case. We therefore understand that it will be some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU.
However, that is a problem because this is a growing global sector and Europe is falling behind, so investment is going elsewhere—only 5% of venture capital investment in the sector currently comes to Europe. With the new regulations, we have the potential to be at the forefront across Europe and to be a major global competitor in this rapidly growing industry. We need to invest in this sector now, in order to realise the opportunities of precision breeding for tackling issues around climate change and food security. We do not have time to delay.
Let me say a little about the devolved Governments. We recognise the valid concerns that people have raised about the issues of divergence within the UK—there was an intervention to that effect today—including the concern that farmers and businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will miss out on the opportunities presented by the implementation of the 2023 Act for plants in England. That is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Administrations to discuss potential impacts. That engagement builds on regular monthly meetings with counterparts at official level and will support future ministerial engagement at the interministerial group.
Input from the devolved Governments has been invaluable in shaping our approach and objectives to the agreement, ensuring that it will deliver tangible benefits for the whole of the UK. DEFRA has engaged closely with devolved Government officials and Ministers in the run-up to the UK-EU leaders summit, and will continue to do so as we prepare for detailed negotiations with the EU. The timing and format of negotiations will be subject to the outcome of further discussions, but we are committed to engaging closely throughout the negotiation phase to ensure access to timely and expert input from the devolved Governments.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about the situation of animals in the 2023 Act, and many people are keen to know more about the Government’s plans and timelines. We are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration. In keeping with the previous Government’s approach, which the right hon. Gentleman will remember from that time, while the research is continuing no decision has yet been made about bringing forward legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to animals.
In conclusion, I again thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire for securing this debate. It is so important that we send out a powerful message to investors across the world that this is the place to come and invest. Harnessing innovation in precision breeding can help us to achieve several priorities, including bolstering food security and championing British farming, helping to mitigate and adapt to climate pressures, and driving the Government’s missions on growth and health. The growth potential of this industry is evident; we have the opportunity to be at the forefront of it. I am absolutely determined that that will be the case, and the Government strongly recognise the importance of precision breeding. Let me reiterate our commitment to that technology and to securing its success in our country.
Question put and agreed to.
Global Plastics Treaty
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, so ably introduced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). He, along with every Member from across the Chamber who made a contribution, pointed out the seriousness of the issue and the urgent need for action.
Plastic pollution is one of the biggest environmental issues that we face today. Once hailed as a miracle of modern invention, plastic is now one of our planet’s most persistent threats. Its greatest strength—durability—has become its darkest flaw. These materials are designed to last and do just that—for centuries. They do not simply disappear, but break down into tiny fragments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) so ably pointed out, and these microplastics invade our beaches, rivers, fields and even our bodies. From the depths of the oceans to the cells of living creatures, plastic pollution is everywhere.
For too long, plastic has littered our oceans and threatened our wildlife. Amounts of plastic entering the ocean are predicted to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. That is unacceptable. Plastic pollution does not respect boundaries. We urgently need to agree a plastics treaty to enable global action to address this, so with that in mind, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and his Committee for their recent inquiry into the treaty, and for their letter of recommendations for the forthcoming negotiations on an international treaty to end plastic pollution. It is a very timely input, and I read it with interest as we finalised our preparations for the negotiations. I look forward to responding more fully in due course, but the Committee can be assured that this Government are taking every step to ensure that we secure an ambitious and effective global plastics pollution treaty. This will be both a tool for moving towards a circular economy and an opportunity to showcase some of the domestic action that the UK has taken.
A circular economy is key to delivering our Government’s plan for change—to grow the economy, increase environmental resilience and improve the lives of hard-working people around the country. That is why our circular economy taskforce has brought together experts from across Government, industry, academia and civil society to develop the first circular economy strategy for England. It will include a road map on chemicals and plastics, deliver growth and fundamentally shift our relationship with the goods that we use every day, ending our throwaway society and stopping the avalanche of rubbish that is filling up our high streets, countryside and oceans, making reuse and repair the norm, and ending the throwaway society. A circular economy is an opportunity to grow our economy and make it more resilient, to improve lives in every part of the United Kingdom, and to protect our environment for generations to come.
Domestically, the Government are already working with the devolved Governments to legislate across the UK for the ban on wet wipes containing plastic. From 1 June this year, the sale and supply of single-use vapes was banned across the UK. The deposit return scheme for single-use plastic and metal drinks containers in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will launch in October 2027, which will drive our efforts to stop litter filling up our streets, rivers and oceans. I am grateful for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) about the story in Scotland.
Additionally, the extended producer responsibility for packaging came into effect on 1 January this year. It will move the full cost of dealing with household packaging waste away from local taxpayers and on to the packaging producers themselves. I was pleased to hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) about the great successes of the Labour Government, working with people in Wales, on issues around recycling.
Bobby Dean
The EPR scheme is obviously welcome and Liberal Democrat Members know the intention, but the scheme appears to have some unintended effects. The scheme will not only impact producers but small businesses, hospitality businesses in particular, who have raised their concerns. Will the Minister continue to listen to those businesses and try to adjust the scheme, so it works for them as well?
Daniel Zeichner
Of course—absolutely. We are always working in collaboration, and we will do everything we can to ensure that. It is an important principle that has been established, and I am determined to ensure that it is successful.
Next month, at the resumed fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, we will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious and effective international agreement to end plastic pollution. We want a treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a circular economy. The UK has been a key advocate for an effective treaty throughout and is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution—a coalition of nearly 70 countries from across all regions of the world.
At INC5, the UK joined over 80 other ambitious countries to make clear the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. Recently, at the UN ocean conference in Nice, we joined nearly 100 countries in signing the Nice wake-up call for an ambitious international treaty to end plastic pollution. Those demonstrate the commitment to reaching an agreement at INC5.2 in August and the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. I am proud of the leadership role that the UK has taken in the negotiations, and we continue to take significant action to drive ambition and demonstrate leadership.
John Lamont
The Minister is right to highlight the leading role that the UK has played in this matter, under both the current Government and, in particular, the previous Government. The last negotiations and progress towards the treaty came to a halt because Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia basically imposed a time limit, which meant that the treaty could not be agreed. What discussions are taking place behind the scenes to ensure that countries like those three will not do the same and stall our agreement on the treaty this time?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s well-informed intervention. I assure him that negotiations and discussions are ongoing, and we are determined to ensure that we get a good outcome.
As well as leading early work to develop criteria for problematic plastic products since the second negotiating session, INC2, the UK is co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design, and co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am sure the Minister is aware that His Excellency the Ambassador of Ecuador is the chairman of the UN intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastics. Is the Minister working with him? His Excellency is in London and doing incredible work in this area, and I hope that our Government are co-operating with him. He is also doing work toward and looking forward to the day when Ecuador can join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
Daniel Zeichner
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working with all interested parties to ensure that we make progress on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) recently co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN ocean conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries, representing all regions and ambition levels, to discuss the most challenging issues.
As we look forward to August, it is clear that divergent views remain on key issues such as phasing out problematic products, how we approach the production of plastics and financing the treaty. However, it is our sense that the majority of countries want to reach an agreement at INC5.2, and there has been substantial discussion of how the treaty addresses plastic production. Many parties believe that plastic production is outside the scope of the agreement. However, the UK has been clear that the treaty should address the full life cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption.
At INC5.2, we will continue to work on that basis, to ensure that the treaty sends a signal to spur investment in the market for recycled plastic and to collect the data we need to ensure that the treaty works. A provision on problematic plastic products will be one of the core treaty provisions, and the UK has worked with Brazil to carry out technical work to support that provision. The UK has also supported the call from 95 countries in Busan for a clear, legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastics.
Good progress was made at INC5 on text that provides a basis for further discussions. The key will be striking the right balance between national measures and harmonised global approaches and ensuring that measures are based on science. We are working with Chile to promote an effective provision on the design of plastic products to keep them in use for longer and make them easier to recycle. We recognise the importance of mobilising support for the countries most in need of agreement’s implementation. That is an essential element of an effective treaty. The UK supports the use of the Global Environment Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. That will avoid further fragmentation of the environmental financial architecture and allow for synergies with funding for climate and nature.
As we have heard, plastic pollution is a broad issue, with a huge variety of actors across the plastics value chain. To mobilise the resources needed at scale, we must draw on an equally broad range of funding sources—public and private, domestic and international. The UK is the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, contributing some £20.5 million. That partnership brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in the circular economy in countries eligible for official development assistance. To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act, and we need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is really important that their voices are heard.
It is essential that the treaty we agree is responsive to change and emerging evidence—it cannot operate effectively if one member has a de facto veto. As such, we need effective decision-making processes, including the possibility of voting on conference of the parties decisions and amendments to annexes once all options for achieving consensus have been exhausted.
One thing is clear: addressing the problem of plastic pollution requires a joint effort between Government, industry, academia and civil society. We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. Those dialogues have included actors at all stages of the plastics value chain, as well as academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. They have helped us to understand diverse views on the treaty, which in turn have informed our approach to negotiations.
In June, my ministerial colleague and hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, hosted a business roundtable to discuss how the private sector can support an ambitious plastic pollution treaty. It was the second plastics treaty business roundtable, and brought together businesses from across the plastics value chain. Those roundtables were attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, the INC chair. Twenty leading businesses have now signed a statement calling for an effective treaty, and four non-private sector organisations have endorsed that statement.
The Government are also clear that any treaty must be informed by science, and I noted the comments made on that topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). In that regard, we are deeply concerned to hear of the threats faced by scientists—an issue that has been raised by a number of contributors to this debate. Those threats are unacceptable. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the multilateral system and to an open, transparent and inclusive process.
This has been a timely debate, as we approach final negotiations in Geneva. While there are many challenges to overcome, a vast amount of work is under way to find solutions to the many remaining issues. I heard the strong calls from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and I am confident that we can secure a robust and effective treaty. That is what the UK team will be pushing for in Geneva. Again, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate.
Driven Grouse Shooting
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I start by thanking the Petitions Committee and the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject today. I also acknowledge the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who opened the debate. I thought he was going to have a shot at making the case for the petition, but he fessed up very early. It was good to see him at the Royal Highland Show the other day.
It is clear from the petition and the discussion today that Parliament and the wider country care dearly about the issue of driven grouse shooting and managing our uplands in a sustainable way that protects wildlife, the environment and, very importantly, the people who live there.
I can confirm at the outset to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) that, although the Government have no plans to ban grouse shooting, I appreciate it is a topic that understandably evokes strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and we keep options under close review.
I also listened closely to the powerful economic arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). I fully appreciate the economic benefits that come from that part of the rural economy, but valid concerns have been raised on the issue of wildlife, most notably the birds of prey that live in those areas and that, sadly, have been all too frequently persecuted. It is disturbing to hear the statistics from the RSPB’s recent publication, “Hen Harriers in the firing line”.
I heard the statistics cited by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, but I also note the statistics and comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake). There were 102 confirmed hen harrier persecution incidents in the last five years, with 89% taking place in northern England. In 2023 alone, 34 hen harriers were confirmed to have been killed or disappeared under suspicious circumstances. As the RSPB argues, it is a concern that only two people have been prosecuted for offences relating to the persecution of a hen harrier, and those incidents took place in Scotland.
While birds of prey are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is vital that the law is respected by those involved in the grouse shooting industry. I absolutely hear the comments made by Conservative Members, and we all agree that there is no place for raptor persecution.
Sam Rushworth
I thank the Minister for his balanced approach to this subject and for protecting the livelihoods of my constituents. I agree with him that we need to look after animal welfare. I do not think the economic arguments we have been making today apply to trail hunting. Will he confirm today that it is still the will of this Government to set out a timetable for banning trail hunting?
Daniel Zeichner
That is a manifesto commitment, and this Government keep their commitments.
Bird of prey crime is a national wildlife crime priority, and the Government take wildlife crime extremely seriously. There are strong penalties in place for offences committed against birds of prey and other wildlife, and anyone found guilty of such offences should feel the full force of the law. Penalties can include an unlimited fine and/or a six-month custodial sentence.
My Department is providing £424,000 in 2025-26 to the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which does valuable work to prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis and directly assisting law enforcers. In 2024, the National Wildlife Crime Unit launched the hen harrier taskforce, which is using technology such as drones and strategic partnerships to detect, deter and disrupt offenders and is targeting hotspot areas and suspected hen harrier persecution. Early signs suggest that it is having a positive impact. I congratulate the National Wildlife Crime Unit and its partners on their valuable work in tackling the persecution of those iconic birds of prey.
Grouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are of huge national and international importance, as we have heard, and when healthy, they provide numerous environmental benefits. Blanket bog provides a rich habitat for many species, sequesters carbon, filters our drinking water and helps with flood control. That is why, over the spending review period, we will be investing £85 million in our peatlands, as well as seeing increased funding through landscape recovery and countryside stewardship.
However, 80% of England’s peatlands are degraded, as we heard so powerfully from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam. I know there are different views, but many argue that rotational burning is a contributory factor in the degradation of upland areas. It is commonplace in moorlands that are managed for grouse, where vegetation is burned to improve conditions for raising grouse.
Continual burning damages peatlands, as it affects their hydrology by drying them out. Those degraded peatlands then emit the carbon they once stored. That is why DEFRA recently held a public consultation on proposals to extend the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021, to which the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and others have referred. The proposed amendments would increase the area of moorland protected from the negative impacts of burning and extend the existing licensing scheme to allow burning to be used in certain limited circumstances.
The ritualistic denunciation of Natural England is disappointing, as it is made up of civil servants who are doing their best to provide sound advice to Government. As the Government’s adviser on the natural environment in England, Natural England provides statutory advice to Ministers, but the final decision on whether to grant a licence under the regulations lies with the Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake
I apologise, Mrs Harris, but this is about my constituency. In half of my constituency, the moorland will not be able to be managed. The fuel load will increase, wildfires will occur, and it will make my constituency completely unviable for grouse shooting. Is the Minister not concerned that Natural England has a hidden agenda that will affect constituencies such as mine?
Daniel Zeichner
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Natural England provides statutory guidance and advice to Ministers, but Ministers decide. We are looking at its advice, but no decision has yet been taken.
I now turn to the economic benefits that shooting sports can provide to rural communities. We recognise that shooting can be an important part of a local economy, and as we have heard, it provides direct and indirect employment opportunities. The Government recognise the cultural value that shooting sports can provide to rural communities, in addition to their economic contribution.
I listened with some joy to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland talking about the wonders of the lek, but he also went on to talk about the potential benefits of eco-tourism, which may well be the way forward in the future. We must appreciate those things, because the Government are committed to improving the quality of life of people living and working in rural areas, so that we can realise the full potential of rural businesses and communities. To achieve that, we are ensuring that the needs of people and businesses in rural areas are at the heart of policymaking. Our priority is to achieve a sustainable outcome for landscapes that works to recover our environment and wildlife, as well as protecting the interests of people and the rural economy.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
My humblest apologies for turning up late, Mrs Harris. I was coming from a very faraway part of the UK. I think the Minister would find it interesting to come to the graduation ceremony of the University of the Highlands and Islands, which happens every year, to see the number of young trainee gamekeepers going into the profession. They are going into local, rural jobs in some of the remotest areas, and they are highly trained in conservation and land management.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I sympathise with his travelling a long way. It is not easy when some of the transport systems are not working. I acknowledge his point. I too have met gamekeepers and young people who see an important future for themselves. I applaud that university. Close work between land managers and stakeholders will be paramount to achieving the kind of future we want to see.
Today’s debate has been extensive, underlined by the wide range of opinions involved. I understand the concerns of the petitioners, Wild Justice and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. They are passionate, and rightly so, about our precious native wildlife and the environment. I assure the House that I have listened with great attention to all the points made. To reiterate, although the Government have no plans to ban driven grouse shooting, it is vital that wildlife and habitats are protected, and that the law is respected by everyone.
English Wine Production
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) for securing this very important debate. As she said, this is English Wine Week, so it is a timely and fitting moment to celebrate the remarkable achievements and growing global reputation of the English wine industry. Wine events and regional showcases taking place across the country this week demonstrate the increasing breadth and variety of domestic wine production. It is an industry that not only carries historical and cultural significance, but is also a modern success story of innovation, investment and rural regeneration.
The Government absolutely recognise and celebrate the rapid growth of the English wine sector. It is one of the fastest growing agricultural industries in the UK, with production, exports and consumer demand all on the rise. For example, exports of English wine doubled from 4% of production in 2021 to 8%, as was celebrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), whose contribution as chair of the all-party parliamentary group I welcome. It is imported by 45 different countries across the world, and that growth is a testament to the hard work, vision and entrepreneurial spirit of those working across the sector.
The area represented by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent is home to some of the most distinguished and pioneering vineyards in the country. Chapel Down, Balfour and Squerryes Winery are shining examples of excellence in English wine production. They not only produce award-winning wines, but contribute significantly to local employment, tourism and rural development. Their success reflects the broader momentum of the English wine industry and the exciting opportunities that lie ahead.
English wines have built a well-earned reputation for quality and high standards, and the Government are committed to working with the industry to champion and protect that reputation both at home and abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford asked how we can help to boost those exports. We have an excellent group of agricultural attachés who work very hard across the world to boost our exports and products. I am conscious that they are working very hard to make sure this brilliant British product is exported across the world.
The Government are steadfast in their commitment to support rural economies. We are determined to ensure that the UK has a thriving and diverse economy that promotes local jobs, boosts growth and supports communities across the country. The English wine sector is a really good example of that vision in action.
Dr Chambers
I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that Hampshire sparkling wine is the very best in the country, and the awards prove it. On supporting the wine industry in rural economies, Sparsholt college in Winchester—an agricultural college—has recently started vineyard curating courses as part of its horticulture courses so that the local wine industry has a trained workforce. Can the Minister look at rolling that out to the rest of the country, in areas that are appropriate?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is really important that we get the skills in place for the future. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Domaine Evremond and the Simpsons’ Wine Estate, and I was knocked out by them, frankly. They are not just vineyards, but symbols of confidence in the UK’s wine industry. They export half their produce to international markets, with Norway being the top destination. The scale of investment and the ambition are inspiring and yet, exactly as hon. Members have said, we are probably only scratching the surface of what is possible. The opportunity for growth in relation to both domestic and international investment is enormous and absolutely aligns with the Government’s broader mission of boosting economic growth and global trade.
We are committed to working together with the sector to support the ambitions for growth and exports. We are also focused on ensuring that the growth translates into high-quality, sustainable jobs in rural communities, exactly as the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) suggested. I am talking about jobs that support families, strengthen local economies and preserve our countryside.
We are working closely with stakeholders to improve the English protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication schemes. One exciting possibility under consideration is the creation of a separate sub-category to allow alternative production methods under the PDO scheme, which would further broaden the appeal of our wines and open up new market opportunities. My officials are engaging with local producers, including those in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, to support an application for formal recognition of distinctive regional areas such as the Kent Weald. This initiative aims to highlight the region’s unique geological and agricultural characteristics, which contribute to the exceptional quality of its produce. By talking with stakeholders on the ground, the Government are ensuring that the application reflects the authentic identity and heritage of Kent’s landscapes. Such recognition not only promotes regional pride, but enhances market opportunities for local producers, reinforcing the area’s reputation both nationally and internationally.
A number of questions were asked, and I will try to address them. The hon. Member asked about the possibility of a wine tourism relief. We are very interested in linking the production to the tourism offer, and I understand that WineGB is about to launch a campaign for a wine tourism relief. I cannot make any commitments today, because it is a Treasury issue, but certainly, it is something that we are interested in looking at. On my visits, I was very struck by the ingenuity and entrepreneurial zeal of the winemakers in linking it to a really sophisticated tourism offer—I think that when I visited, they were hoping they would not get too much rain over that weekend; it now seems extraordinary we should even be thinking about rain. But this shows how it is possible to transform not just the wine production area itself, but the local economy: the local pubs, hotels and so on. It is really exciting.
The hon. Lady also asked about packaging and the extended producer responsibility, which has been a long-running issue. I can tell her that the latest set of fees will be announced on Friday, so that should bring some certainty, I hope. She also asked about transformation. That is a complicated issue, which we will look at when we come to the third phase of wine reforms. However, I can assure her that any wine that is imported into the UK but not transformed—if it is shipped in bulk and only bottled in the UK, but not transformed—cannot be marketed as being made in England, or similar. We are very clear about that.
Sir Ashley Fox
Small cider producers in Somerset benefit from a duty relief scheme. I realise that the Minister is about to conclude his remarks, but he does not appear to have touched on the subject of duty relief for small vineyards. Will he at least give a commitment that he will talk to the Treasury about that, because it seems illogical that small brewers and small cider producers benefit from duty relief but small vineyards do not?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray into Treasury matters. What I will observe is that the 8.5% limit is part of the health approach, and I think we will stick to that.
To conclude, the UK wine sector is a source of confidence, growth and success. I am committed to working with it—and have very much enjoyed working with it so far—every step of the way to drive growth, boost exports and ensure that rural communities across the UK share the benefits of its success. When we see the climate being transformed before our eyes, that produces a lot of challenges for the food sector in general, but this is an opportunity that, it seems to me, we should really seize.
I again thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent for securing this debate. In English Wine Week, it is especially important that we recognise the passion, progress and future of this vital industry. We are committed to supporting the English wine industry by listening to its concerns and acting upon them, and by working collaboratively towards common goals.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 5 June and which will protect the availability of retail goods in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, to maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market. It will do so by providing the Secretary of State with a targeted power to implement “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain.
I will first set out the background to the policy. The Windsor framework, which was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023, replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol. A key component of the framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland by removing the requirements for costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This also allows goods to move on the basis of UK food safety standards. The scheme operates alongside other schemes and flexibilities that smooth the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework.
To benefit from those simplified arrangements, business operators must label certain retail goods as “not for EU”. Such labelling requirements are being introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July 2025. At that point, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland relative to that in Great Britain, certain businesses may decide that it is not commercially advantageous to label their goods exclusively for the Northern Ireland market. This runs the risk that businesses would have to remove their goods from sale in Northern Ireland rather than make the necessary changes.
That is not an acceptable outcome for this Government. We believe that the smooth operation of the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme is essential to ensuring product supply in Northern Ireland. We will therefore ensure that no incentive arises for businesses to avoid placing goods on the Northern Ireland market through this legislation.
That brings me to the purpose of the draft regulations, which will empower the Secretary of State to issue a notice requiring that certain retail goods be labelled as “not for EU” when placed on the market in Great Britain. To make this determination, he will need to be satisfied that the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland will be seriously adversely affected. He will also need to be satisfied that this is a direct result of the requirement to mark a product as “not for EU” to move into Northern Ireland via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme.
The Secretary of State will consider a variety of evidence, including information on the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, the way in which goods are moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and representations made by UK businesses on making goods available in Northern Ireland. He will also consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, in recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter. He may engage the Windsor framework independent monitoring panel, which was established through the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, for its advice.
Once a notice is enforced, relevant business operators in Great Britain will need to ensure that goods in scope of a notice are labelled “not for EU” before they are placed on the market in Great Britain. By extending the labelling requirement to the much larger GB market for certain products, we will take away the incentive for businesses to stop supplying goods to Northern Ireland. The extended requirement will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive for businesses to label their goods. This will ensure continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and uphold the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper.
The timing of the draft regulations is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must legislate now to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter businesses from taking decisions to remove their products from the market. We must have the tools to act, should it appear likely that products may no longer be available in Northern Ireland.
I will outline the key provisions of the draft regulations. The Secretary of State must issue a marking notice specifying which goods must be labelled in Great Britain and from what date. He should do so after making a determination that the supply of certain retail goods
“is, or is likely to be, seriously adversely affected”
as a result of the “not for EU” labelling requirement. The notice must be published in the London Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette and must be accompanied by a written statement to Parliament explaining the rationale. Separately, we will publish the notice on gov.uk, as well as promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses. The obligation would fall on the relevant business operator that first places the goods on the market in Great Britain; this is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging.
Exemptions will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, in line with this Government’s commitment to support growth. Enforcement powers will be delegated to local authorities, with a regime of improvement notices and fixed monetary penalties for non-compliance.
Together, these provisions will ensure that there is a clear deterrent for businesses that may choose to withdraw supply from the Northern Ireland market, as well as an active tool that will be deployed in that event. That will protect consumers in Northern Ireland, as well as trade within the United Kingdom internal market, thereby reinforcing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. This will also support our relationship with the European Union. Through our common understanding, which was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, we and the EU have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Once finalised, that will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agrifood requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that it may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.
Achieving such benefits, however, relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in future. We therefore expect that the draft regulations will maximise compliance with labelling requirements from 1 July and will prevent the movement of unlabelled goods onwards into Northern Ireland.
We believe that the draft regulations are a pragmatic and proportionate response to a material risk. They will support the continued flow of goods across our United Kingdom, protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland and reinforce our commitment to the Union. I commend them to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy.
The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden.
I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.
Jim Allister
That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?
Daniel Zeichner
The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets.
We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations.
We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
Draft Marking of Retail Good Regulations 2025
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 5 June and which will protect the availability of retail goods in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, to maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market. It will do so by providing the Secretary of State with a targeted power to implement “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain.
I will first set out the background to the policy. The Windsor framework, which was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023, replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol. A key component of the framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland by removing the requirements for costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This also allows goods to move on the basis of UK food safety standards. The scheme operates alongside other schemes and flexibilities that smooth the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework.
To benefit from those simplified arrangements, business operators must label certain retail goods as “not for EU”. Such labelling requirements are being introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July 2025. At that point, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland relative to that in Great Britain, certain businesses may decide that it is not commercially advantageous to label their goods exclusively for the Northern Ireland market. This runs the risk that businesses would have to remove their goods from sale in Northern Ireland rather than make the necessary changes.
That is not an acceptable outcome for this Government. We believe that the smooth operation of the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme is essential to ensuring product supply in Northern Ireland. We will therefore ensure that no incentive arises for businesses to avoid placing goods on the Northern Ireland market through this legislation.
That brings me to the purpose of the draft regulations, which will empower the Secretary of State to issue a notice requiring that certain retail goods be labelled as “not for EU” when placed on the market in Great Britain. To make this determination, he will need to be satisfied that the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland will be seriously adversely affected. He will also need to be satisfied that this is a direct result of the requirement to mark a product as “not for EU” to move into Northern Ireland via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme.
The Secretary of State will consider a variety of evidence, including information on the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, the way in which goods are moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and representations made by UK businesses on making goods available in Northern Ireland. He will also consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, in recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter. He may engage the Windsor framework independent monitoring panel, which was established through the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, for its advice.
Once a notice is enforced, relevant business operators in Great Britain will need to ensure that goods in scope of a notice are labelled “not for EU” before they are placed on the market in Great Britain. By extending the labelling requirement to the much larger GB market for certain products, we will take away the incentive for businesses to stop supplying goods to Northern Ireland. The extended requirement will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive for businesses to label their goods. This will ensure continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and uphold the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper.
The timing of the draft regulations is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must legislate now to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter businesses from taking decisions to remove their products from the market. We must have the tools to act, should it appear likely that products may no longer be available in Northern Ireland.
I will outline the key provisions of the draft regulations. The Secretary of State must issue a marking notice specifying which goods must be labelled in Great Britain and from what date. He should do so after making a determination that the supply of certain retail goods
“is, or is likely to be, seriously adversely affected”
as a result of the “not for EU” labelling requirement. The notice must be published in the London Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette and must be accompanied by a written statement to Parliament explaining the rationale. Separately, we will publish the notice on gov.uk, as well as promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses. The obligation would fall on the relevant business operator that first places the goods on the market in Great Britain; this is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging.
Exemptions will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, in line with this Government’s commitment to support growth. Enforcement powers will be delegated to local authorities, with a regime of improvement notices and fixed monetary penalties for non-compliance.
Together, these provisions will ensure that there is a clear deterrent for businesses that may choose to withdraw supply from the Northern Ireland market, as well as an active tool that will be deployed in that event. That will protect consumers in Northern Ireland, as well as trade within the United Kingdom internal market, thereby reinforcing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. This will also support our relationship with the European Union. Through our common understanding, which was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, we and the EU have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Once finalised, that will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agrifood requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that it may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.
Achieving such benefits, however, relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in future. We therefore expect that the draft regulations will maximise compliance with labelling requirements from 1 July and will prevent the movement of unlabelled goods onwards into Northern Ireland.
We believe that the draft regulations are a pragmatic and proportionate response to a material risk. They will support the continued flow of goods across our United Kingdom, protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland and reinforce our commitment to the Union. I commend them to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy.
The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden.
I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.
Jim Allister
That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?
Daniel Zeichner
The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets.
We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations.
We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
Oral Answers to Questions
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Good morning. Can I start by acknowledging the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the House? We are investing in the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and have committed more than £200 million to the next stage of rebuilding our biosecurity facilities at Weybridge to enhance our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond to and recover from outbreaks. That is in addition to supporting farmers through the animal health and welfare pathway, which includes veterinary visits to improve livestock health, welfare, biosecurity and productivity.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for his comments. The recent National Audit Office report was hugely concerning, and it was clear that the UK is at high risk of, and unprepared for, a major animal disease outbreak. Post-Brexit checks mean that only 5% of animals are physically checked as they come into the UK. We know that a lot of illegal meat is coming in through the ports, and our farm animal veterinary workforce is overstretched. Also, climate change and antimicrobial resistance are putting us at a higher risk of disease outbreaks. If a disease such as foot and mouth hits again, it will devastate British agriculture and rural communities, and have an impact on our food security. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are treating the issues that the report raises as a strategic national threat, and that its warnings will not be ignored until it is too late?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We take this matter extremely seriously. Sadly, it is not a new problem. We have had similar reports in the past, and I can assure him that we are giving careful consideration to this report. We will develop a plan to address it. He will be aware that there are a range of threats, and it is important that we balance our work. We have taken strong measures to restrict personal imports, given the threats on the continent.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
As the House will know, sadly the epicentre of the UK bluetongue outbreak was in my South Norfolk constituency, so biosecurity is a huge issue for my farmers. Will we look to lower our biosecurity risks by returning to checking products at the Bastion Point inland border security centre at the White Cliffs business park, which is closer to the border point, instead of products having to travel nearly 17 miles before they are checked?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend and relatively near neighbour. He is right to raise the bluetongue issues, which have been dealt with effectively by our officials. His points about border controls and checks are under close consideration, partly as a consequence of our new arrangements with the European Union.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Many Welsh farmers in mid-Wales depend on being able to move their livestock back and forth over the border with England. Indeed, 550 farms straddle the border. The imposition of a veterinary hard border between England and Wales will be damaging for the farming community in my constituency and the local economy that they support. Farmers simply cannot afford to pay £70 a beast for testing, and apparently there is not even enough testing capacity for all the livestock that cross the border anyway. What steps is the Minister taking to address the situation, and to prevent Welsh farmers from losing out?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask that question. As I just referenced, the bluetongue issue has been serious and difficult. We have made a sensible decision for England, and the approach we have taken has managed to control the spread. The decision in Wales is obviously a matter for the Welsh Government, and I am sure that he would understand that I respect that decision. We are talking about how we can resolve the difficult issues that he has raised.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am deeply distressed that the Government are planning to extend the badger cull, because the evidence shows that with good testing and biosecurity, we can bring down rates of tuberculosis. I heard what the representative from Gatcombe farm said when they visited Parliament just a couple of weeks ago. Will the Minister look at the evidence? Before moving forward with a badger cull, will he look at biosecurity measures that could ensure that we really get on top of bovine TB?
Daniel Zeichner
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not extending the badger cull. We have a clear commitment to ending the badger cull in this Parliament, and I will visit Gatcombe with others in the weeks ahead. We are taking an evidence-based approach. We also have to make sure that we help farmers tackle a distressing and difficult disease.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
This month, the National Audit Office’s “Resilience to animal diseases” report laid bare the startling reality about our biosecurity, stating:
“Defra and APHA would struggle to manage a more severe outbreak or concurrent serious outbreaks”,
and the risk of site failure at the APHA site at Weybridge is at its maximum rating. As I have raised 16 times in this Parliament, a fully funded and urgent rebuild of APHA in Weybridge is critical. It got no mention at all by the Chancellor in the spending review; it merely has repeated partial funding from the Department. When will the Government wake up, get a grip, and press on with this vital project as soon as possible, before disaster strikes?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman knows that I take this issue very seriously. I gently point out to him that this exact situation was pointed out by the National Audit Office during the last Parliament. The previous Government had 14 years to get the principles in place, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives. I can tell him that we have a £208 million investment this year; that is what was asked for. I can assure him that there will be funds in future, because we take biosecurity very seriously.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
On 11 June, we committed to the largest ever investment in nature. Funding for the environmental land management schemes will increase to £2 billion per annum by 2028-29, and we now have more farmers than ever in nature-friendly farming schemes, which we should all be pleased about. We are reforming the sustainable farming incentive to target funds fairly and effectively, and to ensure that, in those schemes, the user experience is absolutely prioritised.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Farmers in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset have had to deal with constantly changing information regarding the sustainable farming incentive. We welcome the news that the Government have allowed those who started their application between January and March to submit it now, but when it comes to sustainable farming and nature recovery, what support is in place for those who have not submitted or started their application?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady will appreciate that we inherited a scheme that did not have proper budgetary controls. Once the money was spent, none was available to people who had yet to come into the scheme. We have dealt with the administrative problem of those who had expected to benefit when they applied. We are planning to make an announcement in the next few weeks, in which we will explain the future scheme for people who are interested. We very much want to get more people in.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Lord Don Curry’s recent report on a sustainable farming model for the future was sent to the Secretary of State earlier this month. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister read it yet? Do they agree with me and Lord Curry that the UK is in a dangerously precarious position, given that we produce domestically only 55% of the food we need, and that we are therefore not food secure and need an urgent plan for food security? Will he meet me and the noble Lord to examine this industry-wide report, and start the process of putting Britain on the path to food security?
Daniel Zeichner
I think the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that when a report from Lord Curry arrives in my inbox, I read it. I did so, with great interest. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not food secure—the food security report produced at the end of last year explained this very carefully—but I am always willing and happy to discuss these issues with him and Lord Curry.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The fruit and vegetables aid scheme is an EU legacy scheme, and it closes in England on 1 January 2026. It is available only via producer organisations —that was an EU requirement—and only 20% of growers are benefiting from it; 80% get no benefit. All growers will continue to benefit from the farming innovation programme’s £63 million of grants, and the five-year extension to the seasonal workers visa scheme that we have announced.
Dr Evans
In my constituency, I have Busby, the biggest strawberry and raspberry farm in Leicestershire. It uses the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, which is due to run out at the end of 2025, in order to invest and innovate. The Government have been in power for one year; they wrote to me in May, saying they had
“plans to simplify and rationalise agriculture grants”,
but we have six months to go before the scheme ends, and Busby still does not know what its future funding will look like. What is replacing the scheme, so that Busby can carry on growing the finest strawberries and raspberries in Leicestershire?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise our fruit-growing sector. It has been known for a long time that this scheme is coming to an end, and I am afraid the truth is that it did not provide very good value for money. We will replace it as part of our new food strategy, and announcements on that will be coming down the line. However, I am slightly surprised to hear that he is so keen to preserve an EU-based scheme. Who knew that there were Opposition Members still hankering to be in the EU?
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
We have a strong ambition that half of all food purchased across the public sector should be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards. The new national procurement policy statement requires Government contracts to favour products that are certified to higher environmental standards, which we believe British producers, operating to higher standards, will be well placed to supply.
Rachel Hopkins
Both beef and crop farmers in my constituency tell me how important it is to produce high-quality food and contribute to UK food security. Can the Minister outline what conversations he has had with public bodies to encourage them to prioritise purchasing local British produce, and to maximise the social value of UK food production?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend and relatively near neighbour for her question. We are in constant dialogue to achieve exactly that objective. She will have noticed last week’s announcement on the extension of free school meals to everyone on universal credit, which is a key plank of our food strategy. It is exactly those kinds of initiatives that we think will benefit British producers.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Many GB-based horticultural companies, as well as other companies, want to supply British produce into Northern Ireland, but have difficulty with the bureaucracy and paperwork required by the procedures implemented some years ago. Will the Minister operate in concert with his colleagues in Cabinet and Government to eliminate the bureaucratic problems that are preventing those companies from supplying UK citizens in Northern Ireland?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is exactly why we wanted to improve our relationship with the European Union. We have negotiated and are undertaking further negotiations to improve those systems to very much help people to achieve that. We genuinely believe there are real opportunities here if we can eliminate some of the unnecessary bureaucracy.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The National Audit Office report says that the Government really need to step up their border checks. As the Government have admitted in answers to me, 72,872 kg of illegal meat imports were seized between January and April this year, close to the 92,000 kg seized in the whole of 2024. With foot and mouth disease and African swine fever on our doorstep in Europe, I shudder to think how much potentially infected meat is slipping in undetected. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Will the Government act urgently to strengthen our biosecurity and our border checks before it is too late?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have acted with speed and haste to make sure that we are protected. We have banned personal imports, and we are absolutely committed to giving the Weybridge facility the support that it requires—we have given it what it asked for. The question is why we were in that position in the first place when we came into Government. What were his Government doing for all those years? These are not new problems.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Daniel Zeichner
I am delighted to hear that news. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking very closely at how we can use the co-operative model to boost the rural economy, particularly in respect of farming profitability, as we know that access to new private market opportunities is not always straightforward.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The gamekeepers employed by the military shoots on Salisbury plain are an essential resource in preserving that rare and special habitat, but DEFRA has given the rights to award licences to the shoots to Natural England, a quango that is ideologically opposed to shooting. Will the Minister take responsibility and ensure that the shoots on Salisbury plain get their licences this year?
Daniel Zeichner
I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman criticising Natural England in that way. It is a very responsible agency that does very good work on behalf of us all. We made the decision not to issue a general licence for gamebird releases in special protection areas such as Salisbury plain. We think it is really important that we help protect our internationally important bird populations from avian influenza, and I am sure he would share that goal.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
UK flour millers, including ADM in my constituency, are already contributing to our food security. However, there are fears in the industry that trade deals could curtail that progress. Will the Minister outline the steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the welcome trade deals struck by the Government do not undermine our food security?
Daniel Zeichner
The UK flour sector is really important. I very much welcome the work that that sector does for us. It is right to raise the point about trade deals. We are determined to make sure that we do nothing to undermine a very successful sector that helps keep food security at high levels in this country.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It was reported today that the Treasury may be planning to siphon money off from the water restoration fund for “unrelated purposes”. What assurance can the Secretary of State provide that money in the restoration fund will be used to clean up our waterways, not to cover rising Government debt interest?
Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I join others in thanking the Petitions Committee, and in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for not only introducing the debate but bringing her usual thoughtfulness and passion to the subject. I also join others in thanking all who signed the petition, which meant that we were able to debate this important issue.
This is the third consecutive week that we have debated farm animal welfare issues, and that brings home just how much both the public and this House value how animals are treated. We are genuinely a nation of animal lovers. We are also a nation that needs to eat, so I thank all who are involved in the farming process and the food production sector, who help to keep us fed.
The issue of confinement and the use of cages in farming is a long-standing subject that has been brought to Members’ attention several times over recent years, and it is a topic that has consistently come across my desk since I became a Minister. As a nation, we are rightly proud of high welfare standards. On confinement, veal crates for calves were banned in 1990, sow stalls for pigs were banned in 1999 and barren battery cages for laying hens were banned in 2012.
I will reiterate what I said in the debate on animal welfare standards in farming on 3 June. We are determined to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection that they rightly deserve, in whatever farming system they are kept.
In addition to this e-petition, there have been a number of campaigns urging the Government to publish consultations on banning the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. I assure my hon. Friend that I am keen to act and certainly do not want to fall behind the EU countries that have already banned, or are in the process of banning, cages and crates. I am acutely aware that these are complex issues that need careful consideration, particularly with regard to food security and trade. I want to work closely with the sectors and bring them with us to improve animal welfare standards together while maintaining a thriving, sustainable and competitive industry.
The petition calls for a ban on cages for laying hens as soon as possible. Enriched colony cages are a significant welfare improvement on barren battery cages as they are required to have nest boxes, litters and perches, but they do not fully provide for the birds’ physical and behavioural needs. The colony cage system restricts the hen’s choice, preventing her from running, flapping her wings, dust bathing or foraging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) has said in detailing the concerns raised by his constituents.
The UK laying hens sector has already made significant progress in moving away from enriched colony cages. The transition has been supported by the major supermarkets, which pledged in 2016 to stop selling shell eggs from caged hens by the end of 2025, with some retailers extending that pledge to products containing liquid or processed egg. I am pleased to say that the percentage of eggs from enriched colony cage systems continues to fall. The current level is just 18% of the total UK throughput in the first quarter of 2025, with free-range eggs now accounting for 70% of the total.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) detailed, the retailer pledge in response to consumer demand is to be welcomed, but not all supermarkets have committed to cage-free. I am afraid that real-world considerations around affordability for consumers are clearly at the fore in some of those decisions. Although the retailer pledge is significant, it does not raise welfare standards across the whole laying hen industry. While the retail element is the largest part of the market at 65%, the food service and egg processing elements are not insignificant, and they represent 18% and 17% of the market respectively. The focus needs to be on addressing the welfare of laying hens producing eggs for retailers that have not signed the pledge, and for the food service and egg processing markets.
To help the sector, the Government are providing financial assistance to laying hen and pullet farmers in England with flocks of 1,000 birds or more, with £22.5 million of allocated grant funding via the animal health and welfare pathway to refurbish or replace existing housing, including for those who are looking to make the transition from enriched colony cages to high welfare non-cage systems.
I turn to the pig sector. We already have a significant outdoor pig sector, as we have heard, with 50% of the national sow breeding herd giving birth freely on outdoor units with no confinement. But 50% of breeding sows are kept indoors, with approximately 42% of them confined in farrowing crates for around five days before they are due to give birth and until the piglets are weaned at approximately 28 days of age.
When the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, now known as the Animal Welfare Committee, reviewed the welfare of pigs in farrowing crates, it recommended that
“in considering which farrowing system to adopt or support, farmers, the pig industry as a whole and other stakeholders such as retailers should consider the welfare of both sows and piglets, and be aware that they are not necessarily benefitted by the same things.”
A range of hon. Members have made that point. The committee’s considerations included sow comfort and freedom to nest build; nest-building material being made available in the period before and after farrowing; the avoidance of sow injuries from interaction with the floor, pen, furniture or piglets; floor design being given more priority in the design of farrowing accommodation; the protection of piglet welfare, including prevention of injury or death; and an environment in which they can thrive, along with the promotion of hygiene and avoidance of disease in both sows and piglets.
There is consensus that farrowing crates restrict a sow’s movement, preventing her from turning around and performing normal behaviours such as nest building, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) has pointed out. Animal welfare non-governmental organisations such as the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have campaigned for a long time for the Government to ban farrowing crates. I am also well aware that the British Veterinary Association and the Pig Veterinary Society have recently called for a gradual phase-out of farrowing crates, and for them to be replaced with a system that maximises sow and piglet welfare and ensures human safety. I welcome those organisations’ contribution to the ongoing debate. The National Pig Association has recognised that the direction of travel is moving away from farrowing crates, and it has done a lot of work in that area. Indeed, some producers have already made a move towards alternative farrowing systems.
As mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who spoke as usual with great knowledge and sensitivity about these issues, industry estimates that around 8% of the British indoor pig herd are now flexibly farrowed, where the sow can be confined on a temporary basis and for a limited period to protect her piglets in those crucial early days of their lives. Flexible farrowing, also termed temporary crating or adaptive farrowing, is where the sow is confined without the ability to turn around on only a temporary basis—for a few days around farrowing in the initial suckling phase—before movable restraining bars are opened to give the sow the space to turn around.
The other alternative to farrowing crates is a move directly to free farrowing systems, where there is no confinement of the sow when in farrowing and lactation accommodation, allowing the sow to freely turn around and have the opportunity to more fully perform nest-building activities. A significant part of our consideration around alternative systems is the evidence around sow and piglet welfare and stockperson welfare, and I was very struck by the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) about the dangers facing stockpeople.
We recognise that moving away from farrowing crates requires a fundamental change for producers and, as we have heard, significant investment. On that note, it is encouraging to see the investment commitment some retailers have made to improve the farrowing experience for pigs.
The shadow Minister asked how we would go forward on this. As the Government bring forward proposals, we will subject them to a full consultation. We absolutely recognise that the industry will need time to adapt. Farrowing accommodation will need to be considerably adapted, and potentially rebuilt and extended to allow for a larger pen footprint, and that will clearly impose significant costs on the indoor pig sector. It will also require communities to recognise that the planning system will have to accommodate changes to allow better welfare, so we need to get specifications right. Training will also be essential for stockpeople to adapt to a brand new system and ensure both human and pig welfare.
Members have mentioned trade, and I am mindful of what happened in 1999 when the UK unilaterally banned sow stalls. Although it was the right thing to do in animal welfare terms, it did, as has been said, contribute to a reported 40% decline in the pig breeding herd in the following decade, sadly opening the door to more pig meat imports from countries still using sow stalls. It is therefore essential that we carefully evaluate the implications of potential cage and crate bans on trade. We need to carefully consider the potential for unintentionally replacing UK production with lower welfare production overseas.
We know that the European Commission is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) mentioned, considering proposals to ban cages and crates. It has said that the first legislative proposals on cage reforms will be announced in 2026. We do not yet know what phase-out periods it will propose or how long it will take it to get agreement among member states. We are acutely aware of and concerned about imports produced using methods that are not permitted in the UK, and I can reassure the shadow Minister that we will use our trade strategy to promote the highest food production standards and protect farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals.
Charlie Dewhirst
Is it the Minister’s ambition to align as closely as possible with the European Union’s plans to phase out cages, and farrowing crates in particular, given the symbiotic trading relationship—especially on products such as pig meat—between the EU and the UK, so that we do not have a similar situation to that involving sow stalls in 1999, where we ban something that the European Union is still using?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, having made the observation about what happened in 1999, we do not want to return to that situation.
Let me turn to labelling. Considerable work has been done recently to consider the merits of method of production labelling. That, too, was raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who has talked about it repeatedly in this place.
As we have heard, last year the previous Government undertook a consultation seeking views on proposals to improve and extend existing mandatory method of production labelling. I am pleased to say that, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest noticed, we have now published the Government’s response, which is available on gov.uk.
In looking at that, we recognised the strong support of members of the public and many other stakeholders for the provision of clearer information for consumers on the welfare standards of their food. We also heard and understood the views expressed on the detail of the consultation proposals by the many interested parties who responded. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that we are carefully considering the potential role of reform of method of production labelling as part of the Government’s wider animal welfare and food strategies. As he will have appreciated, the Prime Minister has announced that we will announce an animal welfare strategy by the end of the year.
Finally, I turn to game birds. Approximately 40 million of them—30 million to 35 million pheasants and 5 million to 10 million partridges—are estimated to be released each year in Great Britain. Game birds bred and reared for sporting purposes are not subject to the same legislative requirements on welfare as farmed poultry, because they are not regarded as farmed animals. They are, however, protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause any animal under the control of humans unnecessary suffering, or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal.
DEFRA’s statutory code of practice for the welfare of gamebirds reared for sporting purposes provides keepers with guidance on how to meet the welfare needs of their game birds, as required by the Animal Welfare Act. The code recommends that barren cages for breeding pheasants and small barren cages for breeding partridges should not be used, and that any system should be appropriately enriched.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for opening this debate, and I reassure Members that the issue of confinement is one that I take seriously. The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. The Department has initiated a series of meetings with key stakeholders as part of the development of an overarching approach to animal welfare. As I said, the Prime Minister committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this year. That is exactly what we will do, and I look forward to being able to outline more detail in due course.
Non-stun Slaughter of Animals
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. Can I join others in thanking both the Petitions Committee and the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject? I also commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening the debate on this sensitive topic so very thoughtfully, which is very characteristic of his approach.
It is clear from the petition and from today’s discussion that both Parliament and the wider country care dearly for our farm animals and their welfare. I was in this very Chamber at this very Dispatch Box last Tuesday, discussing farm animal welfare standards. I will be returning this time next week to debate another e-petition on cages and crates. I have no doubt that farm animal welfare is an issue the public care deeply about.
I was struck by many of the contributions from hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and others, who made a series of wider points about animal welfare. I hope we can continue that discussion as we make progress through this Parliament on improving animal welfare in general.
The topic of non-stun slaughter is clearly important, but, as we have heard from passionate contributions, it is also a sensitive one that understandably evokes deep convictions on both sides of the debate. I was struck by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan), which I thought was both thoughtful and well-grounded.
Let me be clear from the outset: it is the Government’s preference that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. However, the Government respect the right of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs. We therefore intend to continue to allow the religious slaughter of animals for consumption by Muslims and Jews. We believe that is an important religious freedom, as we have heard; many have spoken passionately about that point.
There is a long history of upholding this freedom, set down in legislation since the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contained an exemption from stunning for religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims. Since then, animal welfare legislation concerning all slaughter methods has continued to develop, with new requirements introduced through EU legislation in 2013 that have now been assimilated into UK law. When animals are slaughtered either by the Jewish method or the Muslim method without prior stunning, there are additional animal welfare rules that apply to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, suffering or distress during the slaughter process.
One important requirement stemming from European legislation is for all ruminants that are to be slaughtered in accordance with religious rites to be individually and mechanically restrained. This has resulted in improvements to sheep handling, because sheep are no longer lifted on to tables to be slaughtered. New monitoring procedures have also been introduced to check for unconsciousness and death among all species.
Our slaughter legislation also provides greater protections than those contained in the EU regulation, which sets a baseline for standards in Europe. For instance, we prohibit the inversion of cattle for religious slaughter, which the EU regulation does not prohibit and some EU member states still allow. This ban followed a 1985 report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which recommended that cattle inversion should be banned.
Our legislation also specifically requires that any animal slaughtered without prior stunning must not be further processed before a minimum length of time after their cut has passed—90 seconds in the case of meat chickens. This adds an extra safeguard to ensure that animals are not dressed while still conscious.
Cattle present particular animal welfare issues due to the time that it takes for them to become unconscious, so additional national rules also specify that adult cattle have to be restrained in a restraining pen that has been approved by an official veterinarian from the Food Standards Agency. Also, following the neck cut, cattle must not be moved until they are unconscious and at least 30 seconds have elapsed.
The Government pay careful attention to trends in slaughter methods. With the Welsh Government, we jointly commission the FSA to undertake a biennial survey of slaughter methods. This survey is carried out over the course of a week and deliberately avoids any major religious festivals. The most recent iteration was carried out in February 2024 and was published last November. It showed that the majority of animals are stunned before slaughter: 97% of poultry, and 86% of animals that produce red meat. The number of poultry and cattle that are not stunned before slaughter actually decreased between 2011 and 2024.
However, I recognise that the rate of non-stun sheep slaughter has effectively doubled over the same period and is currently at 29% of all sheep killed in England and Wales; to some extent, this answers the questions put by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). The data shows that this change is being driven by increases in non-stun halal. However, it is unclear whether those increases are being driven by exports or by the changing requirements of Britain’s Muslim communities. The survey also shows that a considerable proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter. For example, in 2024 88% of halal meat chickens in England and Wales were stunned prior to slaughter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made a very thoughtful speech, in which he talked about the demonstration of life protocol. This is an industry-led initiative. It provides assurance for Muslim consumers that stunning sheep and goats is compatible with halal slaughter requirements while protecting the welfare of the animals involved, and it also supports opportunities for trade. The FSA recently removed its associated fees to promote uptake of this protocol, which the Government support.
I turn to labelling, which a number of Members raised. Concern has been voiced about meat from animals slaughtered without stunning being sold to consumers who do not wish their meat to come from animals that are killed in that way. Clearly, such sales are regrettable. Currently, there are no regulations that require the labelling of non-stunned slaughtered meat. Legally, however, where any information of this nature is provided, it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer.
I think the point was made by a number of Members that it is also worth remembering that the major supermarkets currently have sourcing policies requiring that all their own-brand fresh meat comes from animals that have been stunned before slaughter. Alongside that, they operate limited concessions for halal or kosher food that will clearly be labelled as such. In addition, some farm assurance schemes, such as Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured, also require stunned slaughter, so consumers can look out for such labels. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) made an important point about the out-of-home sector, which is clearly more challenging.
Recently, considerable work has been done to consider the merits of method-of-production labelling. A public consultation on proposals to improve and extend current method-of-production labelling was undertaken last year by the previous Government. The consultation sought views on options for the production standards behind the label, including the period of life that should be covered by the standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase also spoke about the BVA proposals, and the potential for a plethora of information on labels.
In the debate on Tuesday last week, the interest in animal welfare labelling was very clear. We recognise that this is an important matter, and are looking closely at all the responses to that consultation before we decide on the next steps, but there will be a response to the consultation shortly. “Shortly” is quite interesting parliamentary language, but Members will not have to wait very long.
The effective monitoring and enforcement of our animal welfare regulations is key to ensuring that our high standards are maintained. Official veterinarians from the Food Standards Agency carry out that important work at approved slaughterhouses, and religious slaughter can take place only in an approved slaughterhouse. Enforcement action is taken when there are any breaches of animal welfare legislation, and that may involve suspension or revocation of a slaughterman’s licence, the imposition of an enforcement notice requiring that the non-compliance be remedied, or a formal investigation with a view to prosecution.
CCTV is an important tool to assist with monitoring and enforcement for all methods of slaughter, including non-stun slaughter. It provides assurance that it is done in accordance with the regulations to protect animal welfare. All slaughterhouses in Great Britain are required to have CCTV recording in all areas in which live animals are present, and they must make the recordings available to the official veterinarian.
In conclusion, the debate today has been wide-ranging, underlining the complexities involved. I understand the welfare concerns of animal welfare and veterinary groups, as well as of many Members who have spoken today and urged the Government to reform the rules around non-stun slaughter. I can assure the House that I have listened carefully to all the points made. As hon. Members would expect, I will engage with religious communities and other stakeholders on these issues.
I reiterate that the Government will continue to respect the rights of Jews and Muslims to continue to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs, but I am also proud that we have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. The Prime Minister announced last week that we will publish an animal welfare strategy later this year, and I look forward to being able to outline more detail in due course.
Animal Welfare in Farming
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate all those who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate.
We are a nation of animal lovers, as has been made very clear to me since I became an Environment Minister. As Members would expect, animal welfare issues consistently form a significant proportion of the correspondence that comes across my desk. I want to start by saying a bit about people, because I have “food security” in my job title, and I take it very seriously. I am very proud of the people across our country who, at this very moment, whether on land or at sea, are producing the food that we absolutely expect to be available. It is an extraordinarily complicated and sophisticated system; of course it can be improved, and we have heard suggestions for improvement, but it is important that we register just how extraordinary the food system already is. When there are transgressions—it occasionally happens that people in this place transgress—we should not see people as guilty by association. We should celebrate the success of the system, as well as the challenges.
We are rightly proud that this country’s animal welfare standards are very high; in fact, they are one of the selling points of our agricultural sector. They are greatly valued by consumers at home and are part of our sales pitch to people abroad. We want to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection they deserve.
The Labour party has a proud history of improving animal welfare. Next year will mark 20 years since the previous Labour Government introduced the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, which still represents the most fundamental change to our animal welfare law in nearly a century.
All farm animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health and welfare legislation. The Animal Welfare Act makes it an offence to either cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 set down detailed requirements on how farmed livestock should be kept. There is also legislation that sets out specific conditions that need to be met for permitted procedures, such as tail docking, to be performed on certain species of animals.
In addition to farm animal welfare legislation, my Department has a series of statutory species-specific welfare codes, such as the code of practice for the welfare of meat chickens, which farmers are required by law to have access to and be familiar with. That encourages high standards of husbandry. As we have heard, we want to do better, and I absolutely understand that the keeping of farm animals in cages and close confinement systems is a topic that has exercised many of us over many years in this place. It is one that I absolutely assure hon. Members is currently receiving my very careful attention.
I am well aware of recent and long-running campaigns that have urged the Government to publish consultations on phasing out the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. Many Members have spoken passionately about that. I am sure Members are aware that the Petitions Committee has selected a recent e-petition on the use of cages and crates for debate, and many of us will be back here in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) raised a series of points around those issues. She also raised the culling of male chickens. I followed that subject very closely. Clearly, the technology, as she rightly pointed out, now allows chicks to be sexed within the egg. We very much welcome the UK egg industry’s interest in the development of day zero sexing technology. This is one of the areas on which we can move forward.
I also want to address the points on trade, because that has been one of the key themes in this debate. It is very topical and there is a lot going on in the world. Ending the use of these systems is an issue that our European trading partners are also carefully considering. We heard a number of interventions, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake)—she and I have debated these issues on many occasions over the years.
I was also delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), who is a genuine friend. She raised a particular issue around decapod culling. My Department is talking to both the industry and relevant animal welfare non-governmental organisations on potential non-statutory guidance on which methods of killing decapods are or are not in line with the existing welfare at time of killing legal requirements. I hope she will find that encouraging.
As a number of Members have pointed out, with any change to our farming systems we need to evaluate the implications for trade. When considering welfare standards at home, it is crucial that we consider the potential for unintentionally replacing UK production with lower welfare production overseas—that point was well made by my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling). Replacing a UK egg with an imported caged egg would be not only bad for the consumer and bad for the producers, but bad for animal welfare as well.
These are complicated questions. I am not going to go into the fine detail of all the trade points, but I will make a few observations. We have been absolutely clear as a Government that we will use our trade strategy to promote the highest food production standards. We are determined to prevent farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) all raised those points. I will say a little about some of the recent trade deals with the United States, India and, of course, the European Union, which I think are to be celebrated, frankly.
The United States deal does not change our own sanitary and phytosanitary regime. This—and any future agreement—only concerns US food products that have existing access to the UK market. We are absolutely committed to our high welfare standards and high consumer standards. I assure colleagues that chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will remain illegal in the United Kingdom.
On the EU agreement, the European Union has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. It is still subject to negotiation, but we have been absolutely clear about the importance of being able to set high animal welfare standards, support public health and use innovative technologies. The shadow Minister raised the issue of precision breeding. We have clearly been closely involved in that debate over a long time. I am determined to ensure that we protect our position.
On factory farming in general, I do not agree with some of the comments about large-scale production. The key issue is not size but ensuring that every farm complies with comprehensive UK law on animal health and welfare, planning, veterinary medicines and environmental legislation. Stockmanship and high husbandry standards are the key to ensuring appropriate welfare standards for all farmed animals. I appreciate the nervousness about large farms, but I have seen less than wonderful standards of biosecurity on smaller farms—although that has not always been the fault of the people involved. I do not think the issue is size; it is quality, and the ability of that business to carry out its work in a correct and safe way.
On the animal health and welfare pathway, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Epping Forest and his colleagues in the previous Parliament on this important point. Improving animal health underpins the welfare of farmed animals, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, slows the rise of antimicrobial resistance, better protects farmers and the public against the economic impact of disease, and helps to demonstrate a commitment to rising standards of animal health and welfare to our current and future trading partners across the world. It is really important, and we are good at it—we should be proud and celebrate it.
The pathway aims to promote the production of healthier, higher-welfare animals at a level beyond compliance with regulations, and to deliver sustained improvements over time, which address the challenges of the future as well as those of today.
Carla Lockhart
The Minister will be aware that access to veterinary medicines is key for animal welfare. He will know that Northern Ireland continues to face a cliff edge with regards to access to veterinary medicines. Will he commit to update hon. Members interested in this issue quickly, given its impact on the industry?
Daniel Zeichner
I assure the hon. Lady that we are very aware of that issue. I can also assure her in passing that I have regular dialogue with Minister Muir on the issues she raised.
I would like to say something about the funding that has been made available to help farmers. In early 2025, we announced £16.7 million of funding for a new round of animal health and welfare grants delivered through the farming equipment and technology fund. Applications are currently open, with livestock farmers able to apply for funding towards the cost of equipment and technology that delivers benefits for animal health and welfare.
On the poor behaviour that has been referenced, like all of us I have been shocked by some of the things we have seen. I listened closely to my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). He is absolutely right that such unacceptable behaviour must be taken extremely seriously. It is imperative that any suspicion of animal cruelty is reported to DEFRA’s Animal and Plant Health Agency as quickly as possible, so that timely investigations can take place and the welfare of animals safeguarded. I am told that there can be a gap between some of these incidents and the reporting, which makes it difficult to move forward.
More generally on enforcement, the Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors and local authorities conduct inspections on farms to check that animal welfare standards are being met. The vast majority of owners and keepers both comply with their duty of care and follow the law, but there are occasions when some fail to do so. It is absolutely the responsibility of enforcement authorities to use appropriate enforcement tools to ensure that the law is upheld, to protect animals and people and to encourage animal keepers to be compliant now and in future. To ensure that we have a transparent enforcement regime, we are actively working with enforcement authorities to reform the way they collect and publish data of on-farm enforcement activities and the actions they take to support compliance and act on non-compliance.
I am aware of your strictures on time, Sir John, so I will finish by saying a little about the important points made by a number of hon. Members about labelling: my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), and the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest. We are looking at labelling extremely closely. There are so many things that people want to know about, and I am talking to a whole range of stakeholders about how we can get the issue right and take it forward. The points that have been made are very important. There is a real opportunity to improve the welfare side, but there are many other things we can do with it as well.
I am also mindful of the points made about some of the farm assurance schemes. I think they are an extremely important tool and lever, but they are, of course, independent—and that is part of their strength and importance. We need to make sure that we can achieve, with them, the kind of improvements that we wish to see. I reassure the shadow spokesperson that £208 million has been made available to the National Biosecurity Centre; I am sure he would join me in being pleased to hear that. I also assure him that we are working very hard to ensure that the future is secure.
Let me conclude by saying that the Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Our farm animal welfare policy is backed by robust science and evidence, and supported and shaped by input from expert advice groups, including the Animal Welfare Committee, as well as funded research and development. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently undertaking a series of meetings with key stakeholders as part of developing an overarching approach to animal welfare. I very much look forward to coming back to talk to hon. Members in more detail about that in due course.