Pie and Mash: Traditional Speciality Guaranteed Status

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) on securing this debate on the potential for traditional speciality guaranteed status for pie and mash. I was delighted to hear him say that he will start small, because I can guarantee him that this Government will go big on food and regional food in general. I am so pleased to see that Opposition Members now have time on their hands to tour the very best hostelries in their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we are absolutely determined to celebrate our great British food.

I will start by talking about pie and mash. As a hearty meal with roots in the docks of London, pie and mash has long been cherished as a working-class staple, part of the rich culinary heritage of our capital city. Of course, it is not alone in being a recognised feature of London’s food landscape. London cure smoked salmon, produced in east London for over a century, is already recognised with a protected geographical indication. Products such as those show how local traditions can thrive and how we can celebrate them for their authenticity and tradition, which has been developed over a long time.

Let me say a little about the policy background to the debate. Geographical indications, or GIs, are an internationally recognised mark of quality and authenticity. They help to protect and promote the heritage, tradition and production methods of our most iconic food and drink products. They provide consumers with the confidence that they are purchasing genuine, high-quality products. Each one of the UK’s 93 protected products is the result of a unique combination of geography, history and know-how. Products such as Welsh lamb, Scottish salmon, Lough Neagh eels and Sussex wine showcase the diversity of our cuisine and highlight how GI schemes promote a range of traditional products.

Those designations can also play a role in enhancing tourism, attracting visitors eager to experience authentic local flavours. Many places proudly promote the GI status of their cherished foods in marketing campaigns to highlight the visitor offer. Through national recognition, local producers are celebrated and their industry sustained for future generations, creating new jobs and opportunities.

One example of using protected status to celebrate place and tradition is the Cornish pasty story, which was mentioned. That is underpinned by its protection as a PGI, but there are many others. Other products have become the focus of events, such as the Melton Mowbray food festival celebrating the region’s renowned pork pie, and the “Taste of Scotland” initiative championing Scotch whisky and beef. The Government are keen to see those fantastic products and events continue to grow in strength and reputation in future.

GI products represent around 25% of the UK’s food and drink exports by value. There is strong demand for British products around the world, with GIs indicating quality and providing a means of unlocking international markets for our producers. The protection of GIs through free trade agreements offers a platform for exemplary UK produce and supports their export growth while broadening market access opportunities.

Those agreements safeguard the principle of the UK’s GI system and maintain its high standards of protection. My colleague the Business and Trade Secretary announced in July that the Government would restart trade talks with a range of countries, such as India, South Korea and Turkey. We will seek protection for our world-class GIs through those negotiations. GI protection in trade agreements will not only support our rural communities and traditional industries, but help us to build the UK’s global reputation for excellence in food and drink production.

The Government want to see GIs grow in stature as part of our national food culture. Our GI conference held on 3 September was a key step in that effort, bringing together stakeholders from across the sector to discuss how we can best promote our GI products. By sharing the stories behind our GIs and highlighting the passion and craftsmanship that go into making them we can help to ensure that more consumers both here and internationally are aware of and appreciate the value of these products.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps through him I could take up the gauntlet that my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) threw down in a friendly manner. Although Robins Pie & Mash will be difficult to beat, I will pitch my pie and mash shops against his, perhaps for charity, and we will see who the winner will be.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Although I am grateful for that intervention, I certainly would not want to stand in the way or promote rivalry between the two right hon. Gentlemen. I am sure they can sort it out between them, achieving a satisfactory outcome for all.

In conclusion, the Government are committed to celebrating the UK’s GIs and will continue to promote them at home and abroad, working to ensure that the benefits are felt across the country. Although due process prevents me from commenting today on whether pie and mash would qualify for TSG status, I would warmly welcome a formal application. I am pleased that my officials are working closely with the proposer.

Question put and agreed to.

Government Support for the RSPCA

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones)—and she is indeed a very good friend—on securing this important debate. Her opening speech setting out the history and the issues was very thorough, and absolutely typical of her deep knowledge of these subjects, which she displayed, of course, when she served with me as a member of the shadow team over many years. I am delighted that my hon. Friend continues to be a staunch advocate for animal welfare in this place, and that her commitment to this cause was recognised last month, when, I am told, she won the Nature 2030 award for animal welfare. I also thank the shadow Minister for his kind words for my colleague; they are very well received.

I pay tribute to the RSPCA’s outgoing chief executive, Chris Sherwood, and wish him well in his new role, which I am told is at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

I am delighted to take part and reply in today’s debate celebrating the RSPCA’s 200th anniversary and some of the achievements since that first meeting in the London coffee shop in 1824. It has been a very good debate. I was warned in advance that probably a number of people’s pets would be mentioned, and we have had Bella from Waveney Valley and Ted from Westmorland and Lonsdale. I will not add my own.

I welcome new Members to this happy band that joins these regular Westminster Hall debates. I suspect we shall all get to know each other even better over the next few years. Of course, no debate like this would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I will come to some of his comments in a minute. I am particularly pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), who made important points about the microchipping consultation. I can tell her that they are under very serious consideration. The points she made about the database were well made, but these are inevitably complex issues.

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) here; he made a series of important points. There are clearly issues around greyhound racing and welfare. Those involved in that sport are making considerable efforts to address those issues, but we are monitoring them carefully and if action is needed, it will be proportionate and sensible.

The hon. Gentleman also raised important points about poultry production. Of course we want to improve animal welfare in any way we can, but I gently say to him that the trade issues are complicated, and there is no point in our moving unless we can move in tandem with others. Exporting cruelty does not solve the problem. This is a complicated set of issues, but we clearly want to make as many improvements as we can.

I was pleased to hear the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) raised about animal testing. I will come to them in a moment.

As we always say, we are a nation of animal lovers. The RSPCA plays a crucial role and should be given significant credit for helping shape the attitudes towards animal welfare that underpin our society. The comments by the hon. Member for Strangford about the USPCA informed my thinking; I was not entirely aware of its work. The inspectors and animal rescue officers of the USPCA and the RSPCA work—in often extremely challenging circumstances—to investigate and rescue animals from harm, and they deserve our thanks and praise, as do the staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to rehabilitate and rehome so many animals and give them a better life. The RSPCA has proven to be a formidable champion of animal welfare over the past 200 years, and successive Governments have greatly benefited from its expertise and advice.

Hon. Members have raised a number of campaigns and issues, and I will try to set out our position on some of the main ones. In our manifesto, we outlined that we are committed to ending puppy smuggling. Since the pet travel rules were harmonised with the European Union in 2012, there has been a significant increase in the number of non-commercial pet movements into the UK. Sadly, it tripled since 2011 to more than 320,000 dogs and cats in 2023. The number of dogs, cats and ferrets imported under the commercial rules has also significantly increased over the past few years. I listened closely to the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford about cat movements. By the nature of the crime, we cannot know the true extent of pet smuggling operations, but we know that commercial imports of dogs and cats are being disguised as non-commercial movements, as they are subject to less stringent checks.

Sadly, there is also an emerging market for the importation of heavily pregnant dogs and dogs with cropped ears—a painful practice that has been rightly banned in the UK for more than 15 years. We intend to clamp down on unscrupulous traders who prioritise profit over welfare. This problem is linked to dog breeding issues. We are working closely with the UK Brachycephalic Working Group to reduce the number of dogs affected by that condition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn mentioned the overriding recommendation of the 2015 Law Commission report into wildlife legislation—namely, that wildlife laws in this country need to be consolidated. I cannot today commit to bringing about that consolidation, but it is clear that we need more consistency and clarity. Our general election manifesto included an explicit commitment to bring an end to the use of snare traps, which I am sure hon. Members will welcome, but I am conscious that questions are posed about the humaneness of other wildlife traps. The law should be there to improve the protection of our wild animals, not only from an ethical standpoint but because the protection of wildlife is a crucial part of our approach to meeting our nature recovery ambitions.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his speech; it is wonderful to see him in his place. I spent five years before my election to this House working in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), and in the shadow DEFRA team with the Minister, so it is very good to be here listening to him. On that point, I urge him to be bold and ambitious. The shadow Minister’s speech was like a rehash of a previous life, but his rose-tinted version did not quite match my recollection. We seek to have the strongest approach to animal welfare, so let us be bold and do what the Conservatives did not.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I shall always listen to my hon. Friend’s exhortations to be bold. Watch this space in the coming few months.

Finally on wildlife, significant sanctions are available to judges for those convicted of most wildlife crimes, but there are questions as to why there are different penalties for similarly abhorrent acts against different species. Bringing more consistency seems worthy of closer consideration. The Government will look at how best to deliver nature restoration and enforce animal welfare standards for wildlife.

Moving on to points raised especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough about phasing out the use of animals in experiments, the use of animals in science is a highly sensitive issue. We agree with the RSPCA that it is essential to replace the use of animals with humane alternatives. That is why we made in our manifesto a commitment to partner scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. We are engaging with key stakeholders with an interest in animal research as to how we will take that commitment forward. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn asked for a timetable in her opening statement; I assure her that it will be done in due course.

The UK is world leading in the development of alternative methods to using animals. This Government are keen to ensure that such methods are used wherever possible. However, technology is not quite yet at the stage where animal testing can wholly be replaced. We want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures where we can, but for now the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary if we are to protect humans and the wider environment.

The use of animals in such testing is limited to specific purposes. Furthermore, the use of animals in scientific procedures is permitted only if no alternative is available, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to the absolute minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit. Those are collectively known as the three Rs of replacement, reduction and refinement.

I also recognise the significant public interest in the welfare of farmed animals, and the immense contribution that the RSPCA has made to help raise farm animal welfare standards through its lobbying and its farm assurance scheme, RSPCA Assured. I heard the comments by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, but I am confident that the work that the RSPCA is doing will restore confidence in that very important scheme.

I appreciate the strong public demand for clearer animal welfare information on the food people buy, to help them make purchasing decisions that align with their values. The public consultation on fairer food labelling was undertaken earlier this year by the previous Government. That consultation sought views on proposals to extend existing mandatory methods of production labelling. We are carefully considering all the responses to the consultation before deciding on next steps. We will publish a response to the consultation in due course.

On cages and confinement, I am very much aware of the strong public feeling about keeping farm animals in cages and of the recent campaigns, including by the RSPCA, urging the Government to publish consultations on phasing out the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and of farrowing crates for pigs. I appreciate the RSPCA’s role in leading the way on encouraging high standards when it comes to this issue, with RSPCA Assured not permitting the use of colony cages for laying hens or farrowing crates for pigs.

I am encouraged that the market itself is driving the move to alternative systems for laying hens—primarily free range and barn—away from the use of cages. The transition to non-cage egg production has been supported by the major supermarkets, which have pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by 2025. That shift by retailers has accelerated the move away from colony cage systems. Free-range eggs account for more than 60% of total egg throughput in the UK.

We will not, however, leave the issue to market forces alone. The transition to cage-free systems is being supported by grants in England for laying-hen and pullet farmers with flocks of 1,000 birds or more to refurbish or replace existing housing, including those looking to make the transition from colony cages to higher-welfare non-cage systems.

As with cages for laying hens, the issue of ending the use of pig farrowing crates does not only affect the UK industry, but is something that our European trading partners are also considering.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister and I, and hopefully everyone else in this Chamber, appreciate the efforts and contributions of farmers who, by and large, want their animals to be well looked after and try to achieve that. The National Farmers Union here and the Ulster Farmers Union back home are working alongside farmers to improve things. Sometimes in debates we can get a wee bit lost in these things. It is important to remember that many people are trying their best to make things better.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is important to make the point that of course all our farmers want to raise their animals to the highest possible standards, but they need the right regulatory frameworks to make that possible, which is what we are working on. As with any change to our farming systems, as I said earlier, we need to consider the implications for trade.

[Adrian Ramsay]

The Minister says that he wants to be ambitious on animal protection and has asked us to watch this space, which we will do, given the cross-party interest in this roomin animal protection issues. He mentioned market forces and trends in animal welfare. May I highlight, therefore, that we are seeing a proliferation of huge industrial chicken sheds in Norfolk and Suffolk, and I am sure around the country? Tens of thousands of birds, and in some cases pigs, are kept in really unpleasant, cramped indoor conditions that are not consistent with welfare standards of the type that the Minister talks about. What action will the Government take to stop that trend? This is about animal protection, river pollution and environmental standards.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I disagree with the hon. Member’s assumption that animal welfare standards are lower in larger-scale production facilities; that is a false premise. I urge him to look at some of the smaller premises that are sometimes undercapitalised and, I am afraid, do not always achieve the welfare standards that we are looking for. I do not think it is as simple as he makes out.

The trade issues are really important. We already lead in Europe—I am going back to the pig sector here—in having a significant outdoor pig sector. Some 40% of the national sow breeding herd farrow freely on outdoor units, with no option for confinement. DEFRA’s statutory welfare code of practice for pigs states that the aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow as well as her piglets.

In the meantime, under the new “Get funding to improve animal health and welfare” service, a fully funded vet visit known as the animal health and welfare review is available to pig farmers to improve pig health and welfare.

It is fair to say that the United Kingdom is rightly proud of the high animal welfare standards that underpin our high quality British produce, and we will work to ensure that we address low confidence and provide stability for the farming sector.

In conclusion, the Government look forward to delivering the most ambitious programme for animal welfare in a generation. I very much hope we can build on the excellent relationship that we have forged with the RSPCA over many years to progress the various important animal welfare issues that have been raised today.

Farming and Food Security

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to have the opportunity to close the debate. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) spoke for so long that it will not be possible to answer many of the questions he posed, but I am grateful to have the opportunity to show my gratitude and support to farmers working hard to feed the nation and protect our environment up and down the country.

We have heard some excellent first speeches from new Members today, and I want to pay tribute to them. From my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), we heard about the housing crisis and about the beauty of the constituency—from toe wrestling to Chatsworth. From the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), we also heard about a beautiful constituency, as well as about the glorious breakfasts available in Cirencester and a eulogy to the Thames. Importantly, she made the point about young new entrants being able to enter farming, which is a passion of mine and something that we will be pursuing with vigour.

We heard from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) about the beautiful spa towns of his constituency, as well as the health issues that he has faced and health systems. I very much recognise the points that he made. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) talked about his internationally diverse community with real passion.

We also had excellent speeches from a range of people. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) talked about water scarcity. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) talked about the need for reservoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) talked about depopulation and the need to get young people into farming. My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) endorsed the sensible call from the president of the National Farmers Union for balance in our attitude to solar farms.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) talked about food hardship. We heard powerful interventions about the mental health issues and challenges facing our farmers and the challenges of rural crime, and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on the need for a land use framework.

I have to say that, from listening to Conservative Members, they do not seem to have grasped the level of their own failure. The Conservative Government failed farmers and rural communities. We have heard about low levels of confidence, 12,000 businesses going out of business, and input costs and energy costs spiralling. That is why rural communities voted them out in their droves. It will be very different in the future.

We have heard the complaints about budgets for the future. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have the experience to know how spending reviews work. They will find out in time where the money is. But, of course, given that they spent the money many times over, they know the problems that we are having to clear up. What we have heard is the need for stability in the future to overcome the economic problems that we have inherited from their failed Government.

Farmers are the backbone of rural communities, our environment and our economy, but they face multiple challenges from flooding and droughts to soaring input costs and rural crime. We need a proper long-term strategy that works. We will do away with the sticking-plaster approach that we have seen for the last few years and replace it with a new deal for farmers that genuinely will boost farmers’ resilience in the face of climate change and wider external shocks.

We will work in partnership with farmers, listen to their concerns and their ideas and tackle the root causes of the long-term issues that they continue to face. Only after those discussions and considerations will it be possible to deliver the changes that farmers really want to see. In summary, that will be a long-term approach—a Labour approach. That approach will be good for farms, good for consumers, good for the environment and good for nature—frankly, a real change from the short-term, quick-fix operators now deservedly relegated to the Opposition Benches.

Question put.

Sheep Farming

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). I am sure that a number of us will spend a lot of time in Westminster Hall debating issues in the months and years to come. There was always a positive and constructive relationship, in particular with the junior Ministers at DEFRA, and I am sure that that will continue. I welcome the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke).

I was struck by how the debate covered all four countries of the United Kingdom. I have been to all four in the past few months to try to start the process of building a closer relationship, absolutely respecting the devolved Administrations and devolution settlements but also recognising the importance of the UK Government’s working closely with them.

Most of all, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for bringing forward this debate and raising points of considerable importance to the sector in what I thought was an excellent introductory speech. I am very fond of his constituency; I remember being at the northern farming conference a few years ago. I look forward to working closely with him.

We have had some excellent contributions. Among those from Government Members, I particularly commend that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), whose points about the need for new entrants were very well made. Long-term parity is absolutely required by the sector. The land use framework has been long promised and we will be working on it with urgency.

I was also struck by the contribution from the Member for the Western Isles, my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). I was in Shetland recently, where there are similar issues, I suspect. The points about crofters are very well made. I absolutely respect the role of the Scottish Government, while reflecting the points that I have already made about the role of the UK Government.

The UK Government are grateful to our sheep farmers. I echo the points made by Opposition Members: we commend sheep farmers for all their work to provide us with products that meet such high environmental and welfare standards and to support the domestic food supply chain and strong export markets. They play a very important role in supporting rural communities, with some 150,000 jobs contributing to economic growth.

Sheepmeat production was worth £1.6 billion in 2023 and is crucial to our food supply chains. Sheepmeat is a protein-rich food that is produced in often challenging environments that are not necessarily suitable for other livestock. Sheep farmers, I am glad to say, are experiencing record high prices: prices in June 2024 were up 24.4% year on year and 42.5% higher than the five-year average, with further benefits coming from stronger export markets, and with new markets such as the United States opening up.

Hon. Members made important points about past trade deals. I do not think we need to rehearse the arguments; certainly we on the Government Benches know what happened, and it is really important that we learn lessons for the future. Issues around our relationship with the European Union are very important as we go into renegotiations. Many of the points that have been raised would be dealt with by negotiating a better phytosanitary agreement, as this Government are very much committed to doing.

It is very important to make the supply chain work more fairly and to prevent shock rises in bills by tackling energy prices through GB Energy. We want to help protect farmers from flooding, through a new flood resilience taskforce. We will use the Government’s purchasing powers to back British produce. Overall, we will achieve a new deal for farming by listening closely to people on the frontline, in this case sheep farmers and everyone who has a stake in our food and farming system. The Government are looking at the data and will set out detailed plans in due course. I was delighted to attend the National Sheep Association’s 2024 event in Malvern, which gave me a chance to listen, learn and say a little about our plans for the future.

Several hon. Members touched on the farming budget and environmental land management schemes. I reiterate our full commitment to those schemes. I would not believe everything that one reads in the newspapers about budgets: there is a spending review process going on and announcements will be made in due course, but our commitment to the agricultural transition to a different form of farming is absolute. We will be trying to improve those schemes; as the shadow Minister acknowledged, there is room for improvement. We will make sure that they produce the right outcomes for all farmers, including sheep farmers, and the wider industry and that they ensure food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way.

The schemes work across the country, supporting a wide range of grassland and moorland types, including action to support productive improved grasslands, extensive low-input grasslands and grazed priority habitats. They include a range of actions to support arable farmers, including the management of herbal leys and winter cover crops. They have been designed to support farmers who wish to reintroduce sheep and other livestock to their arable rotation, which is certainly a very salient issue in my part of the world, the east of England.

There are opportunities for sheep enterprises as part of sustainable farming systems to introduce livestock to some farms that have not had them for more than a generation. Anyone who goes around the east of England will see the evidence that there was a different farming system in the past. The expanded sustainable farming incentive also includes an improved offer, which has been much demanded—and, I hope, welcomed—by upland farmers, including sheep farmers. We hope that it will offer a wider range of actions and greater flexibility.

I have already touched on the trade and border issue. We are absolutely determined to make sure that our trade strategy promotes the highest food production standards. The UK is a net exporter of lamb and mutton; it exports approximately a third of domestic production. More than 90% of exports go to EU destinations. The Government recognise the continuing importance of the EU as one of the sector’s biggest export destinations and, as I have said, we recognise the importance of negotiating a new agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks while maintaining biosecurity.

We will also support our farmers by setting a clear target for half of all food purchased across the public sector to be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards. In the supply chain, we absolutely recognise that fairness is important. We want farmers to get a fair price for their products and are committed to tackling contractual unfairness where it exists. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders from all sectors on how best to achieve that.

Jointly with the Welsh Government and in tandem with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Government, DEFRA has consulted the industry on proposals for a new carcase classification and price reporting system; the shadow Minister raised a query about that. We understand the importance of the new system to the sheep industry in providing stronger price certainty by setting out a clear, consistent and robust scheme for carcase classification and price reporting. The consultation closed in March 2024. We are now looking at it and will make announcements in due course.

Welfare and disease issues are very important to this Government. We are alive to the challenges and threats posed by lameness and by diseases such as bluetongue serotype 3 and peste des petits ruminants. New controls suspending personal imports of certain sheep and goat commodities, such as unpackaged meat, were announced on 21 August to safeguard Britain’s sheep and goat populations from PPR.

The shadow Minister queried the work that we are doing on bluetongue. Clearly there were outbreaks in Norfolk some 10 days ago; we are deploying the tried and tested procedures for animal disease control, with which I am sure he is familiar, in response to the cases found in Norfolk and Suffolk. We decided to permit the use of the currently available vaccines for this virus serotype under certain circumstances. However, I am advised that they only reduce clinical signs; they will not produce immunity to the disease. Animal keepers will need to work closely with their vets to make a decision on usage.

The animal health and welfare pathway is live. It enables farmers with more than 21 sheep registered in England to apply for funding to improve animal health and welfare. That service provides diagnostic testing for priority diseases and conditions, alongside bespoke advice to improve health, welfare and biosecurity, supporting the responsible use of medicines, including antibiotics. DEFRA also continues to work closely with sheep sector bodies on plans to enhance the statutory sheep movement reporting service over the next 18 to 24 months; I think the shadow Minister raised a question about that issue.

Finally, DEFRA supports the sheep sector through conserving valuable genetic resources to help to increase sustainable food production and help breeders to adapt to climate change and new diseases. DEFRA research is also exploring how genetics can help farmers to increase productivity while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I expect that we will be having further discussions; I have to say that my experience of Westminster Hall debates on this sector is that there has always been a relatively small group of interested people. I am looking forward to building those relationships over the months and years ahead, and I am sure that we will all learn a lot from one another. My responsibility is to provide Members with answers to their questions. I will do my very best, and this afternoon is the first step in that process. Overall, the Government recognise the value of a thriving and productive sheep sector and look forward to working with Members and with the sector to achieve that.

Food Security

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is very good to see you in your place.

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) not only for his very kind words and warm welcome, but for his customarily thoughtful speech, and not least his very comprehensive account of his wonderful county of Lincolnshire and the huge contribution that it makes to our food production. I also thank the other hon. Members who made very thoughtful contributions to the debate.

I cannot tell the House how delighted I am to stand at the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the Chamber for the first time as Minister for food security and rural affairs. The very title is a clear statement of this Government’s commitment to rural areas, and as has been said, this Government absolutely recognise that food security is national security. That is why we need a resilient, secure and healthy food system that works with nature, but also supports British farmers. This Government are offering a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen Britain’s food security, and we will set out more details in due course.

Frankly, climate change is one of the most significant threats to our food security. We have seen it this year in the extreme weather events that farmers are having to deal with. It is absolutely the case that taking the difficult decisions now to address climate change will enhance, rather than threaten, our food security. We have to face up to the challenge of an energy transition to achieve that, and in doing so must plan how we will use land in this country to ensure a proper balance between food security, restoring and preserving nature, and clean energy.

I was interested to hear the observations from Opposition Members after their 14 years of opportunity to do the things that they are now keen to do, but we will pick up on many of their suggestions. Certainly one of the key ones will be to publish a land use framework; that was promised by the previous Government, but there were many delays, and we are now picking that up. It will work in tandem with our spatial energy plan.

I can assure the House that communities will quite rightly continue to have a say on proposals for their area. It is important for this Government that where communities host clean energy infrastructure, they should directly benefit from it. However, we will not get into a position where the clean energy that we need does not get built and the British people end up paying the price.

Credible external estimates suggest that ground-mounted solar used just 0.1% of our land in 2022. The biggest threat to nature, food security and our rural communities is not solar panels or onshore wind; it is the major climate crisis, which itself threatens our best farmland, food production and, indeed, the livelihoods of farmers. The Government will absolutely proceed on the basis not of hearsay and conjecture, but of evidence.

One of the Government’s five missions, which I am sure people have heard much about, is our commitment to making Britain a clean energy superpower. That is part of a wider ambition to deliver on existing net zero emissions targets. Farming has a big role to play in contributing to net zero; 70% or so of UK land is used for agriculture, and farmers are custodians of the natural environment. They absolutely work hard to manage their land responsibly while providing the food we all need.

I am glad that there is now consensus around the need for farmers to produce food. There was a curious period a few years ago when it seemed as though food production had somehow been forgotten. I can see the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings nodding wisely because he knows to what I refer, and I am pleased that we have all moved on and can agree on the notion that food production is so important.

[Sir John Hayes]

The previous Government, albeit belatedly, changed planning guidance to give additional protection to grade 1, 2 and 3a land of the kind that I described. Furthermore, they said that when an energy developer expressed an interest in developing a site—of solar panels, for example—any assessment of the soil should be entirely independent. Those seem to be perfectly reasonable policies—reasonable enough for a reasonable man to accept.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Member tempts me into a level of detail that I am afraid I am not prepared to go into this evening. We are examining all these issues and will come to a considered position. We want to get the balance right and that is what we will do, because the transition to more climate-friendly practices does not need to come at the expense of food production or farm profitability. In our view, net zero can absolutely support economic growth, including by accelerating the uptake of innovative technologies to increase productivity and efficiency in the agriculture sector. That, in turn, will support net zero food production, the efficient use of land and nature recovery.

Our intention is to work closely on that necessary transition with not just the farming industry, but all stakeholders involved. We will work with farmers to ensure that we avoid imposing unnecessary costs, and—this, I hope, will be welcome to many in the sector—we absolutely guarantee that we will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals.

The right hon. Member, as I rather anticipated, mentioned solar in particular. As with all major infrastructure projects, there is a rigorous application process, and food production is rightly considered in it. I point hon. Members to the decision letters on these solar projects, which are available on the Planning Inspectorate website. That is the normal procedure in planning decisions. All the documentation will be found there, not just the final decision letters. I hope that makes it clear that all objections, relevant evidence and points raised throughout the planning inquiry are addressed and given weight in coming to a planning decision. I appreciate that the decision letter is a long, complex document, as indeed it should be, given the important issues raised. There is a limit to what I can say, as I am bound by the planning propriety guidance, which is clear that during the legal challenge period, planning Ministers and officials cannot comment on the decision, summarise it or interpret it.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister see any merit in legislating for a food security target?

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is under consideration, and we will come back to that in due course. I note that, where appropriate, solar projects can be designed to enable continued livestock grazing. There is also a science of agrivoltaics developing, in which solar is integrated with arable farming in innovative ways. Solar energy can be an important way for farmers to increase their revenue from land less suited to higher-value crop production. There is also evidence that solar can improve biodiversity. We recognise that, sadly, confidence among farmers is at a record low, but this Government want to change that. We look forward to working closely with farmers to strengthen food security, progress the energy transition and boost rural economic growth.

I thank everyone who has contributed to an interesting and informed debate. As ever, most importantly, I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and not just for securing the debate today. I am sure the debate will continue, and I look forward to conducting it in the same constructive manner in which we have started it tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue, because if a Government are promising change, they need to be able to say what the timelines are. They need to say what the budget is and what legislation they will pass to deliver that. On all those things, there is silence in this King’s Speech.

The Labour manifesto has lots of high-sounding things that are hard to disagree with. Labour wants more food security, and says that food security is national security, and we on the Opposition Benches agree. Labour says it wants to raise animal welfare, and we have done a huge amount to do so. That is fine. However, if the Government say they want to end the badger cull, when will they do that? There is nothing in the King’s Speech on that, so what are the timelines? Dairy farmers would like to know. Will the Secretary of State publish the analysis from the chief veterinary officer on what the impact of ending the cull would be on the trajectory? We know that the current approach has seen TB cases come down in England from 34,500 in 2018 to below 20,000. Certainly the advice that I had was that vaccinations would not be ready for some time. Will he publish the trajectory and tell us when the cull will end?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

You need to respect the science.

[Steve Barclay]

Of course we respect the science. The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, but I presume he will get the same science brief—in a way, he makes my point—that I got from the chief vet, which was that the vaccinations were not ready and the cull was being effective. In fact, we only need to look at Labour’s policy in Wales, where the opposite is happening, to see that. I hope that, as he represents Cambridge, he will follow the science, because the Government made a commitment that does not. Perhaps that is the sort of change they mean—a change from what they committed to in the manifesto. It did not take long.

Speaking of things at a high level that no one can disagree with, the Government talk about making more use of public sector procurement. Again, the Conservatives not only agree with that, but we have helped the Government with it. The former Member for Colchester did a fantastic review, the Quince review, looking at how that will be done, but the Government are silent on the funding for that. Will it be funded out of the budget of the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Defence, local government—or will it come out of the Secretary of State’s budget? It is difficult for him to say, because he does not even know what his budget will be.

The reality is that we have empty slogans from a party that does not care about the rural economy. The Government are not giving clarity to farming and fishing; they barely mentioned farming in their manifesto, and they did not even mention fishing. This King’s Speech does nothing for the farming and fishing communities. The decisions that we have seen so far take vast amounts of farmland out of food production in order to prioritise the eco-zealotry that we have heard so often in this House. I hope the Secretary of State will give the clarity that is sadly lacking in the King’s Speech on what the Government will do—and when—on the budget, on food procurement, and on dairy farmers and the badger cull, and will end the uncertainty that the president of the NFU and so many others in the farming and fishing community currently face.

Under-10-Metre Fishing Fleet: South-West

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate, because the inshore small-scale fleets are vital not just to the fishermen and their families, who rely on them for household income, but, as we have heard, to the shore jobs that they sustain and the wider benefit that those iconic fleets deliver across their coastal communities. There is rightly a proud heritage of fishing at the heart of our coastal towns and villages, not just in the south-west but across the country. It is not unusual to meet fishermen who can trace their fishing families back many generations. I recently met one in Beer who can trace his family’s fishing roots back to the 1600s.

I should say at the outset that we are discussing under-10-metres, but I am mindful that that can seem an arbitrary definition that came into force long ago and perhaps does not properly recognise the differences between a 7-metre open-top boat that launches off a cobble beach and an under-10-metre twin-rig trawler or a 15-metre clinker-built wooden boat, with less power and catching efficiency than some under-10-metres. It is perhaps time to consider whether one size fits all.

These brave fishers who set sail in the smallest of our boats, risking their lives to bring us fish suppers, are in many cases having a really challenging time. The stress and anxiety around the coast are palpable, as we heard in many of today’s contributions. I, too, pay tribute to organisations such as the Seafarers’ Charity, the Fishermen’s Mission and the other charities that help to fund and support our small-scale fleets with mental health and financial support for households when families find themselves without a safety net and nowhere to turn. As we have heard, this debate is timely with the National Fishing Remembrance Day events held a few days ago.

It is indisputable that this sector has struggled in recent years, lurching from one crisis to the next, leaving these micro-businesses, often single-handed owner-operators, to try to piece together a living against a backdrop of, too often, knee-jerk fisheries management. Most recently, the pollock debacle has left so many of these vessels without fishing opportunities for part of the year and with a compensation scheme that, frankly, seems to many to have been rushed through without consultation, with many not receiving much-needed help. Although I understand that the 30% bar set for the scheme may sound reasonable, it does not take sufficient account of those small-scale fleets that earn modest incomes of £20,000 to £30,000 a year, and the hardship caused by losing 20% of their income, with no opportunities to replace it.

I hope the Minister will tell us who fed into that policy and why it was decided that these artisan fishermen would receive nothing. I and many others would be grateful if he could take another look at the scheme, to see what could be done to support those who so far have been forgotten. I will not say too much about the ministerial direction that was required to introduce this scheme, but it is, at best, unusual. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us, in his recollection, how often it has been needed.

I am also interested to hear the plan for managing the angling sector’s catch and retaining of pollock, as we have heard. Almost 12 months after the International Council for Exploration of the Seas published its advice on zero total allowable catch, why has there not been a consultation to consider whether legislation should be brought forward to track and limit recreational catches?

We know from the fascinating correspondence between the permanent secretary at DEFRA and the Secretary of State, to which I have already referred, that pollock has been in decline for many years. I ask the Minister: how many other stocks have been poorly managed and are at risk of big reductions and zero TACs? He may wish to say none but, if he does not, I suspect we can fear the worst. Pollock is just the latest problem demonstrating that the sector has been let down. The Brexit promise of protection to 12 miles was a pie-crust promise, easily made and broken, like so many others. We have had capping exercises that have had to be reversed, entitlement requirements that now seem challengeable, fisheries management plans being rolled out at eye-watering speed, with little understanding of why some stocks were chosen, and several failed starts of the inshore vessel monitoring system, with type approvals certifying items of kit—then suspending them, before subsequently being reinstated and removed—all after some fishers had followed Government guidance and rushed to install them. They have had to endure the CatchAPP, which they were told was fit for purpose when it was not. All of that comes against the backdrop of new codes issued by the Department for Transport, via the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will not, I am afraid, given that I am very pressed for time.

It seems there was little consideration across Government as to the timing. On the issues raised about the Plymouth fish market, I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). Is it any wonder that fishers feel persecuted and left behind? Good fisheries management and enforcement is vital to healthy seas, stocks and food security. Frankly, there can be no doubt that, while this Government have heaped new burdens of epic proportions on this sector in the past few years, they have not delivered their side of the bargain: coherent and considered fisheries management of opportunities, so that families can earn a living and businesses can plan their future.

Finally, I urge the Minister to consider the way in which fisheries management plans and other workstreams have been developed. If he really wants to see more engagement from the sector—if he genuinely wants those people’s views and input—he needs to direct those conducting meetings not to hold them in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, thereby forcing fishermen to choose between losing sea time and earnings, and to consider the cumulative impact of having separate organisations running multiple consultations simultaneously. These are in the Minister’s gift to fix, so I would be grateful if he could commit to that. The under-10 fleet is critical to coastal communities. They are struggling, and more needs to be done to secure their future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

What are the Government doing to support farmers? Quite a few people are asking that. When one looks at the evidence of what is going on, the survey this week from the National Farmers Union into farmer confidence revealed that a staggering 65% of farmers are facing declining profits, or their business will not survive at all. Their prospects are worse than most Tory MPs, it suddenly seems. Why is it that farmers do so badly under the Conservatives?

Checks on Goods Entering UK

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

We recognise the need to ensure the UK’s biosecurity, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). What a mess. It is 29 April and the new checks are being introduced tomorrow, but the businesses involved are unclear about how the system is supposed to operate—and that is after the five delays that we have heard about and huge sums wasted on border control points. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much has been wasted on Portsmouth, for instance.

We want these checks to work. I have been to the London and the Dover port health authorities and been extremely impressed by the work that they do, but it is baffling that, in the battle against Asian swine flu, at Dover, the Minister is taking away vital funding, as the Government move the checks 22 miles up the road to Sevington. Can he tell the House how food vehicles will be controlled on that journey, as Dover Port Health Authority tells me clearly that they won’t?

The Government have admitted that the cost will be an extra £330 million annually. Others say it will be more. What definitive figures can the Minister provide for the inflationary impact that this Government’s border measures will create for food supplies in the UK? What assessment has been made of the savings and efficiency that would be made if we were to achieve a better veterinary agreement with the EU?

In conclusion, the British chambers of commerce says that DEFRA has failed to listen to industry over these changes. Others say the same. Many businesses are exasperated by the endless delays and the repeated and continual lack of clarity and certainty in the implementation of the new system. Why have the Government left businesses and even border chiefs in a position where they simply cannot plan properly and are left in the dark, as one put it, at one minute to midnight in terms of being told about the essential features of the new system? What is the Minister going to do to sort out the mess?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and his interest in this topic. What is clear is that there is a distinction between those goods that are coming into the country illegally, which will still be inspected at the port of Dover by Border Force, and those that are coming in via legitimate routes, by legitimate trade links, from areas that have been inspected by their own country’s equivalent of the Food Standards Agency to make sure that those port goods are safe to come into the UK with the correct documentation. Those goods will go to Sevington. But if someone tries to do something illegal, they will be picked up by Border Force at the port of Dover, via inspection, including intelligence-led inspection. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says that there is no money, but we are in conversation with Port of Dover to resolve that.

The other challenge that the shadow Minister put to us was that we have delayed this a number of times. That has happened because we have been in conversation with those people and hauliers who have had comments on how to improve the system. We have listened to those concerns and now have the model that will operate, given the advice and liaison we have had with those companies.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Public Bill Committees

The four things I have mentioned would all add to a greater sense of discipline and rigour around the ownership of dogs, particularly in the countryside, and I hope they can be looked at on Report. I suggest them in the spirit of working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal to try to make the Bill as strong as possible. The Bill is extremely welcome. I know that many of my constituents will cheer her to the rafters for the work she has done both as Secretary of State and in bringing forward the Bill, and I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for inviting me to be on the Bill Committee; I very much hope she does not come to regret it. I am interested in the Bill both in a practical sense—we all want to see livestock properly protected—and as someone who is, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out, a veteran of the kept animals Bill. I will come back to that in a minute, because some of the issues that have been raised were addressed in that Bill.

I will not delay the Committee by discussing the harm that is done. I echo the points that have been made. The harm was certainly raised by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), on Second Reading, when he detailed a number of cases in offering the Opposition’s full support for the Bill, which I echo.

It will not come as any surprise to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal that I make the point again that we were discussing the kept animals Bill some two and a half years ago. I was delighted that she gave me the first explanation that I have heard for its withdrawal, but I am not convinced by it. That Bill was an extraordinary collection of things in the first place, and the only additions that I recall being made were some amendments—unhelpful ones, I suspect, from the Government’s point of view—from Conservative Back Benchers. It was withdrawn, and we have not had the relevant protections for two and a half years, due to political management issues in the Conservative party. Leaving that aside, there were important points in that Bill, some of which have been brought forward in private Members’ Bills, although that is a chancy way of doing things.

I was fortunate to find the bundle of papers from that period in my office earlier. I am glad that I did because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, the original kept animals Bill was a very different piece of legislation. It was much more comprehensive and introduced the notion of control orders and disqualification orders, which I think would very much address the points that have been raised. I am not clear why a different approach has been taken with this Bill.

The kept animals Bill would have effectively replaced the 1953 Act, but this Bill amends it and is quite different as a consequence. That includes the lack of a debate such as the one we had then—I am sure Members will remember it—about not just the control orders and disqualification orders but the very definition of “worrying livestock” in the 1953 Act. That led to a lengthy and complicated discussion about whether people should be expected to keep their dog on a lead when close to livestock. I am not sure why that has not been reintroduced, either. The then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), declined our amendments, but we were strongly of the view that that would send a very strong message to people that if they are close to livestock, their dog should be on a lead. I would like us to return to that discussion, if possible, and consider including that provision in this Bill.

More could have been done for those reasons, but, having said all that, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this Bill. We support it and I wish it well as it progresses through the House, but it would be good to strengthen it on Report, if possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this incredibly important Bill. From the contributions we have heard in this debate, we know just how impactful it could be on constituents who have unfortunately experienced livestock worrying or livestock attacking.

I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for trying to improve the Bill as it moves through the House. “Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare”, published in 2021, set out our plans, aims and ambitions across animal welfare. It set out the commitments that we are focused on pursuing to deliver a better life for animals in this country and abroad. The Bill supports our commitments to ensure that new powers are available to the police so that they can respond efficiently and proactively to the worrying and attacking of livestock by dogs.

The Bill’s purpose is to amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It will strengthen police powers and extend the location and species that are within scope of that Act. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock can have awful impacts. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or death. Our own family farm—I refer Members to my declaration of interest—has experienced sheep worrying and sheep attacking, so I know from experience how detrimental it can be not only to the financial measures of a business but to health and wellbeing. We must also consider the impact of the inability to protect one’s own livestock. Livestock can also suffer wider tragic impacts as a result of livestock worrying, including abortion. Such impacts go beyond animals and their welfare. As I have said, they will also have a direct impact on farmers and lead to financial loss.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal raised a case relating to the difference between attacking and worrying. Paragraph 1 of the schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act and addresses that specifically. Attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock, to recognise the violent nature of such offences.

Statistics from the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society show that UK farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023. That was up by nearly 30% compared with the previous year, which demonstrates why the Bill is so important. In addition, a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association found that 70% of farmers had experienced sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. Some 95% of the 305 sheep farmers surveyed said that they experienced up to 10 cases of sheep worrying every year.

The Bill will improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively by extending powers of seizure and modifying entry powers. It also introduces new powers to take samples and impressions from livestock and the suspected dogs. That should facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect evidence, which, in turn, should improve the rate of successful prosecutions and hopefully reduce the risk of further incidents.

The Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where the offence may take place to include roads or paths. As Committee members have mentioned, it is important to move livestock from one field to another but attacks can happen when that transition is taking place. The Bill addresses the point of roads and paths being considered.

The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying to create separate offences for attacks on livestock and the worrying of livestock, in recognition that both attacking and worrying livestock are serious and devastating. I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. I note the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, however, about other species that could be included, such as ostriches, should things change in future and should farming practices include other species. There may be a wish for that to be considered on Report.

I turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. Other Committee members referred to it and expressed support for higher levels of fines for the offence of livestock worrying. The current maximum fine that may be imposed in any case is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000. I understand that my right hon. Friend is keen to amend that fine to provide the courts with the appropriate flexibility to impose a higher fine where that is warranted. We as a Government agree that increasing the fine will serve as an additional deterrent to help to reduce the likelihood of future livestock worrying.

As drafted, however, the amendment is out of step with the current fine guidance as it refers to level 5 fines, when the practice since 2015 has been to provide for unlimited fines rather than level 5 fines. It also includes a tiered approach to take account of reoffending, which the courts can already supply under the Sentencing Council guidelines on aggravating and mitigating factors. As my right hon. Friend referenced, my officials will work with her as the Bill progresses to Report stage, before it comes back to the House, so we can table a revised amendment that will deliver on the desired intent to increase the fines that courts can issue to unlimited, and to act as a deterrent.

I am aware of the support for animal welfare in this country and the interest that the matter continues to receive. The strength of feeling has been apparent again from the discussions that we have heard. I will make a couple of additional points. On common land, the definition of agricultural land in the 1953 Act does not expressly reference common land but it does include land used for grazing, and therefore common land could be in scope of the Bill. Ultimately, it remains a matter for the courts to decide if the land in question is in scope in any particular case, but our interpretation is that common land could be determined by the courts to be in scope as grazing land.

On the shadow Minister’s point about dogs being kept on leads, the Bill does not cover that and, from our experience, there is good reason for that. The Bill deals with having control of dogs, but as Committee members may know, it is not right in every circumstance to have signage that specifically relates to keeping dogs on leads. I am aware of circumstances in Yorkshire where signage has stipulated that dogs must be kept on leads, but then someone might keep a dog on a lead and take it into a field full of cattle. If there are young calves, there will, of course, be mother cows that will want to protect their calves. If the dog owner keeps their dog on a lead and does not let go, there is a risk that the owner will also be put at risk if a mother and calf become separated and the mother wants to take down the dog. It is therefore not right in every circumstance.

That is why dogs being kept on leads does not fall in the scope of the Bill and has not been progressed at this stage. Of course, I would always refer people to the countryside code, which deals with the challenges that have been raised. The Bill builds on the Government’s ambitious programme of animal welfare reforms, and we are very pleased to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I commit to my right hon. and learned Friend to go away and work with the Minister and officials on the details of that particular issue. It was my understanding that there were other legal powers available for the outcomes that he seeks, but if that is not the case—he has expressed some concern about the level of detail—we should look to rectify that in future.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The fact that disqualification was brought forward in the kept animals Bill suggests that this Bill was the appropriate place for it.

[Dr Coffey]

The then Farming Minister did give an explanation when the kept animals Bill was paused. That Bill covered many issues, which have already been covered in private Members’ Bills and Government Bills in a number of different ways. Those issues have been broken up to try to ensure that the Bills are passed without all the extra things that people had been talking about. This is nothing to do with party political management; I remind the Committee that at one point in the kept animals Bill, we were starting to consider how to hold a chicken—quite far off topic from its original purpose. This Bill tries to simplify matters. I recognise that the hon. Member for Cambridge may have a different perspective on that, but I will stick to what I believe to be the case.

In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, as has been said, the Bill extends to agricultural land, which is perceived to have its natural meaning. It is not intended to cover the Fenton situation, although what happened there was unfortunate. We have to bear in mind that quite a lot of what we are dealing with is negligence by owners, rather than criminal intent. We are not getting into the situation of deliberately releasing animals to attack other animals. At the moment, I do not think it would cover a foreshore, but I do not have the precise legal definition. It basically covers bare land that would be used for agriculture. That is pretty comprehensive and certainly should cover the common land that the hon. Member for Neath referred to.

I am mindful of the questions that have been raised today, some of which, as I hope Committee members recognise, will be taken away to see whether further strengthening is needed. I am happy to meet Committee members, but I will also write to let them know about some of the questions that have been raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.