Environmental Protection
James Naish Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved.
It is a pleasure to be here on this hot and sultry evening. Despite our late nights or early mornings—whatever we decided to do in order to get over the football—I hope I can entertain the House with this vital piece of new legislation. I would like to acknowledge the important work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its review of this statutory instrument. Its scrutiny is a vital part of our legislative process, ensuring that the policy intentions behind our secondary legislation are clear and well founded.
As Members across the House will know from their inboxes and will have seen for themselves, waste crime blights our constituencies. Criminals who dump waste illegally in our streets, our fields and our woodlands show contempt for our communities and for us, creating eyesores that damage our environment. Under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, a light-touch registration system was set up for those who transport and deal in waste. It has remained pretty much untouched since then. As a result, it has been exploited by waste criminals, leaving the public with a huge clean-up bill. Enforcement, sadly, is only reactive. The system is not fit for purpose, with anyone or anything—a dead dog called Oscar, a fish, or even a cow called Beau Vine—being able to register on the system. That stops today.
This Labour Government are scrapping the broken waste system that the Conservatives left behind. Today we are introducing stricter checks and requirements, closing the loopholes long exploited by illegal operators, and the objective of this Government’s waste crime action plan, published in March, is to stop waste crime at its source and to bring pride back to our communities. We are cracking down on the waste criminals, dragging the regime into the modern age and improving waste traceability.
These regulations bring those in England who control and transport waste within the scope of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. They repeal the current carriers, brokers and dealers registration, which is now over: finished, kaput, no more. These regulations introduce tougher checks for waste controllers and transporters. Permitting will now be required for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site-based waste activities. Those who apply for permits will undergo strict background checks, including tax checks, identity checks and criminal records checks. They will need to demonstrate that they are technically competent to do the job.
The Environment Agency will be responsible for managing applications for, and ensuring compliance with, this new permitting system. The fees introduced for permits will also mean that the Environment Agency will be effectively resourced for its compliance work.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My constituents in Rushcliffe have experienced the consequences of waste crime very recently. In April, there was a fire at the Hathernware industrial estate, eight years after a previous fire. This particular fire raged for seven days and caused significant health impacts for the local community. Will my hon. Friend go further and think about how the different agencies with responsibility for waste should be working more effectively together? Although the Environment Agency was involved with this incident, it also thought responsibility lay with the county council and other agencies. I think they all need to come together so that there is proper accountability.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We inherited a bit of a “pass the parcel” system: “Who is the landowner? Who is the local authority? What is the size of the dump? Is it permitted or not?” That means that waste criminals can fall between the cracks and that there is effectively impunity. We have introduced a digital waste system, but under the current system, enforcement can only be reactive, not proactive. For that reason, we are introducing identity checks, to find out the answers to questions like, “Does this person actually exist, or is it a dog or a cow?”, “Do they have a criminal record?” and “Are they fit and competent to manage the waste?” All those things matter. As my hon. Friend described, we are talking about dangerous materials. We do not want to see them piled high and not moved on, and then, sadly, a fire coming along—whether deliberate or accidental. In all these environmental crimes, including dumping and burning, the profits are privatised, but the costs, and the social and environmental consequences, are socialised.
Mary Creagh
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but it is a bit too early to say. These prosecutions often take a long time to piece together. We have all seen the pattern where a company goes bust, owing HMRC a vast amount of money—sometimes in the tens of millions of pounds. I do not want to get into saying, “One, three, five or seven,” and setting out those targets; I do not think we are at a stage to talk about that.
However, I can reassure the House that my risk appetite for not granting permits to people who may be questionable is very high, and I am very happy to be taken to court by people who think they may have unjustly been denied a waste permit. So far, there have been no cases against us or the Environment Agency for refusing a licence.
We are tightening up all the way along the system, but I do not want to get into metrics. We know the sites where we have problems and we see new ones appearing, and the thing is to stop the proliferation of those sites, many of which are simply illegal and are not permitted in any way, shape or form. That is where our difficulty comes in.
James Naish
I want to go back to the case that I mentioned earlier. For the Minister’s reference, there will be a two-and-a-half-month delay between the Environment Agency wanting to take action and managing to get the court order that will prevent the individual from getting access to the site, where there has been a second illegal fire within eight years. May I put on the Minister’s radar the importance of sorting out the courts so that immediate action can be taken when problems are identified?
Mary Creagh
I am responsible for many things, from forests and international biodiversity to peat and trees; I am afraid the courts are slightly outwith my jurisdiction, but I will pass that point on. We are working with our colleagues on issues around sentencing.
On the metrics, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) knows, as a former Environment Secretary, that we have a risk-based, intelligence-led approach that directs the greatest effort towards the highest harm illegal operators. By strengthening the regulatory framework and their abilities, alongside these reforms, we are providing those in the joint unit for waste crime, who are responsible for tackling it, with the tools that they need to stamp it out.
I was very disappointed to read The Times’s leader today on fly-tipping; I thought it was a little unfair. This Government have doubled the Environmental Agency’s waste crime enforcement budget by committing an additional £45 million over the next three financial years. I believe the budget in 2024-25 was £10 million. We have added £5 million on this year, and then we will add an extra £15 million. Essentially doubling that budget means more boots on the ground and more drones in the air to expand enforcement activities and track down waste criminals. Since March, I believe we have had 18 waste crime prosecutions.
I acknowledge the strength of support in the legitimate waste industry for this reform, and its patience over the years as that reform has been developed under the watch of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire and others. These regulations are a significant change. They level the playing field for all operators and will protect communities and the environment from waste criminals. As I said, this is a really important part of our plan to stop waste crime.
These regulations also bring the Environment Act 2021 within the scope of the primary authority scheme by adding it to schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. For those unfamiliar with it, the primary authority scheme allows businesses with operations in more than one area to work with a single local authority that provides consistent, tailored advice on meeting their legal obligations, which can cover areas such as environmental health, trading standards and fire safety.
Extending the scheme to include the Environment Act is important, because it will enable primary authorities to support retailers in understanding and meeting their responsibilities under the forthcoming deposit return scheme, which launches next year. That will help to ensure a more consistent and effective approach across the country. I recommend this statutory instrument to the House.
Air Pollution
James Naish Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 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
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. There is no safe level of air pollution. I will say that again: there is no safe level of air pollution. Of course, life is not risk-free. Every year, almost 250 people die from knife crime and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, almost 1,600 people die in road traffic accidents and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, approximately 43,000 people die prematurely from air pollution, yet there is silence. Well, no more—the public are finding their voice about this silent, invisible killer. This morning in Parliament Square, doctors, nurses, academics, carers, mothers and babies came together with the Healthy Air Coalition, the National Heart and Lung Foundation, Mums for Lungs, trade unions, and Asthma + Lung UK to demand that Parliament act. Eighty-two of them represented the 82 people whose lives are cut short by air pollution every day.
We have a public health emergency on our hands and the response from successive Governments so far has simply not been adequate. We have no co-ordinated national plan to get key pollutants down to safer levels that are aligned with the World Health Organisation limit values. Sadly, the annual data released this week shows that things are going in the wrong direction. Two days ago, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published new air quality statistics for 2025; note the words “air quality”—it should be “air pollution” statistics. It found that
“annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 showed an increase of 12 per cent at urban background stations and an increase of 14 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024.”
It also found that
“annual mean concentrations of PM10 showed an increase of 12 per cent for urban background stations and an increase of 8 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024”
and that annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide increased by
“3 per cent at urban background stations”
although they did show a 1% decrease at roadside stations.
I hope that everyone notices the irony that DEFRA insists on calling this “air quality” instead of air pollution. Let us be clear about the health impacts of air pollution. Polluted air is linked to up to 43,000 deaths in the UK every year. Let us imagine the reaction if a new covid variant was having such an impact. Imagine if knife crime was linked to hundreds of deaths every week, or if we saw 82 deaths on our roads every single day. Air pollution is the second leading risk factor for death in children under five and it is the largest environmental risk to public health, yet it remains the silent killer—the invisible killer—because it is often masked by other diseases that it has aggravated. We have had just one case where the coroner’s certificate reports air pollution as a cause of death: that of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, where the coroner concluded that Ella had
“died of asthma contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution.”
He said it “made a material contribution” to her death. I pay tribute to Ella’s mother, Rosamund, and to all those who have campaigned for clean air as a human right. Rosamund was in Parliament Square this morning with all those campaigners. The work that she has done to bring this matter to public consciousness should be respected by everyone in Parliament.
Scientists have found links between air pollution, almost every organ system in the body and the major diseases that affect them. That includes the brain, lungs, cardiovascular system, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract, bones, skin, reproductive system and even the central nervous system, where air pollution increases the chance of developing dementia. The current health evidence, based on more than 60,000 studies, links air pollution to more than 700 illnesses.
Although the scientific evidence base grows every year, we know more than enough to realise that current efforts fall far short of what is needed. Indeed, here is what we know about the state of air pollution in the UK: air quality targets and the legal air pollution limits are not sufficient to protect public health. There is no Government-wide action plan to bring down levels of air pollution to below World Health Organisation guidelines. Funding and resources for local authorities to deliver air quality programmes are inadequate, and public awareness of outdoor and indoor air pollution is far too low.
Seventy years ago this month, when the UK published the Clean Air Act 1956—the first Act of its kind—we really were a world leader in tackling air pollution. We can no longer make that claim. After the great smog that killed 4,000 people in a week—with a total death count estimated at 10,000 to 12,000 in the penumbra—the Government passed the 1956 Act. Politicians then rose to the challenge. Today, they must do so again. Other jurisdictions are moving ahead with more ambition and urgency. Before we consider doing that, we should distinguish between a target and a limit value.
The Government are fond of setting targets. A target is something that is aimed for. A limit value is a threshold that should not be crossed. In 2021, the WHO updated its guidance for one of the key pollutants: PM2.5. Its guidance is a level of no more than 5 micrograms per cubic metre. The UK’s legal limit value was set in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; it remains four times higher than the WHO value, at 20 micrograms per cubic metre—that is the legal limit.
The recent environmental improvement plan introduced a new date to achieve a target of 10 micrograms per metre cubed: 2030—it had been 2040. That sounds like good news, a target that will be achieved 10 years earlier, but do not be fooled. The target for PM2.5—that is, the aspiration rather than the legal limit—is still double the WHO guideline. It actually represents no progress at all. In DEFRA’s 2024 monitoring data, all but one monitoring site just met the 10 microgram target. Those are the sort of targets that DEFRA loves: ones where nothing has to be done to achieve them and everything can be left as bad as it has always been, but it looks as though action is being taken.
We need not a target, but a legally binding limit value that is the same as the WHO’s guideline of 5 micrograms per metre cubed. We need a wider plan to get PM2.5 exposure down across the UK to below WHO guidelines in the near future. The same and more can be said of the nitrogen dioxide target. On that, the WHO guidelines are 10 micrograms per cubic metre, but the UK lags behind with a legal limit value set in 2010 at an annual exposure of 40 micrograms. When it comes to nitrogen dioxide, the Environment Act 2021 did not even set a long-term target, so action on that key pollutant is not included in the Act’s delivery plan.
It makes no sense for the Government to treat nitrogen dioxide any differently from PM2.5. We should have a far tighter limit value and a far more ambitious plan for driving nitrogen dioxide levels down to below WHO guidelines. On our current trajectory, some parts of the UK will not be compliant with the current inadequate limit value of 40 micrograms until 2045. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be aware that the latest DEFRA figures show that Manchester has the worst nitrogen dioxide pollution in the country, with a level of 55 micrograms per cubic metre—more than five times the WHO guidelines. As a result, it is thought that air pollution contributes to one in 20 deaths in the region each year.
Moreover, national-level statistics can mask local authority-level data, as exposed by the work of Asthma + Lung UK. Its research found that local authorities are breaching the legal limits of nitrogen dioxide, even when national Government have determined them to be under such limits. That is because of the disjointed approach we currently take to air pollution, in which national data weirdly excludes local authority monitors despite local authorities being mandated by the Government to collect data.
So we have situations such as the one in my Brent West constituency, where three local authority monitors accurately record illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide despite the Government saying that Brent, and London as a whole, supposedly meet legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. At the corner of Wembley High Road and London Road, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 40.92 micrograms per cubic metre; at the corner of Wembley High Road and Ealing Road, it was 41.76; at the junction of Forty Lane and Kings Drive, it was 43.5. Each of those is more than four times the WHO guidelines, and each is right next to or in walking distance of a school. This is toxic, illegal air pollution that my constituents are exposed to, yet if they read what the Government say, they would not even realise it.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
This week, Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust declared a “critical incident” after prolonged extreme heat led to increased demand, with more patients suffering dehydration and heat-related illnesses. As my hon. Friend will know, hot spells often go hand in hand with poor air quality. Does he agree that there is an imperative to address poor air quality, and that that imperative is growing as a result of the changing climate?
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely right. The heat dome that we have been experiencing interacts with pollution and gives us extra ozone and causes huge health problems. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can tell us, if his officials are on the ball on this—just when the number of excess deaths caused by last week’s high temperatures will be known at a disaggregated level; it would be extremely interesting to get those.
Farming: Financial Sustainability
James Naish 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 of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing this important debate and thank all those who have made contributions this afternoon.
I am delighted to see the excellent Labour rural research group here in force. Their speaking with such insight and passion is a reminder to me of the real champions for rural affairs issues who we have on our Benches. What a shame that so few Conservatives are here! Maybe that is a reminder of their disastrous election result in 2024.
I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for her hard work and dedication to the role. Her ambition for farming and food security will make her a tough act to follow. I have already had the opportunity to meet a range of stakeholders from across the sector and visit a range of farms and farmers across the country, which has reinforced to me the importance of farming. It matters to our country, supports rural jobs and communities, provides the food we rely on and underpins our national resilience.
As I mentioned earlier, today we published our farming road map, which sets out our plan for farming up to 2050. The road map sets out a clear direction towards a future for farming. It will give businesses in the sector confidence to invest, grow, plan for the future and secure farms for the next generation. The road map will help our food and farming system to become more resilient to global crises, adopt nature-friendly methods that support profitable food production in the long term and shore up food supplies. It sets a direction for agriculture that involves clearer, fairer routes to market, with better access to the tools, technology, skills and supply chains that farmers need to run sustainable businesses.
Alongside the road map, today we published our full response to Baroness Minette Batters’s independent farming profitability review. The vast majority of her recommendations are either already under way or are being implemented soon, including the formulation of the farming and food partnership board, which has already met twice. Today, we announced that we will be taking a number of additional actions to create an environment for profitable farm businesses to thrive. That includes an additional £53 million investment for the farming innovation programme to help farmers to harness new technology that improves productivity, reduces reliance on inputs and improves long-term resilience. It also includes investment in the skills and people that the sector needs. By supporting training and new entrants, farmers’ hard-earned knowledge will be passed down to the next generation.
I also want to recognise the pressures that many farm businesses face—a theme that has come out very clearly in the debate. Input costs rise quickly, and global markets can shift overnight; that uncertainty makes it harder to plan, invest and employ. That is why I want to reiterate this Government’s long-term and practical approach to farming, our commitment to stable funding, and our simpler and fairer funding schemes, which are designed to make farming more resilient and sustainable for the future.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Minister may well know that it was only a few years ago that the UK met 40% of its own nitrogen and fertiliser needs. Would he commit to working with the Minister for Industry to look at how we can get our domestic production to grow once again, given that under the Conservative party it disappeared altogether?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his reminder of the Conservative party’s record of failing rural Britain. I am very happy to take away the action he suggested. If we are to deliver our road map successfully, it will require lots of cross-Government working, and I am very committed to making that happen.
Let me address the fertiliser issue; I appreciate that major input costs are real source of worry for farmers. We are very conscious of the increases in fertiliser prices that have occurred because of the middle east conflict, and we are working actively to monitor the impacts on the agricultural supply chains. We have regular communication with domestic fertiliser suppliers, commodity traders and farming stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union, and we have been clear that we are committed to ensuring that markets function fairly.
We continue actively to monitor developments in the middle east, as well as other impacts on our food and farming sectors, including through ongoing engagement with industry leaders. My Department is aware that there are signs of some pressures easing but that prices still are above pre-conflict levels.
We recognise that these costs continue to be a significant issue for farmers; that issue was raised with me on my first day in this role, when I met with the NFU. The pressures that it is imposing are absolutely worth considering further. Whether through more effective use of technology or the adoption of more sustainable farming practices, we can better equip our farmers and growers to produce good food in a more resilient way, and this Government stand ready to help farmers to do that.
Animal Rescue Centres
James Naish Excerpts(6 months 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
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate. I was privileged recently to meet the lead petitioners—Paul Watkinson and Niki Roe of Jack’s Giant Journey, who are in the Public Gallery today—to discuss the issues that dog rescue centres face. I also thank the 175 constituents from Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition.
Although animal welfare is a devolved issue, Scotland is currently the only constituent nation of the UK in which animal rescues and shelters are licensed. There is much to be learned from that experience as Welsh and UK Government Ministers develop proposals for licensing regimes in Wales and England respectively.
I greatly welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s commitments to introduce regulations for animal rescues, sanctuaries and rehoming centres, following clear support in consultation in 2024. The measures will go a long way toward protecting animals and ensuring effective minimum standards for those sadly much-needed institutions. I look forward to taking those commitments to doorsteps across Casnewydd Islwyn ahead of May’s Senedd elections. I encourage the Minister, when taking proposals forward in England, to look at the responses to the Welsh Government’s 2024 consultation and to talk with Welsh Government colleagues about the work that they have already done in developing a licensing scheme. Let us learn from one another as we work together to level up animal protections across the UK.
Currently in England and in Wales, anyone, regardless of competence, premises, finances or track record, can set up a rescue and take in animals and charge fees, and they will face scrutiny only once things have gone badly wrong. We have all seen the most extreme cases pop up on our TV screens and news apps. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) mentioned the 37 dead dogs and 20 live animals seized in Basildon and Billericay in May last year, and almost 100 animals were seized from an animal sanctuary in Lincolnshire in 2024.
Although these extreme cases of animal abuse are shocking, there is a more sinister side to the regulatory desert in which rescue centres in England and Wales operate. Too often, when adopting an animal, members of the public do not know what they are getting and from where, because of the lack of a mandatory licensing and inspection regime. Seventy-eight per cent of the public believe that minimum standards are already in place. That leaves animal abuse hidden and allows families to be taken advantage of or even put at risk. Voluntary-only standards, such as those operated by the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, are well intentioned but unenforceable. Rogue providers ignore them, while responsible rescues already comply. Only a nationwide licensing framework will provide consistency and accountability.
Unfortunately, too many animals being rehoused from animal shelters are, unbeknownst to the adopters, from puppy and kitten farms. Others rehoused via rogue rescues were stolen. With no law to compel rescues to check where a dog came from, paperwork can be limited. The issue is best highlighted by the case of Maggie, a King Charles spaniel adopted from a dog rescue centre. Unfortunately, little did her adopter know that Maggie was the product of a puppy farm. That was known by the rescue centre, but not discussed. Maggie was later found to have more than 20 rotten teeth, facial paralysis and a heart murmur. She also had a shoulder injury possibly after being kicked. Worryingly, one in every four rescues is unknowingly rehoming puppy-farmed dogs like Maggie. A new licensing scheme must prevent that by ensuring proper record keeping, microchip scanning and veterinary assessment.
Animals also often arrive in pseudo-rescue centres after being imported from abroad in a practice denounced by the RSPCA as “Deliveroo for dogs”. With the Naturewatch Foundation reporting that four in every five dogs in the UK have no verified origin and the numbers of animals entering Britain doubling in the last decade, this is of grave concern.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is a real champion of these issues, so I thank her for her work. My constituency is home to the Radcliffe animal centre. It is the only RSPCA animal centre in Nottinghamshire, but what most people do not realise is that the centre is still funded individually—independently—not by the national society, and it costs £800,000 a year to run. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to invest in the capacity of the sector and to look at funding of these centres, to ensure that we reach the standards that she is describing?
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about consistency, levelling up and ensuring that across the UK we are all operating to those standards, so I thank him for that intervention.
People need to know the animal they are adopting. A lack of screening also presents major biosecurity concerns. A University of Liverpool study found that 15% of imported dogs that were tested had Leishmania infantum—a parasitic disease uncommon in the UK —despite 93% of the tested dogs’ owners believing that a vet had given their dog a clean bill of health. Any new licensing regime must ensure that rescue centres accept only animals imported with full documentation verifying origin and veterinary health. Medical checks must also be undertaken prior to rehoming.
Rogue operators often rehome animals with no regard for their behaviour, putting vulnerable people at risk and potentially worsening the surge in dog-related violence we have seen in recent years. Hospital admissions for dog bites have risen by 47% over the past 10 years, costing the NHS more than £71 million a year. In my county, Gwent, 539 dog attacks were reported to the police last year, an increase of more than a quarter on 2024.
We cannot allow the supply of dogs to become dominated by dodgy breeders and rogue rescue centres. That is why any new licensing regime must be outcome-focused, with minimum requirements for enrichment and behavioural support, as well as a behavioural assessment prior to rehoming. Rehoming animals with unaddressed behavioural issues only puts people at risk.
In introducing such a scheme, UK and Welsh Ministers must learn the lessons from Scotland. Small, independent foster-based rescue centres are a critical part of the animal welfare landscape, with independents outnumbering the major charity sites by almost 10 to one. In Scotland, many of these were forced to close after 2021, when the Scottish Government tied licensing to charity status and a minimum turnover of £5,000. Those closures came despite many foster-based rescue centres having excellent welfare standards. I urge the Minister not to replicate this mistake, and to ensure that any new licensing regime incorporates smaller rescue centres. In recognising this diversity of high-welfare provision, I also ask the Minister to consider a tiered approach to any new licensing fees, thereby reducing the disproportionate burden that could be created for smaller, high-welfare rescues.
In closing, I emphasise that the case for change is urgent. We need licensing schemes in England and Wales that people can trust. The rules must be robust and enforced.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair this evening, Sir Alec. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the 201 petitioners from Glastonbury and Somerton.
For many years, the UK has enjoyed the reputation of being a nation of animal lovers, with over half of us owning a pet. Indeed, I am owned by three Patterdale terriers, George, Bert and Griff, who keep me on my toes, and a farm cat, Thomas, who spends less and less time up at the farm.
The UK was the first country in the world to start a welfare charity for animals. That concern to rescue and care for animals led to the formation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. A 2025 survey by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals found that 17% of dog owners and 33% of cat owners got their pet from a rescue centre. The RSPCA collects an abandoned animal every hour during the summer, and an estimated 250,000 animals go to rescue centres every year, which equates to 700 per day.
The cost of living crisis has undoubtedly increased the number of animals being abandoned, with the RSPCA recording a 24% increase in pets being handed over in 2022. Many rescue centres reported increased pressure because of the covid pandemic, which changed the landscape and increased the number of abandoned pets. Many covid dogs were sent to rescues with major separation anxiety, having never been away from their owners. Owners clearly had to go back to work, which put untold pressure on them as well, as they had to give up their dogs.
I put on record my thanks for the incredible work that rescue centres do. Somerset and Dorset Animal Rescue, based near Wincanton, has been run by Liz and Colin Stewart for more than 30 years. In their time, they have saved the lives of more than 34,000 animals, including dogs, cats, ponies, chickens and rabbits. In 2007, in recognition of their work, Liz was invited to the House of Lords to receive the award for international animal rescuer of the year. They run a charitable non-profit organisation. They have no full-time paid staff and rely on support from volunteers, but the costs of running such an operation are significant, with veterinary and food costs rising every day.
Some centres do not have the experience and knowledge of Somerset and Dorset Animal Rescue, and many exist without the facilities and resources to ensure that animals receive the right care and support. However, the lack of regulation surrounding animal rescue centres means they can operate without a licence as long as they do not report making a profit.
James Naish
The hon. Lady touched on the costs generated by animal centres, and earlier I mentioned the £800,000 running costs of the Radcliffe animal centre in my constituency. I put on record my thanks to David Carter of Gamston in my constituency, who has lit up his house every Christmas for a decade to raise money for the local animal centre. However, does the hon. Lady agree that relying on people like David to generate funds for these centres puts their regulation and licensing, and the way they look after animals, at risk?
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I thank Mr Carter for all his amazing work to support the financing of these important rescue centres. Many people across the country do exactly the same thing.
Despite having the best intentions, some establishments take on too many animals or animals they do not have the specialist knowledge, expertise or resources to help, which often results in devastating situations where animals are sadly left to suffer. Donna, a constituent from Street, wrote to me recently about the heartbreaking situation at Save A Paw in Essex, where 40 dogs were sadly discovered.
If regulation is not in place, not only are such awful situations allowed to occur, but major health risks can be posed due to poor biosecurity. Pets should be spayed, wormed, de-fleaed and vaccinated while at a rescue centre, but there is no regulation to ensure that they are. Indeed, some animals in rescue centres are becoming infected with diseases that will need lifetime treatment, which is obviously an additional cost to the owners who take them on. There is support in the industry for measures to be implemented, with an RSPCA survey finding that 82% of wildlife rehabilitators believe welfare standards are inconsistent across the sector, and that more than 68% feel statutory licensing is important.
Earlier today, I spoke to Zoe, who runs Rushton Dog Rescue in my constituency with her mum, Cindi. They have operated for nearly 20 years in Langport, and have rescued thousands of dogs, along with horses, ducks, cats, ferrets and other animals, keeping them at their 15-acre centre. Zoe told me they believe that licensing would be good for the centre, and that unregulated pop-up rescues, sometimes operating out of people’s homes, can leave animals without the care and proper expertise they need.
Concerns also exist over those who use animal rescue centres as a front to run unscrupulous puppy breeding businesses, which leave legitimate animal rescue centres to pick up the pieces. In fact, Zoe told me that that was her No. 1 concern, so I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on the extent to which her Department is aware of the issue, given its admission that it lacks a complete picture of rescue centres in the country.
The Tories pledged to pursue licensing requirements in 2021 and 2023, and confirmed that they would look to consult on the matter, but ultimately failed to act before the last general election. The Liberal Democrats have called for a comprehensive national strategy on animal welfare that secures Britain’s place as a world leader on standards. As such, we welcome this Government’s commitment to ensure rescue centres have the right checks in place to protect the welfare of the animals they care for, but we are clear that any potential new licensing requirements must be properly enforced. There is also a need to ensure that regulations actually result in welfare improvements.
Zoe was also keen to stress that the Government must give existing rescue centres the financial support they need, to ensure they can follow new regulations to bring about improved welfare at animal rescue centres. The RSPCA has been clear that if that does not happen, many smaller rescues, set up with the best of intentions but lacking specialist resources, would be forced to closed, and the lack of capacity would place an unsustainable burden on those remaining in the sector. In turn, that would result in a lowering of animal welfare standards as remaining centres were overwhelmed and unable to care for their animals. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government would be willing to provide the support the industry requests.
I was also able to speak with Nigel, who runs the Somerton branch of Service Dogs UK, a charity dedicated to supporting armed forces and emergency services veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder by matching them with rescue dogs from across Somerset and the south-west. It uses rescue dogs from Dogs Trust, and applies strict rules, including background and household checks, before matching dogs. Nigel feels that regulation could ensure that rescue centres are properly inspected, while helping animals to receive the medical treatment they require. However, he noted that three out of 15 dogs in the Service Dogs UK system were found unchipped and abandoned on the street, which highlights the scale of the problem rescue centres are trying to deal with.
Nigel also highlighted concerns over individuals who set up centres and bring in dogs from overseas, putting them into British homes without proper controls. Vets and other public health experts have expressed concerns about the health and wellbeing of dogs and animals illegally imported into the UK, as well as the potential infection of animals already resident here.
The Liberal Democrats believe it is important to improve the welfare and quality of life of household pets, while ensuring that all animals are treated equally in legislation. That is why I am really proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), whose Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 will transform animal welfare in the UK and eradicate cruel practices that should have been wiped out years ago.
It is right that we now look to take action on this important matter, and I hope the Government come forward urgently to launch their consultation. There is strong support from the public and industry, and as the number of abandoned pets sadly increases, the problem will only grow.
Animal cruelty must be considered unacceptable, because animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel pain and suffering. They have a right to live in decent and humane conditions, and it is crucial that we change the law to better protect them from harm. I hope today’s debate serves as an important step on the road to higher welfare for animals who find themselves in the care of rescue centres.
Water White Paper
James Naish Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Member is right to say that we need to abolish Ofwat—we might have had that idea previously too, by the way. As he knows, at the moment we have four regulators, and sometimes there are duplications or regulatory gaps. That is why the focus of our reforms is on ensuring that we integrate the environmental regulation and the economic regulation of water, because for too long those things have been separate. I would be happy to write to him to respond on the specific issue that he raises.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My constituents in Rushcliffe, notably in East Leake, have faced sewage spills for far too long, so I am pleased to be working with Severn Trent Water to ensure that new pumping stations and rising mains are installed in East Leake, Wysall and Willoughby-on-the-Wolds over the current price period. How will having a new single water regulator, with real teeth, ensure that that commitment is delivered in the current price period?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the opportunity to mention that we will be publishing a transition plan which, as I mentioned in my statement, will set out a road map from where we are now to having the opportunity to legislate. I want to make progress before that Bill is in the House, so that we can start to shift the dial, build on what we did last year in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, and move towards that supervisory system that will give the regulator more teeth. We need that new regulator and those new powers in legislation to bear down on incidents such as the one my hon. Friend is talking about.
Rural Communities
James Naish Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Too often, rural Britain has been spoken about and taken for granted, no more so than by the Conservative party, which over 14 years left many rural businesses—including family farms such as my own—operating on life support, including through its harmful pursuit of Brexit. As the Food and Drink Federation’s 2024 trade snapshot notes,
“The UK’s global food export volumes have declined significantly more than other major European countries, demonstrating that the UK’s challenges aren’t part of a global trend but rather unique to the UK’s post-Brexit circumstances.”
That is why I welcome this Government’s work towards a SPS agreement that will help food and drink producers in my constituency of Rushcliffe.
Doing things differently is extremely important. In government, we must think, talk and act differently in relation to rural Britain if we are to break long-standing cycles of poverty and under-investment. Rural Britain cannot be treated as an afterthought, not only because this risks the urban-rural divide growing even further, but because rural Britain is central to everything we do. Yes, food security, nature restoration, flooding adaptation and animal welfare all clearly depend on partnership with rural communities—everyone in the Chamber knows that—but the role of rural Britain goes much further. New homes, new energy infrastructure, new transport routes, new critical mineral extraction, and national security planning and preparation will all depend on rural space and resources.
That is why, in my view and that of many of my Labour colleagues, rural Britain offers a vital route—arguably the only route—to national renewal. However, that will happen only if its unique values, needs and potential are properly understood and acted on. For that reason, I will set aside the Opposition motion, which simply lists a set of things that the previous Conservative Government did not necessarily resolve, and focus on the amendment’s mention of a “joined-up approach”.
I will continue to push the Government to commit to developing a proper rural strategy. The last one was in 2004, under the last Labour Government. I hope we will commit to a rural strategy that puts rural Britain at the centre of economic growth, meaning that we can finally ditch overused slogans about nimbys and yimbys and stop trivialising our rural communities, which are so important.
Future of Thames Water
James Naish Excerpts(6 months, 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
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. My constituency is a river community and has been badly affected by the failures of Thames Water, including sewage discharges into the River Thames and the River Mole. That goes to the heart of public trust in Thames Water, or the lack thereof, and exemplifies its failure, as well as the lack of regulation and accountability under the previous Government.
While my constituents bear a 31% increase in their bills, all that goes towards is servicing £17 billion of debt. Yet Walton Rowing Club and the 1st Molesey Sea Scouts found 5,000 colony-forming units of E. coli per 100 ml in Walton, and 12,000 per 100 ml in Thames Ditton. Anything above 900 is classified as unsafe. We need investment in infrastructure, but until the Government take Thames Water into special administration, that cannot happen.
I want to speak briefly about the lived experience of my constituents near Thames Water’s Lower Green sewage plant in Esher, which exemplifies its casual disregard for the public. For decades, residents have endured persistent and unpleasant odours from the site. One resident from Farm Road in Esher described being forced to keep windows shut and avoid outdoor spaces, and worrying about the long-term impacts on wellbeing, air quality and property values. Nobody was interested—not the previous MP, nor Thames Water.
Residents told me that for decades their only interaction was Thames Water vans being driven at speed through the housing estate that borders the treatment plant. Residents’ complaints over decades were met with delay, deflection or silence. That experience is symptomatic of a wider failure: a water company that too often acts only when sustained pressure is applied, and a political class that does not hold the operators to account.
Last year, I met Thames Water representatives directly at the site. Following that visit, the company identified the cause: septicity driven by faulty equipment, which allowed bacteria to build up and produce a foul smell. Repairs were eventually made and preventive measures were introduced. Spare parts have now been stockpiled so that if the fault recurs, it can be fixed immediately rather than after weeks of delay. That should have happened 30 years ago. Residents should not have to wait decades, or rely on “novel” political pressure, for basic maintenance to be carried out.
The issues do not stop there. There have been incidents of sewage appearing on the nearby children’s recreation ground due to hydraulic overload. Thames Water says that this has been driven by changing weather patterns and ageing infrastructure. Again, it needs investment. Investigations after the fact are not enough when people are living with the consequences. It shows a deeply troubling national picture. Thames Water has been rated as a one-star, poor-performing company by the Environment Agency, and this is a firm that serves 16 million people—nearly a quarter of the UK population.
Monica Harding
I have very little time.
Without structural reform, we will continue firefighting rather than fixing. So let us replace the regulator that has failed us, put Thames Water out of its misery and transform it into a public benefit company, putting people, nature and long-term resilience ahead of shareholder payouts.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I do not know whether it is down to you, but it is now much warmer in this room than it was in the last Parliament when I was chairing such debates. I regularly left thinking that I had developed frostbite, so whoever has managed to make that change has done a good job. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate, and thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for the manner in which they have, very eloquently, made their important points in this debate. It is a pleasure to respond to it on behalf of the water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who sadly is unable to be here today.
This Government are committed to the transformation of the water sector. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) has just said, the industry is spending £104 billion of private investment on upgrading our crumbling sewage pipes and cutting sewage pollution. Is it not a pity that some of that investment did not happen many years ago? That was promised as one of the advantages of a privatisation that, as many people have said in their various eloquent ways during today’s debate, has essentially not worked. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act, we have driven meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry, as a first step—only a first step—in enabling wider transformative change across the sector.
Following Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report, we have announced our intention to do three things: establish a new single regulator, create a water ombudsman, and stop water companies from marking their own homework when it comes to pollution. The water reform White Paper, which—I have to tantalise hon. Members—is due very shortly, will set out our vision for the sector. Members will not have to wait very long; that is all I am going to say. That White Paper will form the basis of new water legislation, which we will introduce as soon as we get a place in the parliamentary programme to do so. The reforms will secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment, and will make the water sector one of growth and opportunity.
Turning to Thames Water, this Government will always act in the national interest, and we will work to ensure that Thames Water acts in the best interests of customers and the environment. We are working closely with Ofwat, which is in conversation with the London & Valley Water consortium, a group of Thames Water’s creditors. Ofwat will only agree to a plan that will ensure the best possible outcomes for customers and the environment.
James Naish
I think it was more a turn of phrase than anything else, but it was suggested earlier that customers were being treated as cash cows for servicing the debt of Thames Water. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case, either for Thames Water or for other companies, because investment is ringfenced under the new legislation, and therefore customer money is being put into the infrastructure that matters?
Dame Angela Eagle
I can confirm that, and it was one of the first things that this Labour Government, when we were incoming, put on to the statute book as a priority, in order to prevent that particular abuse. Thames Water is now under a cash lock-up arrangement; only Ofwat can approve any further dividend payments. That restriction will remain in place until credit ratings improve. Nothing that is happening at the moment will allow the kind of behaviour that we have seen in the past, from this company and others, to continue.
Illegal Waste: Organised Crime
James Naish Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the ways to tackle this is to go after the criminals with all the legal powers we have. The legal powers we have in this particular case could include an unlimited fine.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
There were 868 cases of fly-tipping in 2023-24 in my constituency. We saw a particular rise in on-street fly-tipping, and in Nottingham there were over 30,000 incidents of fly-tipping within the urban space. What work will be done to help bolster the power of local authorities to make sure that both urban and rural fly-tipping is addressed?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is as appalling to see waste dumped along the streets in urban environments as in rural ones. We are seeking powers through the Crime and Policing Bill to provide statutory enforcement guidance to increase consistency across the country in how fly-tippers are dealt with, wherever they may be.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
James Naish ExcerptsThursday 16th October 2025
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am really proud to be standing here today, because it is an historic day for ocean conservation. Let us make no mistake: the world’s oceans are under significant threat. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that if global warming reaches 1.5°, 70% of coral reefs will die. If temperatures rise by 2°, as now sadly looks likely, 99% of the Earth’s coral reefs will die. Coral reefs are not just a pretty thing that we go diving on; they are incredibly complex and important ecosystems. They are fish nurseries, but they also provide significant protection for islanders from both adverse weather and sea level rises.
Other threats include illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which is decimating fish populations across the globe, and deep-sea mining, which threatens to cause damage from which ecosystems will take decades to recover. Currently, two thirds of the ocean lie outside the jurisdiction of national states, and that is what the Bill focuses on. For the health of oceans and the planet as a whole, it is crucial that the international community develops ways of ensuring that these areas are not subject to lawless exploitation, as is currently happening.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
In January this year, as Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend wrote to the Government to push them to ratify the global oceans treaty. As a member of her Committee, I thank her for her efforts on this front. If I recall correctly, our Committee’s work highlighted that the UK had to work globally because there are 3 billion people who depend on the oceans for work, especially in poorer, smaller developing nations. Does she agree that this is a vital step forward for the future, especially of small island developing states, and that the Government must push others who have signed up to this treaty to ratify it?
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague. He is absolutely right, and that is why today is so historic: this is the UK taking that leadership role and hopefully corralling some of the other countries that are more reticent to do the right thing.
The International Development Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, both of which I chair, have long been calling on both the previous Government and this Government to put in place the necessary legislation to ratify this agreement. To have finally reached this point is a credit to the Ministers—particularly the Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), but also the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman.
In an era of international fragmentation, I am relieved that 145 states have come together to forge this agreement and safeguard a global public good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) alluded to, 75 countries have already taken the next step of ratification. I am very proud that the Minister for Water and Flooding was championing this in opposition and has delivered on her word, leading this ratification in government. I thank her for that.
As a seafaring nation and a centre of expertise in maritime law, the UK is perfectly placed to lead the charge to protect the world’s oceans. Sadly, we are lagging behind many countries, including the Seychelles, St Lucia and Barbados, which ratified the agreement last year. It is not surprising that the small island developing states, or SIDs—or large ocean states, as they prefer to be called—were quick to ratify, because they recognise the existential threat that ocean ecosystem degradation poses to human societies and their economies.
As the International Development Committee argued in our report last year, SIDs need reliable partners. The UK talks a good game when it comes to responsible global leadership, but activists and policymakers from SIDs told the Committee they were concerned about the consistency of Britain’s commitment. I hope we will see that change at this moment, under this Government, and that we will stand up for small island developing states, particularly our overseas territories, which the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned.
The health of the world’s oceans is not an issue confined to low-income countries; it is an existential issue for all of us. As the Government’s impact assessment acknowledged, the impact of reduced fish stocks and decreased capacity will be borne by all of us, including future generations. The UK must seize this moment to match its international conservation ambitions with tangible action to protect our domestic waters. Bottom trawl fishing, a highly destructive practice, is still permitted across almost all of the UK’s seas, including in more than 90% of our marine protected areas. I welcome the Government’s consultation on that, and hope that they will take the necessary step to ban that practice wherever they can.
The Government must consider introducing additional legislation to ensure that the UK’s marine protected areas are actually protected, because sadly, even though they have the title, many of them are not. The Bill also offers plentiful opportunities for the UK’s blue economy as a world leader in marine science and technologies. To support quick progress, the UK needs a definition of the use of “marine genetic resources”, and “digital sequence information”, by the time the agreement is ratified. That is to support all those who will implement it.
The UK’s next steps are vital to ensure that we fulfil our leadership role in ocean protection. The 120-day countdown has started. The first conference of the parties, Ocean COP1, will be held within just 12 months. With the clock ticking, will the Minister set out a timetable for the passage of the Bill through both Houses? We need it to pass quickly to allow the UK to play its full part in the first conference. Will the Minister also confirm whether the Bill legally extends the UK’s existing domestic duties to have regard to the precautionary and polluter pays principles to the high seas? If not, will she say whether something to that effect should or could be inserted into the Bill? Will the Minister consider producing an ocean strategy? Ocean issues currently fall between a number of different Departments, which unfortunately means they are under the ownership of none. The Bill is to be commended and must attain Royal Assent without delay. I strongly urge all Members to support it.
Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates
James Naish Excerpts(1 year, 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
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her opening remarks. I want to declare an additional interest as, for three and a half years prior to last July, I was an employee of the National Pig Association, and my cousin is a pig farmer. I would like to refute a couple of points from the hon. Lady’s opening remarks, in particular that Britain is not a world leader in animal welfare—it very much is. We can pick other examples from around the world as, when we talk about trade deals, we often say that we would not want to import meat from those countries, because they simply do not meet our standards. We should not do ourselves down. There will always be countries that have a higher bar in certain areas than we do, but overall the UK does a particularly good job on animal welfare across the board.
Let me move on to address the system of farrowing crates, and why they exist. Of course, it is not because farmers have some desire to be cruel to the animals. I appreciate that people’s perception when looking at a pig in a crate is, “Gosh, does it live in that confined space?” Of course, it does not; the crate is used for a limited period around the time that the sow gives birth, and there is good reason for it. Around the time they give birth, sows often become extremely aggressive not just to their piglets, but to farmers. Being able to confine them protects piglets from crushing and mauling and allows farmers to get into the crate to look after the piglets and to administer any treatments to them or the sow in a safe environment. If anyone questions the veracity of how aggressive a sow can be around that time, I am delighted to arrange the opportunity for them to get in a pen with an aggressive sow and to see whether that changes their perspective.
I also question some of the statistics. On the point about there being no differences in mortality across the systems, a totally unrestricted pen system is likely to lead to around million more piglet deaths in this country a year than a confined system. However, there is a point to be made about the system we use today and whether it can be improved. Obviously, all farmers want to minimise the time for which a sow is restrained, which happens for safety reasons only.
The move to more flexible farrowing systems that would still allow farmers to get in there and restrain the sow to ensure safety has already been adopted by the industry. In his shadow role, the Minister was always very understanding of the farming point of view and he engaged closely with industry. It is right that the industry is now moving towards much better systems of limiting sow confinement, without the Government legislating. Flexible farrowing is now available in 8% of the indoor pig industry—that is, 5,000 pens. There are another 55,000 to go, but that will take time.
The point about transition is interesting, because we cannot just say, “Tomorrow we need to move from this system to this system.” These are fixtures, fittings and buildings. A lot of the buildings will need to be rebuilt completely, which will require planning permission and vast cost. We need to work with farmers to ask what the realistic timescale is, so that we do not leave people high and dry or put them out of business. We need to make sure that they have the resources and time to move to a better, higher welfare system. I think we can all get behind that. It is better that the Government work with farmers and do not just do stuff to them.
There is often a debate and lack of understanding about indoor versus outdoor pig farming. It would seem rather aspirational to have all our pigs outdoors, and to have 100% of the UK pig industry work like that. That is impossible, as we are at the maximum amount of land we can use for outdoor pigs. Outdoor pig farmers operate a different model from arable farmers; they tend to rent the land for two to three years, and move on. They have very much a symbiotic relationship with other farmers, particularly around the East Anglia area where there is the right type of soil for it. Indoor pig farming is much better suited to other parts of the country, such as my constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds, where there is high-grade, arable land. Pigs produce slurry, a natural source of fertiliser, and, of course, we get excellent pork and bacon from them.
The petition wants a ban. If the industry continues to move in the right direction, a ban does not necessarily need to be implemented. I would give a warning from history. In 1999, the Tony Blair Government unilaterally banned sow stalls overnight with no transition or compensation. It was a similar situation, because the stalls were fixtures and fittings of the buildings, and 50% of the British pig industry went bust because those farms simply could not afford to transition. We have to be mindful of that in anything we do here when creating legislation that impacts businesses, farming or any other.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Like many people in the Chamber, I am wearing a couple of hats. I am the son of a farmer—I declare that interest—but also a member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society. I welcome the hon. Member’s insights as someone with experience of the industry. Farmers have contacted me. My grandad, who was a vet, was attacked by a sow. He went into hospital for several months and never really recovered from the incident, so the hon. Member is absolutely right that sows can be very dangerous. To come back to the point he has already made, does he agree that it is essential that farmers are engaged in this conversation alongside animal welfare activists so that we can agree the right path forward? Everybody wants to get there, but the transition is essential.
Charlie Dewhirst
Absolutely. It is important that everybody works together, whether that means the pressure groups, the farmers or the Government.
Sometimes, the two extremes of the debate need to understand each other. These things often seem simpler than they are. We do things on a farm for good reason, and often it might be for better welfare when people might not perceive it in that way. Another great example of the overall perception of pig farming is outdoor versus indoor, whereas indoor is far better for the environment. There is a big problem with the environmental impact of outdoor pig farming, which is often forgotten because we talk about welfare, and welfare clashes with environmental impact. That all comes together and means that we have to make balanced decisions about how we support farmers across the country.
To conclude, we need to make sure that we bring the farming community along with us in this conversation, whether it is about pigs, poultry or anything else that we are discussing. Let us not do stuff to them, but work with them. Let us work out a plan that ensures that we can achieve what we want to in terms of better animal welfare, but not at the expense of British farming, British food security and British jobs and without ending up replacing our own great British produce with imports produced to lower standards than we would expect.
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree. I do not oppose farmers’ critical work to provide food for our country. I hope that the Government will push to speed up the transition by supporting the 8% of farmers who have already implemented new systems and supporting the other 92% to make the transition.
As the petition highlights, this issue affects not just pigs, but birds and calves. One of the most shocking facts I came across while researching it is that hens are confined to cages that give them little more space than the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Imagine that! The RSPCA calls those cages “unacceptably restrictive” and companies like Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and McDonald’s have committed to change. If private businesses can do it, why have the Government not? Other countries are ahead of us; even in Scotland, a consultation on cages in farming practice has been launched. We must follow them.
This is not just about discomfort; it is about denying animals the chance to express their natural behaviours—to peck, stretch, dust bathe or nest. It is about mothers being unable to care for their young and calves being kept alone, unable to bond or play. These are not just welfare issues; they are issues of dignity. They are about whether we accept a food system built on the routine suppression of life’s most basic instincts—even if it is an animal’s life.
James Naish
Everything the hon. Member says is absolutely valid, but for a farmer with 200 acres of land, which cost £10,000 per acre, who therefore has to use some of the practices he described, it is practically very difficult to suddenly end all those practices by acquiring 50 or 100 extra acres to provide the required space. I am interested in his reflections on how, from the commercial perspective of a farmer, all those objectives can be achieved.
Iqbal Mohamed
It is a very difficult challenge, but, as has been mentioned, food produced elsewhere that is allowed to be imported needs to meet the standards that we follow in the UK. Cost cannot be a reason to compromise on the welfare of animals. I am keen to hear from the Minister how the Government will help farmers.