Animal Welfare in Farming

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate to give a voice to the voiceless here in Parliament.

The treatment of farm animals in the UK is a reflection of our values as a society, yet millions of animals endure lives of confinement, pain and neglect. I am proud to have convened this debate on an issue that has been very close to my heart since I was old enough to understand: animal welfare. The debate could not be more timely, with a number of grotesque infringements of legal and accepted norms exposed in recent undercover footage. From the mistreatment of piglets to the rampant impunity found in a few of Scotland’s salmon farms, shocking incidents have rightly caused public outrage.

However, we must be clear: these are sadly not isolated incidents, but a symptom of policy and enforcement failings in our food and farming systems. The way we treat farmed animals is not only the biggest animal protection issue we face here in the UK, but deeply entwined with the climate crisis, nature loss and the viability of our food systems. It speaks to a moral failing, a disconnection from the suffering hidden behind supermarket shelves. Ultimately, we need a food system that recognises the need to reduce demand, raise legal baselines and support better farming systems.

I am pleased to note that today’s debate has been linked to the petition titled “End the use of cages and crates for all farmed animals”, which has now surpassed 100,000 signatures and calls on the UK Government to

“ban all cages for laying hens as soon as possible”

and to extend the ban to all cages and crates “for all farmed animals”, including farrowing crates for sows, individual calf pens and cages for birds. Despite the ban on barren battery cages in 2012, about 10.6 million hens —28% of the UK laying flock—are still confined in so-called enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours such as wing flapping, perching and dust bathing, and contribute to frustration, bone weakness and chronic protection issues.

I congratulate the petition sponsor, Dame Joanna Lumley, and commend her courage and compassion. Her lifelong dedication to humanitarian and environmental causes is matched in this case by her powerful advocacy for animals, who cannot speak for themselves. I also want to recognise the tireless work of the many non-governmental organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the Humane League, World Animal Protection, FOUR PAWS and others, represented in the Chamber today, that have been campaigning for decades to end the cruelty of cages, crates and inhumane farming systems. Thanks to their persistence, these issues are finally being heard in Parliament with the seriousness they deserve.

However, accountability is woefully lacking. Prosecutions for animal welfare violations in farming are extremely rare. Between 2011 and 2021, only 28 such prosecutions were brought—fewer than three per year, despite tens of thousands of inspections and numerous breaches. The regulatory system is led by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is under-resourced and overly reliant on industry self-reporting. We need independent inspections and meaningful penalties for breaches.

Many people believe that labels such as “Red Tractor” or “RSPCA Assured” guarantee good welfare, and consumers want to trust that such schemes deliver in good faither. It is the Government’s job to ensure that those labels mean something. Sadly, far too often that is not the case, as we have seen from many investigations on certified farms that still use crates, cages and other cruel practices.

One such practice that must be urgently reviewed is the use of farrowing crates on pig farms. A recent poll commissioned by Humane World for Animals found that 73% of people in the UK had either never heard of farrowing crates or knew very little about them—a stark reminder of how this suffering is hidden from the public eye. Yet in the UK, approximately 50% of sows are confined in these small metal cages, which prevent them from turning around or expressing natural maternal behaviours. Compassion in World Farming describes farrowing as among the most extreme forms of confinement. Pigs are widely regarded to be highly sentient animals, but they are forced to give birth and nurse their young while virtually immobilised. The European Union has committed to phasing out cages for all farmed animals by 2027, but a recent letter from the National Pig Association suggested another 20 years of suffering to phase them out.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have already indicated this to you, Mr Vickers, but I apologise to colleagues now for the fact that I will have to leave before the end of the debate, which is why I will not make a speech—a constituent is coming to see me, and the votes in the House have screwed up the timing.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I entirely share his view; I guess that probably everyone who will speak in this debate does. One of the supposed advantages of our leaving the European Union was that we would be able to control what came into the country in the form of food. It would be quite wrong, would it not, if, while seeking to drive up animal welfare standards in this country, we disadvantaged our own farmers and at the same time allowed into the country products from other countries where those standards are lower? Therefore, does he agree with me—I am the patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation—that we need to call upon the Minister to ensure that that does not happen, and that our farmers are not disadvantaged while we improve our standards?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I always enjoy hearing his thoughtful remarks and strongly agree with his words today, which show the cross-party concerns on this issue; I will come on to the issue of international trade later on.

On the issue of farrowing crates, I urge the Minister to set out a clear and swift timetable for the banning of farrowing crates; I hope he will address that issue specifically in his remarks at the end of the debate.

We must also speak to the plight of broiler chickens, which are the animals most intensively farmed in the UK today. Around 90% of chickens reared for meat in the UK—nearly 1 billion animals per year—are fast-growing breeds, often referred to as “Frankenchickens”. These birds have been selectively bred to grow up to 400% faster than chickens did in the 1950s, reaching slaughter weight in just 35 to 40 days. To put that in perspective, if a human baby grew at the same rate, they would weigh nearly 300 kg—the size of a fully grown tiger—by the time they were two months old.

Such rapid growth causes immense suffering, including chronic lameness, organ failure, respiratory problems and open burns, as these chickens spend their final days lying in their own waste, often with broken bones, too heavy to stand. That cannot be right and I hope the Minister directly addresses that point as well. There are alternatives—slower-growing breeds, with significantly improved protection outcomes—but without Government leadership, market incentives will continue to favour the cheapest and cruellest options.

On the subject of pigs and chickens, many campaigners will have rejoiced at the rejection of a new mega-farm at Methwold in Norfolk; I know the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) was heavily involved in campaigning against it. The sheer scale of the Methwold proposal was staggering—up to 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs, confined in barren indoor sheds. Chickens would have been packed into high-intensity units, with barely any space to move, no access to daylight and no environmental enrichment. Animal protection groups raised serious concerns about the dangerously low staff-to-animal ratio, which would have made it almost impossible to monitor suffering or to intervene in time.

Does the hon. Member agree that, through the Government’s programme of planning reform, we must not create any loopholes that could be exploited to facilitate the destructive, large-scale farming operations that he refers to?

I strongly agree. As we all closely scrutinise the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we need to look carefully at whether loopholes are creeping in that will allow horrific developments such as more mega-farms to happen at a greater scale.

Mega-farms are bad for animals, bad for nature and bad for people, and not at all necessary for food security—that is a key point. The UK already meets 100% of its recommended protein needs, so these mega-farms are surely being developed with exports in mind. UK pigmeat exports have grown by 4% in the past year, driven by increased shipments to China. Methwold was a line in the sand, a signal that local communities will not accept industrial so-called farming that sacrifices everything for profit. To stop its unchecked proliferation, we need the Government to put their own line in the sand and say, clearly, that this must stop.

To pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), as we debate domestic welfare standards, we must also remain vigilant about how international trade could undermine them. Since leaving the European Union, the UK’s rating in the World Animal Protection index has been downgraded, reflecting growing concern that our historical leadership on animal protection is under threat. In upcoming trade deals with the US, India and the Gulf, there is a real risk that our markets will be opened to products produced in systems that would be illegal in the UK.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to undertake a strategic review of UK border controls to ensure that UK food security is protected from the introduction of diseases such as foot and mouth, as we have had on the continent, or any other exotic disease?

I agree with the hon. Lady, who speaks with first-hand experience of the farming sector.

Around 6 million breeding sows in the US are confined in gestation crates, which are banned in the UK. More than 70% of laying hens are still kept in barren battery cages. US beef can be produced using growth-promoting hormones, and antibiotic use in livestock is up to five times higher than in the UK. Such practices not only cause immense suffering, but undermine our farmers and our food safety standards. That is why we must commit to banning imports produced to standards that would not comply with those in the UK. We must also defend the hard-won ban on live animal exports, a recent step forward that must not be weakened under trade pressure. Our values do not end at our borders, and neither should the protections that we afford to animals.

Let us not forget that cruelty is not limited to land-based farming. Investigations by Compassion in World Farming and others have exposed horrific conditions in offshore salmon farms. Our high-end salmon from romanticised Scottish fish farms often has deeply unpalatable origins: salmon are cramped into cages where they suffer from lice, disease and injury, mortality rates are shockingly high and immense pollution pours into once-pristine marine environments, threatening wild fish populations. The farms are intensive by design, prioritising scale and profit over animal protection and environmental sustainability. We need a moratorium on new intensive aquaculture permits and a rapid transition to higher-protection, lower-impact systems. I hope the Minister will address that point in his response.

That brings me to the last substantive area that I want to discuss before concluding: the less-visible consequence of industrial farming. Due to cramped and unhygienic conditions, disease outbreaks are controlled with routine antibiotics, but evidence shows that that fuels antimicrobial resistance in consumers and presents a dire global health risk. The World Health Organisation has warned that antibiotic resistance could become a bigger killer than cancer by 2050, and farming practices are fuelling that trajectory.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, which, due to the delayed start, will now conclude at 4.31 pm, subject to there being no further Divisions. We will start with a four-minute time limit on speeches, which may have to drop if there are many interventions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I want to focus on import standards, which the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) began to talk about.

Farmers in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire play by the rules and abide by the regulations. For example, since 1999 they have stopped using sow stalls because UK law rightly declared those cramped conditions cruel. But every day, when my constituents go to local supermarkets, the shelves are stocked with bacon from overseas farms that still use those banned methods. I think everyone agrees that that is unfair both for animal welfare and for our farmers.

The recent weeks have been historic for British trade. The Government secured groundbreaking agreements that will boost our economy while, crucially, remaining firm on our higher food standards. When we negotiated with the US, we held the line on hormone-treated beef, delivering on our manifesto promise to protect farmers and consumers alike. This is Labour in action, proving we can expand trade without compromising our values.

We now need to address the inconsistency still visible on supermarket shelves across Britain. Nearly 50% of pork imports come from countries where pregnant pigs remain confined in narrow sow stalls, unable even to turn around. Lamb imports from Australia, where farmers practise mulesing—cutting skin from live sheep without pain relief—have surged following the Conservatives’ flawed trade deal. Such practices were banned here because they do not align with British values or public opinion.

British farmers follow our welfare regulations—no battery cages, no sow stalls and humane transport conditions—yet we continue to allow imports that undermine those standards. Instead of preventing cruelty to farmed animals, the effect of many of our laws is to simply offshore that cruelty to other countries, sometimes those with standards far lower than our own. Imports should meet our domestic animal welfare standards. If certain practices are too cruel for our farms, they should also be too cruel for our borders.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I commend the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for setting the scene so well. He mentioned some graphic things that get under many people’s skin. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, although we do not farm the land any more—the neighbours do that for us.

To illustrate the matter, I will say what my neighbours do in relation to it. The people I know who farm close to me—and many others too; it is not exclusive to where I live—love their animals. They have a commitment to their beef and dairy cattle and to their sheep. Last year, or perhaps the year before, they got a robotic dairy. For those who do not know what that means—I did not really know until I visited—the cattle are much calmer and they have access to food every time they want it.

Usually when you walk through a field of cattle, they scatter in all directions. I walked into those cattle along with the boys who own the farm and the cattle did not even budge out of the road. There was music going in the background as well—I cannot remember whether it was Tchaikovsky, Elvis Presley or whatever—and the cattle seemed incredibly calm. Was that their choice of music? I am not sure that they had any input into that, but they were the best looked-after cattle that I have seen for some time. The farmers that I see strive hard to do it right. I know the hon. Gentleman recognises that, but others do not, so it is important to say it.

I want to comment on the dreadful Windsor framework. Issues arose recently and the Ulster Farmers’ Union expressed serious concerns about the implications of the recently announced UK-US trade agreement. In other words: we keep the standards and do things right, but then they are going to produce some stuff in the USA where they do not have the same standards that we have. There will be a serious impact on our livestock and high standards. The Ulster Farmers’ Union president, William Irvine, said

Bovine TB across the UK is not just a farming issue, but an animal welfare one, and is causing a financial crisis. Thousands of healthy cattle are being culled and wildlife remains trapped in a vicious cycle of infection. The cost to the public purse in Northern Ireland is now sitting at £60 million a year. In England, there has been a science-led approach. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister needs to engage with England and do exactly as has been done here, with a wildlife intervention project that culls badgers, so that we improve animal health and protect our wildlife?

My hon. Friend is wise in her intervention. In fairness to the Minister, he regularly visits Northern Ireland. We have had been fortunate to have him twice at Colin McKee’s in my constituency, because he loves the scones and the coffee. He also loves seeing how a farmer can look after his animals better than others. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of bovine TB, and perhaps the Minister could tell us if he has had engagements, correspondence and discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland.

The Ulster Farmers’ Union is calling for the UK Government to provide greater transparency about how sensitive sectors will be protected in future. It is important to get that right. Northern Ireland farmers are proud to produce food to world-leading high standards of animal welfare, traceability and environmental care, but those standards must be reflected in trade deals. We should not be held to an example of European overreach. The effect of the US trade deal may be another example of how the special circumstances in Northern Ireland are especially difficult rather than especially beneficial.

There must be standards in place for animal welfare, and we must remove the EU overreach and have UK-wide standards. I ask the Minister to take that back to the Cabinet. We must all do better to support farmers in the same way throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe the Minister does that and I look forward to his response.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for enabling us to speak on this important topic.

I will start by sharing how valuable it was to spend a day of last week’s recess at Staffordshire’s county show. As always, I came away full of admiration for our farming community. I am a little biased, but Staffordshire is a shining example of some of the best of British farming, and everybody at the show seemed to agree. That is not just in terms of productivity and innovation but in the deep care many of our farmers have for animal welfare.

That brings me to the complex and often uncomfortable balance we are trying to strike in this debate between raising animal welfare standards and the environmental, financial and logistical realities of making that happen. When we talk about moving away from practices such as caged systems—a move that, for the record, I absolutely support—we are also talking about the need for more barn space, more land use and more infrastructure, all of which mean higher running costs for farmers and sometimes greater greenhouse gas emissions.

To be clear, those are not reasons for rejecting higher animal welfare standards, but they are reasons to approach the issue with farmers in mind. That must be our starting point, because farmers are not charities and, more than ever, they have to look at the bottom line, which all too often is dwindling. Let us be frank: supermarkets will always demand higher welfare, but they are not always willing to pay more for it. That is disingenuous to consumers and squeezes producers even further, pitting welfare against farm viability.

An area where we could make a real difference is animal welfare labelling, which is being looked at by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member; I am glad that the Committee’s Chair is present. For the average shopper, labelling is a minefield. Information on nutrition and the country of origin has been simplified in the past decade, but in the animal welfare space we have statutory minimum standards and the “Red Tractor”, “RSPCA Assured”, EU organic and Soil Association organic labels, all representing different standards.