Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

16:30:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 706302 relating to the use of cages and crates for farmed animals. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The petition is titled: “End the use of cages and crates for all farmed animals”, and it was created by Dame Joanna Lumley. It has reached over 105,000 signatures, and it states: “We think the UK Government must ban all cages for laying hens as soon as possible. We think it should also ban the use of all cage and crates for all farmed animals including: farrowing crates for sows…individual calf pens…cages for other birds, including partridges, pheasants and quail…Every year in the UK, millions of farmed animals experience huge suffering confined in cages. From millions of laying hens unable to express their natural behaviours to mother pigs nursing their piglets confined in narrow crates, to calves, quail and game birds.” Surely we cannot allow this to continue. When polled, most people are against cages for farmed animals, and this debate provides an opportunity to highlight the seriousness of the issue and encourage a more rapid solution and approach to phasing cages out. For example, it must be viewed as positive that we have reached a figure of 80% for free-range chickens, and I will say more about that later.

It does not seem very long since we were last here talking about eggs and chickens, although I imagine it would feel much longer if we were stuck in a cage only the size of an A4 piece of paper. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to learn lessons from other countries, including Austria and Luxembourg, because our hens need as good and better standards?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and I will cover that later in the debate. I must declare an interest: I hosted a drop-in event on farrowing crates earlier this month with Humane World for Animals UK. There was great interest in that event, and I am delighted to say that the turnout among Members was high. The event raised awareness of the conditions in which sows are kept on some British pig farms. We had on display a replica life-size crate with a life-size animated pig to bring that to life, and to let people see how small the farrowing crate and confinement conditions are. These crates are barred, metal and often barren, and their cramped and unhygienic conditions can lead to disease and the overuse of antibiotics. A poll by Humane World for Animals found that about 73% of people in the UK had either never heard of farrowing crates or did not know very much about them. Hopefully, today’s debate will change that. About 200,000 sows every year spend nearly a quarter of their lives in these farrowing stalls, which are so small that they cannot even turn around, nestle their piglets or express natural behaviours, such as rooting or nest-building. The crates prevent the sow from getting away from the piglets when they start biting her teats, so the piglets’ teeth are often ground down or clipped, which seems a very cruel practice. The piglets are then removed when they are three to four weeks old, compared with how it would be in the wild, where a sow would feed piglets for up to 11 to 13 weeks. After a couple of weeks, the sow is inseminated again. Sows are likely to have two litters a year of 10 to 12 piglets and a breeding lifespan of three years before they are sold for slaughter, which is really quite miserable. On a positive note, though, free farrowing systems exist, where sows are not confined during farrowing and lactation. These can allow the expression of nest-building behaviour, as well as free movement. Such systems make up about 40% of the industry. Group systems of zero confinement allow those expressions and free movement, and they can increase sows’ social interactions. Although it is suggested that zero-confinement systems can increase crushing incidents, research has indicated that there is little difference in piglet mortality between those housed in loose farrowing systems and those in farrowing crates. The number of piglets crushed was higher in loose farrowing, but the number of piglets dying from other causes was higher in crates, so the mortality of piglets is related to other factors, such as size at birth, age of sow and season. One study from Denmark demonstrated that the factors that contributed to pre-weaning death in piglets were: being born into a litter with one or more stillborn litter mates; the number of litters farrowed by the sow; and possibly the time of the year.

The hon. Lady declared one interest, and I will quickly declare two. First, I am a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which has campaigned passionately on this issue for many years. Secondly, my— indeed, our—great friend Sir David Amess felt very passionately about this, and the farrowing crates issue was very close to his heart. Twice over, if I dare put it like that, does she agree that this outdated practice must be banned?

I could not agree more, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me to declare my interest as a member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society. In Scotland, 84% of people have said that they think that farrowing crates should be banned immediately or in the next five years. Additionally, more than half of Scots said that they were willing to pay more for pork that was not produced using farrowing crates. That is something to bear in mind. Although the previous Government stated in 2019 that farrowing crates should be banned, consultation never took place on phasing them out. This debate is an opportunity to get that discussion, and hopefully consultation, under way. It is a positive step that there is consensus from various organisations that farrowing crates should be banned, even if differing timelines are suggested. The British Veterinary Association is in favour of banning farrowing crates. It found that 75% of vets are concerned about the impact of farrowing crates on the welfare of pigs, with 36% of those vets saying that they were very concerned. The BVA is now calling for a gradual phasing out of the crates over 15 years and a transition to a system that favours the health of both the sow and the piglets. It recommended that Government producers and retailers should implement an awareness campaign for consumers and share best practice, thus demonstrating that there must be scope to ensure better and more accurate labelling of products. I will say more about that later. In preparing for this debate, meetings were held with the National Pig Association, the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming and the petitioner, Dame Joanna Lumley. Although I am pleased that the National Pig Association agrees that we need to transition to flexible farrowing systems, it wishes to do so over 20 years. It is good to see that there is agreement on the phasing out of this practice. The RSPCA’s pig experts found that a transition should take no longer than 10 years, and furthermore, Dr Alice Brough, a former pig industry vet, said “We banned gestation crates in 1999; we have had 26 years to prepare for this obvious follow-on.” With that consensus, surely there must be scope to agree a shorter and speedier timeline. I also met with the NFU to discuss its views on enriched cages for laying hens, which, disappointingly, it still supports. It is hugely positive that the vast majority of hens are not kept in cages, but we cannot forget the 23% of eggs that are still laid by hens in cages. We know that the transition is doable and practical, and we must get a timeline in place to see an end to this practice. In 2022, polling found that 94% of the public oppose the use of enriched cages for hens. These cages replaced battery cages, which were banned when the UK adopted the relevant EU Council directive in 2012. However, enriched colony cages have only 9% more usable space per bird than the previous battery cages, and they are hardly bigger than an A4 piece of paper. Every year in the UK, a shocking 8 million layer hens spend their lives in cages. As with pigs, many of their natural behaviours are restricted by these cages. The hens cannot flap their wings, perch or dust bathe, and that can cause frustration, bone weakness and osteoporosis. How enriched are these cages if confinement is so extreme? It is important to note another key issue related to chicken farming: hatch and dispatch. In the UK, 86 male chicks are killed every minute; that is 45 million baby chicks a year. However, this cruel practice is today unnecessary, as countries such as France and Germany have already mandated the use of in-ovo sexing technology, which determines the sex of a chick before they can feel pain. Within in-ovo sexing, eggs can be discarded before they have to hatch. It is estimated that implementing such technology would add less than one penny to the cost of each egg. Surely, the UK must adopt that system without delay.

My hon. Friend talks about an additional 1p per egg, but does she agree that some sort of financial incentive or financial reason would be an important factor in increasing the state’s ability to phase out cages and crates? Otherwise, we are not going to see this happen en masse.

I agree, and I will later mention that there has to be such support. Groups of pheasant and pairs of partridges are also kept in breeding cages—again, offering each bird little more room than the size of a sheet of A4 paper. The birds suffer from stress, breeding-related injuries and death. There is no legislation on how birds should be treated apart from 2009 guidance from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That must surely be urgently reviewed. Many quail are still kept in battery cage systems or overcrowded barns, which raise their stress levels and make them aggressive. They can fly upwards very quickly to get away from danger, so the limited space leads them to injure themselves by hitting their heads. However, there are alternatives, such as barns with more space and better natural conditions. At farms that are RSPCA assured—the UK’s only higher welfare farm assurance and food labelling scheme—cages are not allowed. Laying hens are kept on free range farms or in large barns, where they are free to roam, and sows are loose housed, either indoors with more space or outdoors in paddocks with access to shelter. Such higher welfare standards are increasing in market share and popularity. For example, major retailers such as McDonald’s now use only 100% RSPCA-assured pork and free range eggs, thus demonstrating that restrictive crates and cages are not the only options for our farms or retailers. It is definitely time for the UK to catch up with the animal welfare standards of other countries. We call ourselves a nation of animal lovers, but are we really? People may be surprised to hear that the UK is now ranked 9th in Europe in terms of the percentage of cage-free animals, and a number of other European countries have already banned or are phasing out farrowing crates and enriched cages. For example, farrowing crates are now banned in Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, and enriched cages, as we heard earlier, are banned in Austria, Luxembourg and Switzerland, and will be banned in Germany from 2025, the Czech Republic from 2027 and Slovakia from 2030. France has banned the installation of new enriched cages, and the EU Commission has confirmed that it intends to phase out cages across the EU. Loose farrowing systems have mainly been used in Switzerland since 1997, and studies there have again found that piglet loss in such systems was due mostly to sow-related characteristics rather than the farrowing pen. The reason that loose farrowing systems are not used in other countries is the fear of piglets being crushed by the sow, yet the research showed that the system did not increase pig mortality due to crushing. On 17 February, the Government responded to this petition by saying that the use of cages and close confinement systems was being considered “very carefully” and that they are supporting the transition to free-range laying hens through grants. They reiterated the requirements relating to calves confined for rearing and fattening, as well as guidance on meeting welfare standards for game birds. The Government’s response also detailed the effect that ending the use of farrowing crates would have on trade, which was much discussed in the debate earlier this month, particularly in relation to phasing out low-welfare imports from the UK’s trading partners. When looking at legislation related to this issue, it is important that we consider mandatory labelling to inform customers of the welfare of the animals they choose to eat. In addition, we need to ensure equivalence in animal welfare standards for imported products, in order to support our British farmers to adhere to higher standards. It is important that farmers are supported to make the transitions discussed today. We must urgently phase out low animal welfare imports that do not meet our own animal welfare standards, and British farmers must not be at a disadvantage. In the response to the debate on animal welfare standards in farming earlier this month, the Minister confirmed that the topic of close confinement systems for farm animals was receiving careful attention and that he was well aware of the long-running campaigns on caged animals. I look forward to hearing from the Minister again today, as well as from other hon. Members.

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

16:44:00

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.

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.

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.

16:52:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this important debate. The UK is often said to be a nation of animal lovers. Judging by my constituency inbox, Mansfield is very much a constituency of animal lovers. Since becoming the Member for Mansfield, I have received hundreds of emails on a wide range of animal welfare issues, including ending the import of foie gras products, the fur trade and, of course, ending the use of cages and crates for farmed animals. My constituent Lynne from Ladybrook recently wrote to say that she was worried that caged farm animals were “unable to express their natural behaviours and experiencing an unimaginable amount of suffering.” Angela, another constituent from Mansfield, who asked me to speak today, said in an email in the lead-up to this debate that she was concerned that some farmed animals were “kept in cramped, often dirty cages, barely leaving them room to move, to spread their wings and stretch their legs.” Philip, another Mansfield constituent, said in his correspondence that according to a recent survey undertaken by the RSPCA, “84% of the British public oppose the use of cages for laying hens and 78% of people oppose the use of farrowing crates.” Clearly, many of my constituents want to ensure that we have the highest welfare standards in our farms, and I know that farmers often share that view and do not want their livestock to suffer. We all want to know that the food we are eating has not been produced on the back of pain and suffering. Last summer, I stood on a manifesto that promised that we would improve animal welfare, ban trail hunting and the import of hunting trophies, end puppy smuggling and farming, end the use of snare traps, and work with scientists and industry to reduce the use of animal testing. I am proud that I did so, and I know other Labour Members and the Minister feel the same way. I very much hope that the Government’s update to the animal welfare strategy, which I understand is due to be published later this year, will make progress towards delivering our manifesto promises, and that Ministers include the issues that we are debating today within it. Legislation to improve the lives of animals has formed a vital part of the legacy of past Labour Governments, and I hope this Labour Government will be no different.

16:55:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee for calling this important debate and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing it. The call to end the cage age of animal farming is clear. It comes not just from Parliament and politicians but from the public, nowhere more so than in my constituency. More people have signed the petition to end the use of cages and crates for farmed animals in South Devon than in any other constituency in the country. That is a powerful message from a rural farming community, which is demanding a future built on compassion, not cruelty. I thank the 513 people from South Devon who signed the petition. I urge the Government to keep their promise and finally take action to end the cage age of animal farming, not through vague pledges or delayed consultations but with a clear strategy delivered within this Parliament. Farrowing crates and other cruel confinement practices belong to the past. They cause immense suffering and deny animals, including the thousands of birds kept in cages for so-called sport, basic freedoms and dignity. In 2025, that is simply unacceptable. The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing record of standing up for animals. We have consistently supported stronger penalties for animal cruelty and higher welfare standards in farming. In government, we put in place a ban on battery cages for laying hens. I would like to see that ban extended to all cages but, as others have rightly said, that must be done carefully and in consultation with farmers and producers. For too long, we have been pushing the Government to launch a consultation into the use of farrowing crates for pigs, and to end the use of cages for farm animals. Our farmers are key to delivering that future. We know they care deeply about animal welfare, but they have been badly let down: betrayed by trade deals that undercut our high welfare standards, failed by poorly designed and delayed subsidy schemes, and denied the workforce and funding they need to thrive. To make these changes to caged animal farming, we must give farmers the support they need to transition. Let us talk about that support, because the numbers are frankly outrageous. The Government are spending £67.5 billion on defence, or more than 5% of total public spending, while the entire DEFRA budget languishes at just £7.4 billion—barely 0.6%. Farming itself receives just £2.4 billion, or a meagre 0.2% of the national budget. To put that in perspective, all DEFRA spending—not just for farming but for the environment, food and rural affairs—adds up to just 11% of what we spend on defence. Food security is part of our national security, but how can we claim to prioritise food security, rural livelihoods or animal welfare with numbers like that? Farming takes the largest share of DEFRA’s budget, but it is nearly one third of a shockingly small pie. Meanwhile, the programmes meant to support the future of farming, improve animal welfare and restore our natural environment, including the sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship and landscape recovery, have been hit with a £100 million cut—cuts in the middle of a climate crisis, cuts while farmers struggle to meet the higher standards that we are demanding with fewer resources, cuts when public demand for ethical farming has never been stronger. The Liberal Democrats stand with our farmers and our animals. We are calling for an extra £1 billion in the farming budget to support higher welfare standards, proper training and workforce investment. We will keep fighting to ensure no food can be imported or sold in the UK if it is produced in a way that would be illegal here.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. Does she agree that lots of British farmers, like many in my North Cornwall constituency, are trying to move away from confined systems such as crates, but that until the Government insist on applying UK animal welfare standards to imported food, they will be undercut by cheaper, lower-welfare imports?

It is key that if we are going to demand higher standards here, we must apply the same standards to food that we import. If the Minister truly believes that food security is national security, that needs to be backed up with real investment—not empty slogans or cuts on a spreadsheet, but real support for our farmers. I ask him to listen to communities such as those in South Devon, which are demanding that we act. We banned battery cages in 2012; now it is time to finish the job. Let this be the Parliament that truly ends the cage age.

17:00:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The debate has attracted a lot of interest in my South West Norfolk constituency, where we care passionately about the environment, climate and animal welfare. As has been observed, our area has plenty of chickens and pigs—they are all around us in my constituency; frankly, they are our neighbours and we are acutely aware of their welfare—so it is no wonder that so many residents have been in touch with me over the last year. Every year in the UK, over 7 million farmed animals are confined to cages for all or part of their lives. Twenty per cent of the UK’s eggs are produced in those cages and, as has been observed, battery cages and enriched battery cages, in which hens have space the size of an A4 sheet of paper, remain legal. In farrowing crates, sows are unable to turn around, nestle their piglets or express natural roosting or nest-building behaviours. These restrictions lead to severe welfare problems for sows and piglets. It is important to recognise that many of these crates and cages prevent key natural behaviours. Fortunately, all UK supermarkets have either already stopped selling eggs from caged hens or committed to do so by the end of 2025. However, it is estimated that once those commitments are realised, around 10% of the UK’s hens will remain in cages. That is 10% too many.

The RSPCA’s assured scheme now accounts for 55% of the UK’s laying hens and 25% of its pigs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that there is increasing public support for higher welfare meat and eggs, even if the cost is slightly higher as a result?

I entirely agree. It is through the good work of organisations like the RSPCA that we can increase awareness of those improved standards. As I have mentioned in this Chamber recently, and as was reported in The Guardian last week, through freedom of information requests I have found that industrial farms broke environmental regulations, including those relating to animal welfare, nearly 7,000 times in the last 10 years. For example, a farm was found to be stocking more than 400,000 animals, instead of the permitted 357,000. The permitted amounts are already very high, so any increase over and above them will cause further distress for animals. Given the numbers involved, I worry about routine overcrowding and a lack of regulation. It is important to consider the implications of that intensity for disease. A National Audit Office report on animal resilience published this month revealed that there are serious gaps in the UK’s ability to respond to major outbreaks of animal diseases, including bird flu and foot and mouth, which have cost farmers and the Government millions of pounds. We must recognise that human health and animal health are linked. We need to have a serious conversation about what sort of farming we want to pursue. As the Minister will know, I grew up in Norfolk, I am from Norfolk and I visit farms routinely. Farmers are under increasing pressure from a whole range of factors: disease, profitability, climate change, drought and more. Most farmers I know in South West Norfolk care passionately about their animals and want to do all they can to improve animal welfare, but, as has been highlighted, they need support with that transition. Fundamentally, this issue comes down to fairness—fairness in finances, and in labelling too. In a recent debate, some really interesting points were made about labelling, and how fairness is at the heart of it, so that the public can make informed choices. The NFU estimates that it would cost between £5,000 and £8,000 to replace each of the 60,000 conventional farrowing crates that are currently in use across the UK. That transition must be supported by the market and some financial provision or incentive, either through infrastructure grants or via the supply chain, to make it viable for producers and to ensure that it does not put businesses out of pig production. It is crucial that the transition is staged and well supported by the Government and, where relevant, devolved Governments, to support our farming communities. While I have the opportunity to do so, I pay tribute to the various animal welfare organisations campaigning and raising awareness of these issues, which is so important. They include the RSPCA, which has been mentioned, but also World Animal Protection, Compassion in World Farming and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

17:05:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate. The Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, said: “Whoever is kind to the creatures of God, he is kind to himself.” Caring for animals is not just an ethical issue in Islam; it is an act of worship to God. Mahatma Gandhi said: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” The way we treat farmed animals is not only our responsibility, but a reflection of our values and what we stand for in this country. Unfortunately, right now, the reflection I see is distorted, because despite all the proud talk about Britain’s leadership on animal welfare, millions of animals are still confined in cages and crates that violate the most basic standards of dignity and care. I rise in support of the petition, not just because of what it asks us to do—to ban cages for laying hens, farrowing crates for sows and individual pens for calves—but because of what it represents: a call for us to honour our moral duty to animals that feed us and often clothe us, and for which we consider ourselves caretakers. That call is echoed by my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley, who are deeply disturbed that, despite UK legislation that protects animals, practices such as the use of farrowing crates, enriched cages and calf pens remain legal in the UK. They are legal, but they are increasingly indefensible. Just because something is legal does not always mean it is right. Many highlight that after watching documentaries or seeing images, they are horrified by how our food industry treats animals throughout their lifetime, simply to make it easier to farm their produce. Recent footage from a Devon pig farm exposed by campaigners and reported by The Guardian shows sows trapped in crates so tightly that they cannot turn around, care properly for their piglets or even lie down in comfort. In that practice, the pig is reduced to a machine, treated as an object for the benefit of the food industry. That is a moral failing. Let us be clear: the farrowing crate is not an unfortunate glitch in a mostly humane system; it is the system itself, and it is built on a trade-off we no longer need to accept. We prioritise production over compassion, but public support is strong and nearly 75% of vets are concerned about the welfare impact of farrowing crates. What are we waiting for?

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very encouraging that the industry is already making great strides to move away from the traditional crating system to new flexible systems, and that we have already seen 8% change to those systems in the last couple of years?

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.

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.

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.

I wonder whether the hon. Member might also reflect on our farming competitors, in particular countries like Norway, Sweden and Switzerland and, to some extent, Germany, Austria and New Zealand, which have banned such practices in their pig industries, and the extent to which that means there can be a viable business model under a reformed system.

I think we should look at good practice elsewhere and at how other countries have transitioned away from these practices. I am not having a go at farmers at all, but I hope the Government will expedite their manifesto commitment to look at animal welfare and help farmers transition to a more humane system. Farm animals do not just feed us; they live their entire lives under farmers’ care—our care. I am sure we can all agree that care must mean more than simply the absence of cruelty, but even that we do not have. We cannot argue that it is a radical or long process, because alternatives are popping up and farms are taking initiative to move away from these practices without waiting for legislation. Although it is embarrassing that we are not leading the way, we can catch up and set a new standard for all, which would be met with little pushback as long as we had the appropriate Government support for our farmers. This debate must be the beginning of addressing intensive farming practices that strip animals of dignity in service of profit and drawing a line between industry and responsibility. If we want to be a country that preaches welfare, let us prove it: ban the cages and give animals a life that reflects the respect they deserve, not just as a means to an end, but as living beings entrusted to our care. This is not radical; it is responsible, it is compassion and it is necessary.

17:13:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on leading this important debate. The Labour Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to introduce the most comprehensive animal welfare programme in a generation; I am pleased that we are already making significant headway on that. It was animal welfare that first politicised me as a child. One of the reasons why I joined the Labour party was the previous Labour Government’s partial ban on fox hunting. I look forward to finishing the job in this Parliament. My colleagues and I take the welfare of animals very seriously. The United Kingdom currently has some of the highest food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards for food production in the world, but we can and must go further. I am sure all Members present share similar concerns for animals trapped in cages. Sentient animals such as cows, sheep, pigs and chickens all have the capacity to feel emotion, ranging from happiness and joy to fear, pain and distress. It is stress inducing for animals not to engage in natural behaviours or to be unable to benefit from the landscapes across the country to which they are accustomed. Being trapped in cages that restrict animals’ movement and freedom prevents them from engaging in their natural behaviour. Not only are cramped cages emotionally distressing, but they cause clear physical discomfort and a greater likelihood of illness, disease and reduced lifespan. The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to introduce an animal protection law—the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822—and has subsequently stated that animals are sentient beings that deserve the highest standards of animal welfare protection. However, the previous Administration did not do enough on the issue. Instead, they broke promises regarding animal welfare, made U-turns and signed trade deals that allowed in lower-quality products that did not meet health and welfare standards by omitting any mention of imports having to uphold this country’s welfare standards for animal products. They quietly dropped the consultation on hen and pig cages and abandoned plans for mandatory welfare labelling.

The hon. Gentleman raises the incredibly important issue of imports. Every pig or chicken farmer I speak to in West Dorset fully supports a transition, but they all raise the prospect of how we avoid driving up production costs and so increasing the cost to consumers and making imports look more attractive.

We need proper, targeted support that involves genuine conversations, and listening and engaging respectfully with those communities, as well as a trade policy that stands up to those imports. I was delighted that the Business and Trade Secretary announced trade deals that genuinely protect the interests of the agricultural sector. I do not believe that would have happened under the previous Government, when farmers were far too often put on the chopping block. I went out to farms throughout the general election campaign and have been out to them since; particularly in the sheep farming sector in my part of the world, farmers are sick of being sold down the river. So far, we have encouraged a move away from colony hen cages to free-range production through grants to laying hen and pullet farmers in England. Colony cages are already being replaced with non-cage systems that directly prioritise the welfare of hens. The Government are supporting major supermarkets in their pledge to stop selling eggs from chickens kept in colony cages by the end of 2025. While the previous Administration saw eggs from caged production reach 44% of the market in 2018, this Government saw that proportion reduce to 20% at the end of last year. In addition, 50% of the national sow-breeding herd are giving birth in outdoor units—we have heard some of the arguments in favour of indoor production. While the move to more outdoor units is a step in the right direction, it is imperative that we constantly investigate how to improve animal welfare standards. As the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, that must be part of a genuine conversation between industry, campaigning groups and the Government. The work to promote animal welfare is never fully complete; we will hopefully have the debate in the years to come, and it will never fully be laid to rest. I pay tribute to the farmers in my constituency, who strive for the highest animal welfare standards and look after their environment. They need our support in terms of both international trade and respectful, positive engagement with the Government. I am a Member of Parliament for a constituency that borders Scotland, so it will be unsurprising that I mention the Scottish Government’s recent consultation on ending the use of animal cages. I am glad to see that all steps are being taken to reduce the confinement of farm animals, and the consultation will make significant headway in fulfilling the animal welfare agenda. I am pleased that the Government are carefully considering the use of cages and crates, and I thank all Members for engaging in this debate and sharing a commitment to protecting the welfare of animals. This is an opportunity for us to truly lead the way in protecting the welfare of animals and supporting humane farming methods. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to achieving the most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation; I urge further consideration of the use of animal cages for farmed animals.

17:19:00

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate, and I thank the 322 petitioners in Glastonbury and Somerton. As a nation, we value high animal welfare standards. The public care about animal welfare—84% of shoppers consider it when buying their food. The UK has helped to lead the way, banning veal crates for calves 16 years before the EU and banning sow stalls 14 years before the EU’s partial ban. The Liberal Democrats in government fought to improve poultry welfare standards by implementing an all-out ban on caged hens. Moving towards a cage and crate-free future is not just good for our farmed livestock: it is crucial if we are to ensure a trusted, sustainable and resilient farming future. Despite huge progress, we still have some way to go. Some 20% of UK eggs are from hens that live in enriched cages, while farrowing crates are still legal and used for up to 50% of sows in the UK. As the support for the petition shows, the public want to end the cage age. Polling highlights the strength of feeling, with 94% of people in agreement that cages for laying hens are unacceptable and 96% believing the same for farrowing crates. Taking the necessary steps to reduce and eliminate usage is both popular and the right thing to do, and we should implement change as soon as possible, alongside a robust transition that works with farmers to support them to raise welfare standards in pig and poultry production. The Government promised to have the highest rise in animal welfare standards in a generation, and just last month the revised animal health and welfare pathway stated that a transition out of cages is a priority. However, we have yet to see concrete action in that direction. I urge the Minister to commit today to bringing that work forward. At our spring conference, the Liberal Democrats passed a new motion calling for a national strategy to end the cage age. We have also urged the Government to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates, which the previous Conservative Government failed to do despite their promises. That is not really a surprise, given that they failed to act on the 2018 Stacey review on farm regulation, and in 2023 they scrapped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. It is time that we put our ambitions back on track. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, because we must not fall behind our European neighbours. This action must be taken in conjunction with a strong trade policy that ensures that our farmers are not undercut. Glastonbury and Somerton is home to many farmers who take pride in upholding the highest standards. Lizzie and Rob Walrond, who run Glebe farm, are a shining example. On their 90 acres, they run an organic, outdoor herd of Saddleback sows, free-range laying hens and a flock of mule ewes, with much of their produce sold direct to customers through their fantastic Pitney Farm Shop and Café. Silverthorne shop in Milborne Wick is a free-range farm, with 15,000 hens all free to roam naturally on its 32 acres, and the eggs—as I can testify—are absolutely fantastic. Of course, there are many others, including Gilcombe farm, near Bruton; the Slow Farming Company in Castle Cary; Upton Bridge farm in Long Sutton; and the Kimber family, who run a farm in Charlton Musgrove. Those businesses are under threat. If we do not ensure that trade policy is in line with domestic welfare practices, it could allow the market to be flooded with cheaper products that are likely to be reared to lower standards, punishing UK farmers for doing the right thing and maintaining high welfare standards. It is happening already: at a time when farmers are under unprecedented pressure, it is worrying that cheaper chicken and beef from Australia, Poland and Uruguay is increasingly seen on UK supermarket shelves in what seems to be a glaring and hypocritical betrayal of British farmers and misleading to the consumer. There is not just a moral case to be made for moving away from crates and cages, but a sustainable and financial one. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set outs the need for a sustainable food system, and I urge the Government’s new food strategy to ensure that animal welfare is part of that. In addition, supporting nature-friendly farming is critical to achieving the Government’s environmental standards. The special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2019 estimated that 8.5% of global greenhouse gas comes from animal agriculture. Intensive rearing methods, such as those that rely on cages and crates, can create excess agricultural run-off that ends up in our rivers, while reliance on antibiotics to treat the spread of disease, in part due to intensive methods, can be harmful to animal and human health. Instead, nature-friendly, extensive and traditional farming methods enhance nature while providing quality food for our tables. Encouraging innovative modern farming systems is critical to growing and rearing the enormous amount of food required to feed us all, but does Government policy support the transition? Worryingly, research shows that intensive systems have ballooned, particularly in the pig and poultry sectors. There has been a 13% increase in factory farms over the last five years, with 22 million animals in mega-farms in the UK. Such units are designed purely for maximum production and profit. I am concerned that the family farm tax and the reduction in nature-friendly farming incentives will only increase the number further, as smaller farms are forced to sell up and are gobbled up by bigger units while the remaining family farms are forced to intensify to remain profitable. The upcoming farming profitability review should investigate that. We stand at a crucial point for reshaping the future of farming in the UK, and we must take actions to secure a sustainable future. The Liberal Democrats want to support farms by reversing the family farm tax and investing an extra £1 billion into the farming budget. We would provide training, support and financial incentives for farmers to deliver world-leading animal welfare standards. We also believe that a comprehensive workflow review is needed to ensure that all parts of the food supply chain are resilient, including vets and local abattoirs, about which I have spoken before in this place. Ultimately, ending the use of cages and crates is not only the right thing to do but part of a movement that would achieve the UK’s goals while securing the future of farming in the UK. It is better for our animals, better for people and better for the planet.

17:26:00

It is a pleasure to contribute with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) introduced this important debate so well. As a nation of animal lovers, we rightly seek the highest welfare standards. We were the first country to create animal protection law, in 1822, and the first country to set up an animal welfare charity, in 1824. I was proud to be elected as the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East on a manifesto that pledged the most ambitious advancement of animal welfare in a generation. Today, I reaffirm my commitment to my constituents in Bournemouth East, because the compassion that we show for animals represents who we are as a people. Animal welfare is extremely important. We know that cages and crates cause huge suffering for farm animals. We need action now to end the use of cages and crates for farmed animals because our constituents demand it. I know this issue is of significant interest and importance to my constituents because 190 of them signed the petition and my mailbox has been inundated by constituents getting in touch about this issue. Whether from Hilary on Carbery Avenue, Alison on Windham Road, or Angela on Chigwell Road, there is a call for action. The public in Bournemouth East want us to go further and faster. It is good news that Ministers are working closely with the farm sector to deliver high standards for food production, animal welfare and environmental concerns. It is good news that when it comes to laying hens we are moving away from the use of enriched colony cages to free-range and barn production, and that Government grants to farmers are supporting that work. We need an urgent and full move away from cages. As we have just heard, 8 million laying hens are unable to flap their wings because they are confined in such small, intolerable spaces. It is also good news that major supermarkets have pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by the end of this year. That shift will happily quicken the move away from colony cages, with free-range eggs now accounting for over two thirds of the market, but we must go further and faster. Indeed, we may have to: the UK agreed in May to link to EU farm standards, so if the EU brings in a cage ban, the UK would have to reciprocate. We should be mindful of that, as we are already seeing moves in that direction in France and Germany, and the European Commission is interested in that policy area. Like colleagues who have spoken before me, I am proud to be a Labour Member of Parliament because the last Labour Government provided the most comprehensive reform of animal welfare laws and policies in over a century. I am proud, too, of the Labour manifesto commitments that we made on animal welfare, including proposals to ban trail hunting, end puppy smuggling and puppy farming, ban the use of snare traps, ban the import of animals with fashion mutilations and cropped ears and ban scientific testing on dogs; we had a debate on that subject a few short weeks ago in which the will of MPs of all parties was extraordinarily clear. We also committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies, which is particularly timely because 2 July will mark a decade since the killing of Cecil the lion. I hope that the House will focus on the issue with renewed sharpness. I am pleased to see the Government pledge to ratify the high seas treaty, a landmark agreement that will protect marine life in international waters, covering almost two thirds of the ocean, including sharks, whales and sea turtles, which are currently vulnerable to unsustainable and illegal fishing and other extractive industries. This Government are already supporting animals and marine life, are committed to supporting animals over the course of this Parliament, and are building on the work of the last Labour Government in protecting animals. I want to stand alongside our Labour Government with their commitment to introduce their ambitious programme for animal welfare, because all our constituents are calling on us to do better and to do it faster.

17:31:00

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate; I heard her speak at the Humane World for Animals event, so I know her passion for the subject. The petitions that we debate in this place always draw a great deal of attention, but there cannot be many that have the same level of awareness and passionate support as this one. Consistent polling shows that three quarters of the British public oppose the use of cages for hens, and two thirds oppose the use of farrowing crates. The petition is therefore clearly in the mainstream of public opinion. However, the reality is that consumers all too often cannot act on their values without the tools to do so, which is why labelling is so valuable to give consumers a choice. I imagine that hon. Members may be growing used to seeing me in Westminster Hall debates on topics like this. This is the third debate on animal welfare that I and many other Members have attended in the last fortnight, so to curb the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will try my best not to retread old ground. I will speak to the prolonged suffering that cage and crate systems cause, preventing animals from carrying out basic natural behaviours such as dust bathing, rooting, grooming and even turning around. The result is stress, frustration and sometimes injury for the animals. The animal health and welfare pathway acknowledged those challenges, identifying the need to transition away from so-called enriched cages. Labelling is a crucial method of doing so by ensuring that farmers invest in higher welfare and the changes are visible and rewarded, so we can show the public that we are in line with their values. If we are serious about welfare washing—outsourcing cruelty to other countries—we must empower consumers to choose products that meaningfully reflect their values. Presently, farmers who move to higher welfare, cage-free systems receive little recognition at the point of sale. Labels such as “free range” vary significantly in their meaning, and in some cases are misleading for consumers. A robust method of production labelling would inform consumers clearly about how an animal was reared—battery cage, enriched cage, free range or organic. It would allow consumers to choose to support farmers who are rearing to higher welfare standards. It would reward farmers who are making costly transitions to higher welfare systems, helping to sustain rural livelihoods while staying competitive. Every supermarket shelf should carry clear, visible information. Where did that bacon come from? Was that sow crate-free? Did that chicken live in a cage? Right now, consumers might be paying more under the assumption that they are supporting higher British welfare standards, but they cannot see whether those standards involve cages. Transparency is the friend of both the farmer and the shopper, and labelling is the bridge to achieving that. To be clear, this is not about shaming farmers. Quite the opposite: it is about empowering them. The transition to cage-free systems has been supported by this Government, via grants for laying hen and pullet farmers, and by the major supermarkets that have promised to selling shell eggs from caged hens by the end of this year. Some are going further and are ending the use of processed eggs, too. Free-range eggs now account for 69% of the total egg throughput in the UK which shows, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) rightly said, that we are very far ahead of many other nations on high-welfare farming. Sadly, however, those measures alone will not shift the dial quickly enough, particularly on meat products, as without a comprehensive labelling system, consumers cannot identify and choose higher welfare products. Without their demand, and the necessary investment from retailers, farmers lack the ability to transition in a way that ensures that their businesses are not damaged by the process.

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the issue at length on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Does he agree that we have to be careful to ensure that labelling is clear and does not disadvantage British farmers? It is very likely that we will be unable to label imported products in the same way, so there is a danger that the consumer, who might not understand the complexity, may choose an imported product over a domestic product.

I absolutely agree and am always happy to take interventions from hon. Members with greater expertise than mine. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to bear that in mind. We also need to appreciate that it will probably be more difficult to verify the standards of imported products; it is much simpler for people to get around any system that we put in place. We must bear that in mind so that—to go back to the point about welfare washing— consumers do not end up buying products that appear to be of a higher welfare standard, but are not. Animal welfare need not come at the cost of British farming. With the right transitional support, we can lift the whole sector. It is important that we spell out how that transitional support would work and how quickly it could come about. On farrowing crates, according to the National Pig Association, it could cost around £4,000 per sow to convert an existing building and up to £8,000 per sow to build a new structure. Those figures do not include planning permission, which, as we know, does not come free. We also need to acknowledge that higher welfare animal products carry additional costs for farmers, which have to be passed on to consumers. That is not a reason not to raise standards, because the desire to do so is not limited to higher socioeconomic groups. A separate issue is the time that such conversions would take. Given the complex planning and permitting requirements, and constraints in the supply chain, it is estimated that it could take at least 15 years to transition all farrowing systems to higher welfare alternatives. The Government are reforming the planning sector to speed that up, but we still need to acknowledge those barriers and work with farmers. We can reward good practice, reduce suffering and ensure that our farms are known not just for productivity, but for principled production. If the science is clear, the public are supportive and the market is adapting and willing to go further if supported, what are we waiting for? I thank the petitioners. This is our chance to end the cage age, to deliver real transparency and to reward those farmers who are already doing the right thing. By giving consumers the tools to make informed ethical choices, we can build a food system that reflects the compassion of the British public and upholds the standards that we all believe in.

I call the Lib Dem spokesman.

17:37:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the petition, and I thank all the petitioners who have turned up to watch the debate. The people of Winchester are certainly passionate about the subject; I have received a lot of heartfelt emails about it. As a veterinary surgeon, I have always believed that how we treat animals reflects our values as a society, and as someone who grew up on a farm and who now represents very rural areas in Winchester such as those around the Meon valley, I understand the deep connection between animal welfare, food production, conservation and the livelihood of farming families. We should first acknowledge the reality that UK farmers operate to some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. That is not to say that they cannot and should not be improved where possible; we want to make progress. When we talk about ending the use of farrowing crates, we must also talk, as many Members have done, about supporting farmers to transition away from them. Any change must be practical as well as ethical. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) gave us a valuable insight, pointing out that many pig farmers struggled after a sudden change was brought in back in—was it 2000?

It was 1999.

It was a long time ago, and it devastated the industry. Farrowing crates are used to reduce piglet mortality by preventing crushing. It is a serious concern that no responsible farmer would take lightly. As the NFU has rightly pointed out, we need a science-led, managed approach to phasing out their use that gives farmers the time, investment and confidence to transition to higher welfare systems such as free farrowing pens. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to develop a comprehensive national strategy to end the use of farrowing crates—one that is built in full consultation with farmers, vets, welfare scientists and industry stakeholders. That strategy must come with clear funding commitments, practical guidance and research and development support to trial alternatives that work in the UK’s diverse farming environments. One of the five freedoms, which I mentioned earlier, is the freedom to express natural behaviours. That remains a vital benchmark for animal welfare, but we must ensure that the sows and piglets are kept physically safe as well as psychologically enriched. When I was 11 years old, I brought 13 pigs home from market. My dad was not too happy about that: we were a sheep farm, and I turned up with these piglets. They turned into pets, really—we used to play football with them. We had a great time with them. Their behaviour was completely different from that of the pigs on the intensive farms on which I had to spend time as a veterinary student a few years later. They all had their own personality. We have discussed intensive chicken farming, and we have mentioned battery hens, which are still seen in some parts of the world. Pigs are hugely intelligent and require a lot of enrichment, and although people acknowledge that chickens are not as intelligent—there is no doubt about that—the level of intelligence does not change the capacity to suffer or feel pain. At the moment, in broiler farming, chickens are selectively bred to grow so quickly that their legs do not develop quickly enough and they start to develop sores, infections or even broken limbs because of the rate at which they are growing. Those chickens feel pain and distress as much as any pig or other more intelligent animal. I summed up at our party conference this year. We are calling for new policies for farming in general, investing in training and peer-to-peer farming learning networks, better access to apprenticeships in agriculture and animal welfare, and a proper workforce plan to ensure that there are enough vets, farm workers and abattoir staff across the supply chain. However, those steps alone will not be enough if we allow lower welfare imports to flood British shelves. The previous Government’s trade deals undercut UK farmers with Australia and directly undermined the standards that we ask them to uphold. We urge the Government to ensure that any trade agreements require imported food to meet UK standards and ban the sale of food that would be illegal to produce here. That is really important, because there are plenty of imported egg and dried custard products that could be produced by battery hens. It is not only vets and farmers who are proud of our high animal welfare standards, but the British public. We should not compromise those standards. There are farming systems around the world that not only are worse for the environment and for animal welfare, but do not have the same judicious use of antibiotics. That is driving antibiotic resistance, which is creating a public health crisis. Already, 1 million people around the world die because of antibiotic-resistant infections every year. That will get worse unless as a global community we take serious action on antimicrobial resistance.

It is worth noting that the pig industry in the UK has reduced antibiotic usage by 69% since 2015. That is an industry initiative and should be applauded.

I absolutely applaud that. That is a very important intervention. The Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance has reported that since 2015, overall antibiotic use in livestock has been reduced by 59%. That is a huge reduction and is very much industry-led. In the UK, farmers are not permitted to treat unless there is a diagnosis of an illness and an appropriate antibiotic, whereas in other countries antibiotics are essentially given as a substitute for low hygiene standards and to act as growth promoters. The previous Conservative Government promised the biggest boost to animal welfare in a generation, but they scrapped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, failed to act on the 2018 Stacey review and abandoned their own pledge to consult on ending the use of cages for farmed animals. I believe that we should work towards ending the use of farrowing crates, but we cannot do so overnight. We must do it in partnership with farmers, not at their expense. We must be honest with the public, fair to producers and ambitious for animal welfare. I will finish by quoting probably the most famous veterinary surgeon of all, James Herriot: “If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans.”

17:45:00

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on leading this debate. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in animal health and welfare as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We have heard some very thought-provoking and wide-ranging speeches today. I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, from whom I always enjoy hearing. She is an incredibly powerful and passionate champion of animal welfare. More strength to her elbow—keep going. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) brought his expertise in the porcine sector and talked about the key safety issues, especially in relation to pig husbandry techniques. We heard from the hon. Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), and the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke about the importance of biosecurity, which is pivotal in his part of the world, as it is across the entire United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke powerfully about the moral and ethical aspects of our duty of care to animals under our care. We heard wide-ranging speeches from across the country, including from the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), a powerful advocate for animal welfare, made some very thoughtful comments about the principles of labelling. The speeches culminated in the presentation from my friend and veterinary colleague the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Full credit to him for quoting James Herriot—I must remember to do that next time. Like all petition debates, we are having this debate because more than 100,000 people across the country signed the petition. As it stands today, more than 105,000 people have signed this petition, including 182 in my constituency of Epping Forest, and many others have written to me on this issue. I thank them all for allowing us to debate this important animal and bird welfare issue. It is important to have this opportunity to hold the new Government to account on their plans to improve animal welfare. As Members are no doubt aware, the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in improving animal welfare, such as banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, with the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, and increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021. Pivotally, we enshrined animal sentience, which we have heard a lot about today, in UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the very important Animal Sentience Committee, which ensures that any new legislation pays due regard to animal welfare. We should be incredibly proud that, in the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards. As I have said many times before, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world in that regard. I again pay tribute to our farmers, growers and producers who help to feed the nation and nurture our precious environment. However, it is right that we continue to raise the bar, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss further the use of cages and crates for farmed animals. The Opposition have made it clear—I did so just this month, on 3 June, during a debate on animal welfare standards in farming—that we support banning cages or close confinement systems where clear scientific evidence demonstrates that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the UK’s existing legislation on the use of cages and crates, including: the ban on keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; the ban on keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and the ban on the use of battery cages for laying hens, introduced in 2012. Under the previous Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates no longer to be used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states: “The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.” On poultry, it is also welcome that the market has been very influential in moving away from using cages for laying hens, and instead working towards alternative systems, including free range and barn. It is greatly welcome that this has also been driven by retailers acknowledging their role in raising welfare standards, with the transition to non-cage egg production being accelerated in recent years by major supermarkets committing to ending, by 2025, the sale of shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages, with some supermarkets also extending that commitment to products containing liquid or powdered egg. About 75% of British eggs come from free-range, barn and organic production systems, which is a clear testament to the improved picture of bird welfare that we have seen in recent years. In particular, it is a testament to all those across the supply chains, from farmers to retailers, who have acted in the interests of bird and animal welfare. I very much acknowledge that today. Further work with farmers—I stress “with” rather than “to” farmers—has been a key take-home message from today’s debate. Further work is still needed with farmers, supermarkets and other retailers to ensure that the figure increases in the years to come, and I hope the Government can commit to that today. To return to the porcine sector, the Government have been asked whether they have plans to support free farrowing systems or to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates for pigs. The Minister has previously confirmed that the Government are “considering very carefully” the use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals, including farrowing crates, and I am sure we will hear more about how he is considering things closely. It is essential that we make good progress towards a system that both works commercially and ensures the welfare of the sow and her piglets. Tragically, as we have heard, sows can lie on their piglets and crush them unintentionally. We must ensure that any new approach safeguards both the mother and her young. Farrowing crates used for sows and piglets have been raised as a particular area of focus by the RSPCA and other organisations, such as the British Veterinary Association, the National Pig Association, the NFU, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, FOUR PAWS, and Compassion in World Farming. I note that the British Veterinary Association has called for the phasing out of farrowing crates, saying that the Government should provide a 15-year transition period by which all new builds cannot contain farrowing crates except where already agreed, to be followed by a shift from a crate system to alternative methods, such as adaptive farrowing accommodation or free farrowing systems, as soon as possible. I hope the Minister can provide further clarity on how the Government intend to approach this issue, and I am sure he will do that today. In the revision of the animal health and welfare pathway in March, the Government stated that a “transition out of cages” was one of their priorities, and that they are “exploring potential reforms” in this area. That raises questions, which I hope the Minister will answer, about the Government’s process in looking at this area. First, can he confirm whether any future decision on the use of cages and crates will be put to an evidence-based consultation? Likewise, on process, can the Minister confirm that, in any future decisions, the Government will consider a plan that takes into account the needs of the industry, and the impact of any moves? The National Pig Association and the building suppliers forum concur with the British Veterinary Association that at least 15 years would be required to move from conventional farrowing to flexible or free farrowing, and it is noted that there are significant costs to replacing practices that would be banned. If the Government plan any reforms, will they work with industry to make sure they are affordable, practical, effective and, at their heart, promote animal and bird welfare? It is essential that we make swift progress towards systems that ensure the welfare of animals and birds, and that work pragmatically and viably for the sector. While the UK can be proud of our domestic track record on animal welfare, we must not lose sight of the global scale of animal welfare issues. The previous Conservative Government made it clear that the UK’s high standards were a red line in trade negotiations, and that there must be no compromise on environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. That is why, although we may not have got everything right on these issues, the free trade agreements signed by the previous Government with countries such as Australia and New Zealand included important dedicated chapters on animal welfare—the first of their kind in any such trade deals. It is also why, when she was Trade Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition stood up for our animal welfare standards during trade negotiations with Canada, stepping back from talks to ensure that there were no concessions on our red line of banning the importation of hormone-treated beef. Whether Labour or the Conservatives are in government, we must continue to uphold animal welfare standards in trade deals. It is not simply a case of upholding high animal welfare and ensuring that food is safe to eat; it is about ensuring that our hard-working farmers are not unfairly undercut by other countries where standards may be lower. Our high standards must not be put at risk as this Government seek to negotiate new trade deals, specifically the bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, bovine somatotropin dairy, chlorine-washed chicken products, and the use of antibiotics as growth promoters—practices that are illegal in this country. I have said this many times before, and I will say it again, as a Member of Parliament and as a veterinary surgeon: keeping firm on these standards makes it clear beyond all doubt that we as a nation are committed to animal welfare. Other countries will then know that, should they wish to trade with us, they must meet our standards and our values. That now extends to using cages and crates for imported animal products. Despite the UK having legislated to end the practice long ago, many countries, including the United States, still allow the use of sow stalls. Can the Minister assure us that no animal products will be imported to the UK where sow stalls have been used? Just last Thursday, on 12 June, the Government finally provided their response to the previous Conservative Government’s “fairer food labelling” consultation, no doubt due to repeated prompting from His Majesty’s Opposition in recent days, weeks and months. In their somewhat sparse response, the Government stated that they “will consider the potential role of method of production labelling reform as part of the UK Government’s development of an overarching approach to animal welfare and the wider food strategy.” I look forward to the Minister elaborating on that somewhat economical response to a major consultation. First, greater clarity for sectors affected by any change would be very much welcome. As such, will the Government outline a timeline for when they expect to be able to publish their new strategy on animal welfare, and for any legislative changes in the area of labelling? Secondly, can the Government clarify why, despite the closing of the consultation in May 2024, they were able to respond only last week? Even accounting for election to office in July, it has still taken 11 months for those who took the time to contribute to the consultation to receive that somewhat limited response. Will the Minister therefore assure the public that this is not an indication of any lack of interest in this area from the Government? Labelling will help with many facets of the debate, allowing UK consumers to make informed decisions about the food they purchase, as they will be able to see the provenance of the food and how it was produced. I have raised this with him many times, but can the Minister further clarify how he will address the loophole that still exists in Government buying standards in public procurement, allowing public bodies to deviate from high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost? On the procurement point, we cannot be a beacon of animal welfare for countries around the world if we do not have our own house in order. I would greatly appreciate an answer to that point, as I have asked the Minister about it a few times. It is vital that we uphold our rigorous standards on animal welfare and retain the UK’s status as a world leader on animal welfare issues. I urge the Government to treat the matter with the seriousness and urgency it deserves, and not to allow any backsliding on existing legislation as they seek to secure new trade deals with the United States and other countries. To have high animal welfare standards, we need healthy animals. For that, we need strong biosecurity. I have repeatedly called on the Government to urgently redevelop the headquarters of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge, Surrey. The APHA is critical in protecting against devastating diseases—such as foot and mouth disease, seen this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, and African swine fever—advancing up the continent of Europe. The Minister knows that I will keep pushing the Government on this matter. In the spending review last week, the Chancellor did not mention DEFRA, animal health or farming once in her statement, nor was there any mention of reversing the catastrophic family farm tax. There was no mention of the APHA project in the spending review—in either the statement or the blue book. Will the Government finish the work that the Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion to redevelop the HQ? Labour keep reannouncing a pot of £208 million, which is a familiar figure to the Minister. It is a start, but when will they commit the further £1.4 billion for this infrastructure, for the sake of British farming, food production and national security? I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. I thank our fantastic farmers, who keep food on our tables. It is clear that there is much interest across the House in this issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughtful response.

18:02:00

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I join others in thanking the Petitions Committee, and in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for not only introducing the debate but bringing her usual thoughtfulness and passion to the subject. I also join others in thanking all who signed the petition, which meant that we were able to debate this important issue. This is the third consecutive week that we have debated farm animal welfare issues, and that brings home just how much both the public and this House value how animals are treated. We are genuinely a nation of animal lovers. We are also a nation that needs to eat, so I thank all who are involved in the farming process and the food production sector, who help to keep us fed. The issue of confinement and the use of cages in farming is a long-standing subject that has been brought to Members’ attention several times over recent years, and it is a topic that has consistently come across my desk since I became a Minister. As a nation, we are rightly proud of high welfare standards. On confinement, veal crates for calves were banned in 1990, sow stalls for pigs were banned in 1999 and barren battery cages for laying hens were banned in 2012. I will reiterate what I said in the debate on animal welfare standards in farming on 3 June. We are determined to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection that they rightly deserve, in whatever farming system they are kept. In addition to this e-petition, there have been a number of campaigns urging the Government to publish consultations on banning the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. I assure my hon. Friend that I am keen to act and certainly do not want to fall behind the EU countries that have already banned, or are in the process of banning, cages and crates. I am acutely aware that these are complex issues that need careful consideration, particularly with regard to food security and trade. I want to work closely with the sectors and bring them with us to improve animal welfare standards together while maintaining a thriving, sustainable and competitive industry. The petition calls for a ban on cages for laying hens as soon as possible. Enriched colony cages are a significant welfare improvement on barren battery cages as they are required to have nest boxes, litters and perches, but they do not fully provide for the birds’ physical and behavioural needs. The colony cage system restricts the hen’s choice, preventing her from running, flapping her wings, dust bathing or foraging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) has said in detailing the concerns raised by his constituents. The UK laying hens sector has already made significant progress in moving away from enriched colony cages. The transition has been supported by the major supermarkets, which pledged in 2016 to stop selling shell eggs from caged hens by the end of 2025, with some retailers extending that pledge to products containing liquid or processed egg. I am pleased to say that the percentage of eggs from enriched colony cage systems continues to fall. The current level is just 18% of the total UK throughput in the first quarter of 2025, with free-range eggs now accounting for 70% of the total. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) detailed, the retailer pledge in response to consumer demand is to be welcomed, but not all supermarkets have committed to cage-free. I am afraid that real-world considerations around affordability for consumers are clearly at the fore in some of those decisions. Although the retailer pledge is significant, it does not raise welfare standards across the whole laying hen industry. While the retail element is the largest part of the market at 65%, the food service and egg processing elements are not insignificant, and they represent 18% and 17% of the market respectively. The focus needs to be on addressing the welfare of laying hens producing eggs for retailers that have not signed the pledge, and for the food service and egg processing markets. To help the sector, the Government are providing financial assistance to laying hen and pullet farmers in England with flocks of 1,000 birds or more, with £22.5 million of allocated grant funding via the animal health and welfare pathway to refurbish or replace existing housing, including for those who are looking to make the transition from enriched colony cages to high welfare non-cage systems. I turn to the pig sector. We already have a significant outdoor pig sector, as we have heard, with 50% of the national sow breeding herd giving birth freely on outdoor units with no confinement. But 50% of breeding sows are kept indoors, with approximately 42% of them confined in farrowing crates for around five days before they are due to give birth and until the piglets are weaned at approximately 28 days of age. When the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, now known as the Animal Welfare Committee, reviewed the welfare of pigs in farrowing crates, it recommended that “in considering which farrowing system to adopt or support, farmers, the pig industry as a whole and other stakeholders such as retailers should consider the welfare of both sows and piglets, and be aware that they are not necessarily benefitted by the same things.” A range of hon. Members have made that point. The committee’s considerations included sow comfort and freedom to nest build; nest-building material being made available in the period before and after farrowing; the avoidance of sow injuries from interaction with the floor, pen, furniture or piglets; floor design being given more priority in the design of farrowing accommodation; the protection of piglet welfare, including prevention of injury or death; and an environment in which they can thrive, along with the promotion of hygiene and avoidance of disease in both sows and piglets. There is consensus that farrowing crates restrict a sow’s movement, preventing her from turning around and performing normal behaviours such as nest building, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) has pointed out. Animal welfare non-governmental organisations such as the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have campaigned for a long time for the Government to ban farrowing crates. I am also well aware that the British Veterinary Association and the Pig Veterinary Society have recently called for a gradual phase-out of farrowing crates, and for them to be replaced with a system that maximises sow and piglet welfare and ensures human safety. I welcome those organisations’ contribution to the ongoing debate. The National Pig Association has recognised that the direction of travel is moving away from farrowing crates, and it has done a lot of work in that area. Indeed, some producers have already made a move towards alternative farrowing systems. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who spoke as usual with great knowledge and sensitivity about these issues, industry estimates that around 8% of the British indoor pig herd are now flexibly farrowed, where the sow can be confined on a temporary basis and for a limited period to protect her piglets in those crucial early days of their lives. Flexible farrowing, also termed temporary crating or adaptive farrowing, is where the sow is confined without the ability to turn around on only a temporary basis—for a few days around farrowing in the initial suckling phase—before movable restraining bars are opened to give the sow the space to turn around. The other alternative to farrowing crates is a move directly to free farrowing systems, where there is no confinement of the sow when in farrowing and lactation accommodation, allowing the sow to freely turn around and have the opportunity to more fully perform nest-building activities. A significant part of our consideration around alternative systems is the evidence around sow and piglet welfare and stockperson welfare, and I was very struck by the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) about the dangers facing stockpeople. We recognise that moving away from farrowing crates requires a fundamental change for producers and, as we have heard, significant investment. On that note, it is encouraging to see the investment commitment some retailers have made to improve the farrowing experience for pigs. The shadow Minister asked how we would go forward on this. As the Government bring forward proposals, we will subject them to a full consultation. We absolutely recognise that the industry will need time to adapt. Farrowing accommodation will need to be considerably adapted, and potentially rebuilt and extended to allow for a larger pen footprint, and that will clearly impose significant costs on the indoor pig sector. It will also require communities to recognise that the planning system will have to accommodate changes to allow better welfare, so we need to get specifications right. Training will also be essential for stockpeople to adapt to a brand new system and ensure both human and pig welfare. Members have mentioned trade, and I am mindful of what happened in 1999 when the UK unilaterally banned sow stalls. Although it was the right thing to do in animal welfare terms, it did, as has been said, contribute to a reported 40% decline in the pig breeding herd in the following decade, sadly opening the door to more pig meat imports from countries still using sow stalls. It is therefore essential that we carefully evaluate the implications of potential cage and crate bans on trade. We need to carefully consider the potential for unintentionally replacing UK production with lower welfare production overseas. We know that the European Commission is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) mentioned, considering proposals to ban cages and crates. It has said that the first legislative proposals on cage reforms will be announced in 2026. We do not yet know what phase-out periods it will propose or how long it will take it to get agreement among member states. We are acutely aware of and concerned about imports produced using methods that are not permitted in the UK, and I can reassure the shadow Minister that we will use our trade strategy to promote the highest food production standards and protect farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals.

Is it the Minister’s ambition to align as closely as possible with the European Union’s plans to phase out cages, and farrowing crates in particular, given the symbiotic trading relationship—especially on products such as pig meat—between the EU and the UK, so that we do not have a similar situation to that involving sow stalls in 1999, where we ban something that the European Union is still using?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, having made the observation about what happened in 1999, we do not want to return to that situation. Let me turn to labelling. Considerable work has been done recently to consider the merits of method of production labelling. That, too, was raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who has talked about it repeatedly in this place. As we have heard, last year the previous Government undertook a consultation seeking views on proposals to improve and extend existing mandatory method of production labelling. I am pleased to say that, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest noticed, we have now published the Government’s response, which is available on gov.uk. In looking at that, we recognised the strong support of members of the public and many other stakeholders for the provision of clearer information for consumers on the welfare standards of their food. We also heard and understood the views expressed on the detail of the consultation proposals by the many interested parties who responded. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that we are carefully considering the potential role of reform of method of production labelling as part of the Government’s wider animal welfare and food strategies. As he will have appreciated, the Prime Minister has announced that we will announce an animal welfare strategy by the end of the year. Finally, I turn to game birds. Approximately 40 million of them—30 million to 35 million pheasants and 5 million to 10 million partridges—are estimated to be released each year in Great Britain. Game birds bred and reared for sporting purposes are not subject to the same legislative requirements on welfare as farmed poultry, because they are not regarded as farmed animals. They are, however, protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause any animal under the control of humans unnecessary suffering, or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. DEFRA’s statutory code of practice for the welfare of gamebirds reared for sporting purposes provides keepers with guidance on how to meet the welfare needs of their game birds, as required by the Animal Welfare Act. The code recommends that barren cages for breeding pheasants and small barren cages for breeding partridges should not be used, and that any system should be appropriately enriched. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for opening this debate, and I reassure Members that the issue of confinement is one that I take seriously. The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. The Department has initiated a series of meetings with key stakeholders as part of the development of an overarching approach to animal welfare. As I said, the Prime Minister committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this year. That is exactly what we will do, and I look forward to being able to outline more detail in due course.

18:17:00

Our Labour Government were elected with a manifesto that promised to improve animal welfare. I am encouraged by what the Minister just said. The previous new Labour Government made some of the most ambitious and groundbreaking animal welfare improvements that the UK had ever seen. The “New Life for Animals” manifesto led to the EU-wide ban on battery cages, the ban on hunting foxes with hounds, the Animal Welfare Act, the ban on cosmetic testing on animals and the ban on fur farming. Next year will be the 20th anniversary of our historic Animal Welfare Act of 2006 and yet, since the UK left the EU, we have been downgraded in World Animal Protection’s animal protection index. It is time to strengthen our animal welfare standards and to make the UK a leader in animal welfare once again. I ask that our Labour Government start the consultation on cages for hens and farrowing crates for sows. How we treat our animals reflects our values as a society, and it is time to take action now. More consistent and descriptive labelling on method of production should be introduced to enable people to consider fully how the product that they are buying has been produced. That should apply to all products, especially non-UK products. It is only fair to our British farmers that this is done. Finally, I thank Dame Joanna Lumley and Compassion in World Farming for starting this petition. I congratulate Dame Joanna on gathering more than 105,000 signatures. I also thank the Petitions Committee and staff for their hard work, as always, in co-ordinating our debates. I also thank all the groups I met before this debate, including the National Pig Association, the NFU and the RSPCA. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 706302 relating to the use of cages and crates for farmed animals.

18:19:00

Sitting adjourned.