Adrian Ramsay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Jun 2026 · Global Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Collapse: National Security Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  9. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of her Department’s report entitled Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published on 20 January 2026.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. One of the greatest threats to public safety is climate breakdown, with the increasing frequency and severity of extreme heat, flooding, food and water scarcity, critical infrastructure failures, and risks to public health and safety. Climate resilience must be embedded at the heart of national emergency planning, yet the Climate Change Committee’s key message in its latest advice is that the UK is woefully ill-prepared for the catastrophic impacts to come. The CCC makes it clear that affordable, practical solutions are available and that the cost of inaction will far exceed the investment required to prepare. Those dangers are not distant: more than 1,500 deaths have been recorded on average each year from extreme heat in recent years, and this could rise to 10,000 a year by 2050. By 2050, one in four properties could be at risk of flooding. The Joint Intelligence Committee report in January made it clear that ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss make our food system extremely vulnerable. The Government and Members of most parties in this Parliament rightly have a strong focus on carbon reduction and climate mitigation, but we must increase our collective focus, and the Government’s focus, on climate adaptation and resilience. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said, we currently see far too little co-ordinated action across Government. There must be cross-Government approach, which is why I argue that we need a Cabinet Office Minister responsible for climate resilience across Government: preparing the NHS for new public health challenges; investing in flood protection; developing a comprehensive extreme heat strategy and a national drought plan; strengthening transport, water and energy infrastructure; and supporting a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Climate breakdown is not simply an environmental issue; it is a matter of national security, public health and emergency preparedness. I ask the Minister: will we prepare now, or pay a greater price later?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government present this legislation as technical, restructuring NHS England and reconfiguring integrated care boards. They also say that they want to devolve power from Whitehall and give patients more control over their care. However, there is a mismatch between this presentation and the contents of the Bill. While some responsibilities are being devolved, other powers are being drawn upwards to the Secretary of State, with greater control over spending, appointments and key operational decisions. There are serious concerns about how the patient voice is to be treated, and hearing that voice is essential if we are to address inequality and replace the negative health impacts of austerity, bad planning, poor housing, weak transport and divisive social policies. With the Bill, we have the chance to address the totally unacceptable 16-year gap in life expectancy between different postcodes in the UK. I therefore urge Ministers to amend the Bill to include clear legal frameworks and a cross-Government strategy to mirror new duties on strategic authorities for tackling health inequalities—inequalities that I see in my constituency, where those without the means to pay for a private dentist endure horrible pain and suffering, and where children go without care; inequalities that mean men in the most deprived areas can expect to live, on average, 11 fewer years in good health than those in the least deprived areas. It is a real concern that the Bill will permit the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service. How might that power be used in the hands of a pro-privatisation Secretary of State? As for the issue of patient voice, it beggars belief that, as drafted, the Bill abolishes the statutory duty underpinning local independent patient and public voice, including the entire network of local healthwatch organisations. That must be rectified. We need independent challenge, because without it accountability is at risk. Healthwatch Norfolk has pointed out that it has a legal power to visit health and social care services and see them in action, but the Bill does not mention that statutory power, or how it might sensibly become the responsibility of the ICB or the local council. What will happen to it? Healthwatch Suffolk has pointed out that recognition of an independent voice for patients has been a principle supported by Governments for 50 years, but if this Bill passes into law unamended, it will end that recognition. Finally, ensuring that the different records in the health system are in one place so that patients do not have to repeat their stories is an important principle, but that single patient record must be safeguarded. I therefore urge the Minister to rule out awarding the contract for its development to Palantir, so that we can ensure that clear safeguards are in place.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Joint Intelligence Committee report described ecological collapse and climate breakdown as posing catastrophic and irreversible risks to UK security, including conflict, food and water insecurity, supply chain disruption and forced migration. Does the Minister agree that the destabilising impact of the climate and nature crisis is one of the biggest national security risks facing Britain? What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to co-ordinate critical actions across Government?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd). The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe. This duty must shape everything we do in this House, and it must shape how we think about defence. There is no doubt that Britain today faces profound defence challenges, as we have heard in this debate, from international instability to cyber-threats and increasing pressure on our energy and supply chains. But if we are serious about defence, we must also recognise that the types of threats that we face are changing. In debating security, we must also look at whether our most vulnerable people are protected from extreme heat, whether our communities can cope with flooding, and whether we can secure food, water and energy in an increasingly unstable world. Today, the Climate Change Committee published its report on climate adaptation, and its warnings could not be clearer. We are on a path to 2°C of warming by 2050. That means that in just a couple of decades or so, nine in 10 of our homes will be at risk of overheating. Peak river flows may rise by 45%, water supply shortfalls may exceed 5 billion litres per day, and 40° heatwaves will become the new normal across the UK, potentially leading to an additional 10,000 heat-related deaths per year. The CCC is also clear that without action, warming of up to 4° by the end of this century remains a possibility, which would be catastrophic, with temperatures in the UK nearing 50°, infrastructure pushed beyond what it was ever designed to withstand, and profound consequences for public health, economic stability and social cohesion. Those are not distant projections, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents and yours are already having to live with the consequences of climate breakdown. We see it in the thousands of deaths caused by the increasingly regular heatwaves, in the communities repeatedly devastated by flooding, and in rising food prices, rising insurance costs and growing pressures on the services and systems that people rely on every day. None of this should come as a surprise. Earlier this year, the Government’s own Joint Intelligence Committee warned that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to national security, threatening food and water supplies, disruption to infrastructure and supply chains, increased flooding, risks to public health and wider economic instability. It also warned of the cascading effects of displacement, conflict and competition for resources. Yet despite the scale and seriousness of warnings by the Government’s own advisers, and despite repeated calls for parliamentary time, this House has still not been allowed a dedicated opportunity to debate its findings or scrutinise the Government’s response. Our children will have to live with the consequences of inaction. It would be a dereliction of duty to let political dramas around by-elections and leadership contests distract us from this most fundamental responsibility. The evidence is clear, and we are not without options. Today’s report sets out practical, costed solutions: better cooling for hospitals, schools and care homes, so our most vulnerable are protected during extreme heat; stronger flood defences and investment in natural flood management for our communities; a serious approach to water security, so shortages do not become routine; support for British farmers, so British food production remains viable under changing conditions; retrofitting homes so they are fit for a warmer climate; and infrastructure built to withstand climate impacts rather than fail under them. The economics are equally clear. The cost of action is about £11 billion a year, but the cost of inaction could rise to between £60 billion and £260 billion annually. This must be a turning point. We can no longer treat climate adaptation as a secondary environmental issue; it is a matter of national defence, a matter of economic security and, above all, a matter of protecting people. However, it needs to be far higher up the agenda for the Government and for Parliament. That is why I am calling for a dedicated climate protection unit in No. 10, with the sole purpose of working across Departments to fund and drive forward the recommendations in this report. I am also supporting amendment (g) to the King’s Speech on the threats that nature collapse poses to national security. Defence is not about responding after disaster strikes; defence is about reducing risks before crisis becomes catastrophe. If the first duty of Government is to keep people safe, climate adaptation cannot sit at the margins of the King’s Speech, but must be placed firmly at its heart.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and the petitioners for securing the debate. Nearly 120,000 people from up and down the country have supported this petition and many of my constituents in Waveney Valley have taken the time to write to me about the debate. Such a level of public engagement reflects a clear and growing concern that the continued use of animals in testing is not ethically or scientifically justified. Let us be clear about the scale of the issue. In 2024, more than 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK, with 2,646 using dogs; 82 using cats, 1,936 using monkeys, and 11,483 using horses. Behind those horrifying numbers are sentient beings subjected not to abstract procedures, but to confinement, physical invasion, distress and pain. Investigations by organisations such as Animals International and Animal Aid have documented those practices in stark detail. Footage emerging from UK laboratories lays bare a deeply troubling reality: animals immobilised in slings, straining against restraints or confined for months in barren cages while subjected to repeated invasive procedures. Dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, as we have heard, are routinely force-fed substances through tubes pushed down their throats or made to inhale chemicals via tightly strapped masks, while others endure surgically implanted catheters delivering infusions into the veins. Those are not short-lived interventions, but prolonged procedures, often involving twice-daily dosing for months, with consequences that can include vomiting, diarrhoea, seizures, internal bleeding, organ failure and paralysis. Yet the studies continue regardless. Some animals are kept alive until they reach the brink of severe physiological collapse, or even heart failure, and even those that survive are invariably killed so that their organs can be dissected and examined. This is not incidental suffering. It is systemic, deliberate and embedded within the process itself. The Green party has long been clear that we should reduce suffering for all animals, guided by the evidence. I am pleased by today’s strong cross-party support for that in welcoming what the Government have set out, but calling for the stronger ambition that we must see under Herbie’s law. The way we treat animals reflects our values as a society. We have a responsibility to recognise animals as sentient beings and reduce suffering whenever it occurs. However, this is not just an ethical question, but a scientific one. We are often told that animal testing is essential for human health, yet over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals never make it through to approval for human use. That extraordinarily high failure rate points to a system that is not only causing harm to animals, but failing to deliver for patients. The evidence is clear: animals are not reliable proxies for human health, and differences in biology mean that results often do not translate. Substances that are harmless to us can be toxic to other species, and vice versa, meaning that outcomes can mislead in both directions. At the same time, the science is moving on. Non-animal methods, such as advanced cell models, organ-on-a-chip technologies or AI-driven approaches, are increasingly able to deliver results that are more accurate and more relevant to humans. Those are not distant possibilities; the methods are already being used and are improving quickly. The UK should be leading on this issue. The Government have already accepted that there is no legal requirement to carry out animal testing and that regulators can approve medicines based on non-animal data, yet progress remains too slow. If we are serious about change, we need a proper plan to move away from animal testing altogether. That is why Herbie’s law matters. Named after a rescued beagle, it would set out a practical framework to phase out animal testing by 2025 while supporting researchers and industry to transition to modern alternatives. It is practical and achievable, and it already has strong support across Parliament and among the public. The calls to suspend generic new licences, and to review existing ones, also merit serious consideration. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, experiments on animals are authorised through licences. Concerningly, those can take the form of broad five-year service licences granted to research organisations, and they can allow experiments to continue even when non-animal alternatives become available during the licence period. Furthermore, even though the law requires a harm-benefit analysis before animal use is approved, under those broad licences the specific substances to be used, and therefore the harm that the animals will face, are not always known at the point of approval. It is difficult to see how that meets a statutory duty. This debate is not about being anti-science. Far from it: it is about recognising that better science is available. By shifting investment and policy support towards human-relevant methods, we can improve outcomes for patients while ending unnecessary suffering for animals. The petitioners are right: the system is failing both animals and humans. We have the evidence, we have the technology, and we have the public backing. What is missing is the pace of change, so I urge the Government to suspend all new generic service licences for toxicity testing immediately, to conduct a full review of every current licence held, and to deliver urgently on their promise to replace animals in science. That is the change that we and animals deserve.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that the Government are making but, from what I have seen of the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, its targets focus on reducing or eliminating experiments on certain types of animals. Does he agree that we actually need to be ending experiments on all animals, as has been expressed by Members from all parties today? Will he therefore engage with campaigners arguing for Herbie’s law, who have suggested a more ambitious strategy that would achieve exactly that?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my fellow Member from East Anglia for securing this crucial debate. He is right to highlight the vulnerability in our energy system that this war has exposed and the particular impact on rural communities. Does he agree that older people in rural communities are particularly impacted? As he says, we have seen a doubling or even tripling of costs and a huge financial outlay, which is resulting in some of my constituents having to pay by credit card because they do not have the cash. According to Age UK, 28% of pensioners were already struggling before this crisis. Does he agree that this is further evidence that although the Government’s package is welcome, they need to go further and put in place a price cap to ensure that constituents, including older constituents, are supported?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. The British Dental Association has highlighted that current budgets allow just 39% of adults to access NHS treatment within a two-year period. Is that really the height of the Government’s ambition, and if not, what access percentage are the Government aiming for?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Access to NHS Dental Services · Hansard source

  More

  The Daily Mirror reports that of the nearly 1 million urgent dental appointments that have been commissioned by integrated care boards since April, 900,000 have not been taken up because of strict rules around the scope of treatment. Meanwhile, in my constituency and around the country, too many people are going without the treatment that they need. Will the Minister update us on when the Government expect to meet their targets on urgent appointments?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I was waiting for the appropriate point to pre-empt the fact that the hon. Lady is clearly talking about banking hubs in rural areas. In my constituency of Waveney Valley, the market town of Bungay has been told that it cannot have a banking hub because there is already one seven miles away in Harleston, but of course in rural areas, proximity does not necessarily mean accessibility when it comes to travel times or public transport access. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in determining the criteria for banking hubs, real accessibility in rural areas needs to be accounted for, and there needs to be flexibility in the system to achieve that?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the ambition in the White Paper, particularly to ensure that young people are supported earlier. It has to be the right aim that more young people can be supported within mainstream settings. Is the Secretary of State committed to understanding the reasons for the big increase in the number of young people who cannot be supported in mainstream school and to providing the necessary funding and support to schools? Does she accept that, at the same time, there is not currently enough capacity in alternative provision for young people for whom mainstream school is not working?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s own national security assessment warns that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to the UK’s long-term food security and may intensify natural disasters. Given that Parliament has not yet had the opportunity to debate this assessment, will the Secretary of State support my call for a dedicated debate, so that the risks and the actions across Government can be properly scrutinised by this House?

• 5 Feb 2026 · NHS Dentists · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a strong case. The number of dentists leaving the NHS across the UK is driven by chronic underfunding and the failed dental contract. Last month, the Minister suggested that long-term fundamental reform might only be introduced from 2027 onwards. Does the hon. Member agree that that reform must be brought forward as soon as possible and that we need clarity on when? Does he also agree that the one-third cut in real terms of the dentistry budget that we have seen since 2010 must be reversed by this Government?

• 5 Feb 2026 · NHS Dentists · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for highlighting the need for the dental workforce to be strengthened. We have a dental desert in East Anglia. The University of East Anglia stands ready to open a new dental school. It has permission from the General Dental Council but is awaiting the funded undergraduate dental places that will be needed to start training new dentists from 2027. Can the Minister set out how those places will be made available on the basis of regional need, so that dental deserts such as the east of England can start to build a sustainable dental workforce?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the national cancer plan, and in particular the Minister’s focus on early diagnosis and ending the scandal of postcode inequality. Cancer Research UK has highlighted that limited funding could significantly impact on progress against the plan, so can the Minister assure us that she is allocating funding in order to meet her own rightful ambitions, and say whether she is engaging with Cancer Research UK and others in the sector on the funding that is needed?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member is making a really important case. In my constituency, the care sector is one of the largest employers, but local providers tell me that the proposed changes could drive 10% to 20% of people out of it. Does he agree that, before proceeding with these changes, the Government must do a proper impact assessment on the care sector and address the fact that, if the NHS has different criteria for allowing settlement routes, that could punish the care sector, which is particularly struggling already?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This week we have seen, at last, the Government’s national security assessment and its stark warning that global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse threaten UK security and prosperity. Given those catastrophic risks, can the Leader of the House explain why the publication of the report was delayed from October? Can we have a debate about what the Government are doing to step up the vital preparedness for these risks and whether they are ensuring that the nature and climate emergency is treated as a major national security priority?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for leading this important debate. The UK prides itself on having some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I welcomed last month’s animal welfare strategy, which promises to go further still. I particularly welcome the planned ban on farrowing crates for sows and cages for hens—crucial steps forward in our animal protection in this country—and have called on the Government to set out clear timescales for their delivery and support for farmers during the transition. The animal welfare strategy reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change, and marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on animal welfare standards—but there are some glaring gaps. What is illegal to produce here because it is too cruel remains legal to import and sell. That is incoherent, undermines public confidence and leaves higher-welfare British farmers facing unfair competition. The principle should be straightforward: if a practice is too cruel for food produced in Britain, it should be too cruel for food imported into Britain. Yet reality tells a different story. Some 97% of our pork imports come from countries where sow stalls are still legal, despite the practice having been illegal here for 25 years. Battery cages may be banned here but they remain widespread elsewhere, and imports of eggs have increased more than twelvefold in the last year alone. Since the Australia trade deal was signed, lamb imports have risen by over 160%, despite cruel practices such as mulesing—illegal here—remaining common there. This is not a niche concern. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming, 95% of countries with UK market access have lower animal welfare standards than the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data shows that non-EU imports of eggs have more than tripled since 2020, poultry imports have risen by 60%, and pork by over 80%. In trade discussions with the United States Administration, Ministers focused on food safety and sanitary standards, but that focus risks leaving a huge loophole for imports produced in ways that would be illegal here, widening the welfare gap instead of closing it. While the UK will rightly maintain its ban on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken coming from the US, it is “looking to compromise in other areas”. Higher-welfare British farmers are paying the price. The NFU has been clear: farmers want trade deals, but not at the expense of being undercut by food produced to standards that would be illegal on their own farms. Over 90% of British livestock farmers support restricting low-welfare imports, and the public agree: more than four in five people support banning imports produced using methods outlawed here. We need a statutory requirement that animal products sold in the UK, whether produced here or imported, meet British welfare standards. We also need mandatory welfare labelling that applies equally to imports. The animal welfare strategy’s consultation commitments on that do not go far enough. In conclusion, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to close this loophole and ensure that our individual trade deals and overall policy fully reflect the ambition that is rightly included in the animal welfare strategy. The standards of our higher-welfare British farmers at home should not be undermined by lower welfare standards abroad. We should not be importing cruelty, and our farmers deserve a level playing field.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Animal Welfare Strategy for England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this important debate today. I come to this debate with the simple belief that animals should not suffer at our hands. That is why I welcome the animal welfare strategy, which was published last month. It reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change. It also marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on cages, crates, wildlife protection and welfare standards. I look forward to supporting the Government in making sure that those commitments are kept and change happens. A strategy is only as good as its delivery. As organisations such as Humane World for Animals and Compassion in World Farming have made clear, without clarity about how and when the strategy will be delivered, there is a real risk that it will remain aspirational, rather than being the transformative instrument for change that we all hope it will be. The scale of the challenge is stark. In 2024, around 280 million animals were kept in intensive farming in the UK, and that number is going in the wrong direction—an increase of 23 million since 2017. That growth has not been driven by rising domestic demand but by cost pressures, economies of scale and policy choices that continue to favour factory farming over higher welfare alternatives. That is why the strategy’s commitment to ending the use of cages and crates matters so much. Around 200,000 sows still spend weeks of their lives confined in farrowing crates, unable even to turn around, while around 8 million laying hens remain in cages that are little larger than an A4 piece of paper. Warm words are not enough. The reforms must be time-bound, properly resourced and backed by financial support to help farmers transition. The Nature Friendly Farming Network and Compassion in World Farming are clear that improving animal welfare must go hand in hand with supporting farmers, rather than their being left to shoulder the costs of transition on their own. Crucially, we must ensure that the higher standards that will be required in the UK are applied to imports, so that any higher welfare British farmers do not find themselves being undercut. As others have said, mandatory welfare labelling for both domestic and imported goods is also vital. There are welcome things in the strategy for animals in the wild, such as the imminent complete ban on the use of snares and the action on trail hunting, but there are crucial omissions in the strategy. It is silent on ending greyhound racing, which the Labour Government in Wales are doing. It also fails to mention the prohibition of imports of fur and hunting trophies, as well as regulation to limit the noise from fireworks in order to protect animals. There is much to welcome in the strategy, but there are also some omissions. It acknowledges the need to reduce animal experimentation, yet we have heard that 2.5 million animal experimentation procedures were carried out last year. The Government are on the right path to replacing animal experiments with modern, reliable alternatives, judging from the plans that they announced in November. However, we need clear, time-bound plans that cover experiments on all types of animals. Finally, none of these things will work without enforcement. Animal Aid, Cats Protection and many others warn that weak inspections and under-resourced regulators undermine even the best legislation. Whether we are talking about farms, laboratories or companion animals, standards without enforcement are standards in name only. The public, the science and morality have aligned. We have the evidence and the expertise and, with this strategy, we have the momentum. The question now is how we can support the Government to match ambition with action, clear timelines, robust enforcement and real support for those doing the right thing. I urge the Government to ensure that the strategy delivers not just promises, but real lasting change for animals—and I will support them in doing so.

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He makes the point very strongly that long waiting times mean that children are being left behind. As we have heard, it was revealed last week that many integrated care boards are capping the number of assessments without telling GPs or patients. Does the hon. Member agree that a child’s access to diagnosis and support should not depend on where they live or whether their parents can afford to go private?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are at the heart of my constituency, yet family-run village pubs such as the Blue Boar in Walsham le Willows face significant increases in business rates from this April. If the Minister does recognise that the current system is failing businesses, when will he commit to meaningful reform and action, including giving local authorities greater powers to support socially and economically essential local businesses, which village pubs in rural areas undoubtedly are?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Farmers in Waveney Valley are relieved at this change, but they are also frustrated that the Government have not been listening about the underlying causes of why it is so difficult for farmers to make even a living wage to put food on our table. It has been obvious from the outset that the Government needed to review the threshold, so it is baffling that it took 14 months for them to do so. Does the Minister recognise the emotional and financial cost of this 14-month delay?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Animal Welfare Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  We are indeed a nation of animal lovers, yet every year 200,000 sows are kept in farrowing crates where they cannot even turn around, while millions of hens are kept in tiny spaces no bigger than an A4 piece of paper. Those are cruel, cramped conditions that cause a short life of pain and suffering. Following the recent cross-party letter that I initiated, will the Secretary of State confirm that the animal welfare strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages and, importantly, support for farmers through this transition so that people can have confidence in so-called welfare-assured systems?