Carrying chickens by legs causes them pain, Green Party leader warns
But Green Party co-leader Mr Ramsay has called for animal welfare standards to be 'improved, not stripped back', as he urged ministers to halt their plans.
He has tabled a 'prayer motion', calling for the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 to be 'annulled' before they come into force next week.
The regulations set out that farmers will be able to catch and carry turkeys weighing 5kg or less and chickens by both legs, but not by one leg.
The existing ban 'does not reflect long-standing policy on appropriate methods of 'catching' chickens set out in GB statutory guidance', according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Ministers' decision to change the law followed a consultation throughout Great Britain, which found 40% of respondents supported two-leg catching.
The majority of these were 'poultry industry stakeholders' who 'did not consider two-leg catching to be directly detrimental to bird welfare'.
Some industry stakeholders also 'confirmed that young turkeys (weighing 5kg or less) are routinely caught by two legs, while older heavier turkeys (weighing more than 5kg) are routinely caught upright, by a range of different methods'.
But Mr Ramsay told the PA news agency: 'The Government's attempt to quietly weaken animal welfare standards for poultry is deeply troubling.
'After Defra cited this practice in its guidance, ministers are now attempting to restore outdated industry practices in law.
'Allowing chickens to be carried upside down by their legs causes injury, pain and unnecessary distress.
'I want our animal protection laws to be improved, not stripped back further.
'If handling methods widely used on farms don't meet welfare standards, then they need to be improved, not made legal because enforcement has failed.'
His motion has received cross-party backing, including from Conservative MP for Brigg and Immingham Martin Vickers, his running mate in this year's Green Party leadership election Ellie Chowns, and Labour MP for North Ayrshire and Arran Irene Campbell.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Dining across the divide: ‘He talked about cancel culture going too far – Gregg Wallace came up'
Occupation Sustainability lead in the construction industry Voting record Labour in the last election, but feels more aligned with the Green party Amuse bouche Ben was a Pampers baby model. 'I think my mum was paid for it, and got a healthy supply of nappies' Occupation Retired from a career in aviation Voting record Conservative in the last election. Previously either Conservative or Lib Dem Amuse bouche Neil likes to write, and has a computer full of unfinished novels. 'I'm good at beginnings, middles and ends, but I can't make any match' Neil I was expecting a rabid Marxist, but my first impressions of Ben were that he was a really charming chap, and so he proved to be. He's married with four children. I'm also married with four children, but I also have grandchildren. I had crispy squid with a mango, chilli and lime salsa to begin with, then a lemon sole. Ben We were both wearing tan chinos and a blue shirt. We were a guarded to begin with, sounding each other out. I also had the calamari, then a sea bass with new potatoes and a white creamy sauce. The food was phenomenal. Neil Woke is a word I struggle to use. We need to get back to the old 'sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me'. You shouldn't go around saying stuff that is clearly offensive, or not true, and, if someone does, you've got every right to say, 'Don't speak to me like that', but don't completely rip them apart. Ben I think young people are far more aware of their mental health, of the impact of trauma, of wanting to be able to live their lives in a certain way. For me, that's what we mean when we talk about woke culture, and it's a positive thing. I think Neil feels it has all gone too far, and he talked about cancel culture. Gregg Wallace came up. Neil If it was just for saying something a bit stupid, which I'm sure we've all done, Gregg shouldn't have lost his livelihood. It should have been: look, Gregg, you're being an idiot, don't say stuff like that, it's not appropriate. And that's it, walk away. But some parts of the media have ripped him apart. If it transpires he's done something worse, any physical contact, that's a different story – then you're on your own, mate. Ben I agree that you have to be really careful with cancel culture. I'm also OK accepting apologies from people. I do, however, believe there are people in the public domain who need to be able to stand up and be counted. If someone has been found to have made inappropriate sexual comments, then absolutely I don't think that person should be working in that industry or sector again. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Neil I've never voted Labour, but in my view Tony Blair was the best Conservative prime minister we've had in decades! Starmer's heart's in the right place, but he could do with exhibiting a little bit more charisma. Come on, Keir, a little bit more pizzazz. Ben I grew up in a very Tory household, and became more progressive. I do agree with sensible conservative values, but I haven't ever seen those in place. I'm not a staunch Labour voter, either; I'm a tactical voter. Neil Three of my grandchildren live in Cornwall, and in the next 10 years they may be looking to buy somewhere. I wouldn't like to think they'll be priced out by people with second homes, but by the same token I'm not going to deny the right of somebody to do what they want with their money. An act of government that says you can only ever own one home wouldn't be appropriate; it's like a tax on being wealthy, and there are other taxes on being wealthy. Ben I am quite happy with a local authority saying we don't have enough housing for people, so we're going to ban Airbnb, or double the council tax on them, or whatever. Their job is to make sure local people can thrive. Ben Social media algorithms pitch people against each other. Sitting down with someone, having a discussion, is a very human way of being able to resolve some challenges. Neil It was a case of good old-fashioned British compromise. We weren't shouty – no shaking of fists or banging the drum like you might see from our colleagues across the Atlantic. Ben gave me a lift home. Charming chap. Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Ben and Neil ate at The Wimborne Pig in Dorset Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take part
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
NHS managers who silence whistleblowers to be banned from senior health roles
NHS managers who silence whistleblowers will be banned from taking up other senior health service roles, the Government has announced. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said the proposals will ensure those who commit serious misconduct are no longer able to work in senior NHS management positions. Legislation is set to be put forward to Parliament next year to introduce professional standards and regulation of NHS managers. Tens of thousands of clinical and non-clinical managers work in the NHS but there is currently no regulatory framework specifically for managers, as there is for doctors and nurses. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the reforms will 'slam the door in the face of unsuitable managers'. Mr Streeting added: 'I'm determined to create a culture of honesty and openness in the NHS where whistleblowers are protected, and that demands tough enforcement. 'If you silence whistleblowers, you will never work in the NHS again. 'We've got to create the conditions where staff are free to come forward and sound the alarm when things go wrong. Protecting the reputation of the NHS should never be put before protecting patient safety. 'Most NHS leaders are doing a fantastic job, but we need to stop the revolving door that allows managers sacked for misconduct or incompetence to be quietly moved to another well-paid role in another part of the NHS.' DHSC said a public consultation launched in November last year received more than 4,900 contributions on ways in which managers and leaders could be regulated. The statutory barring system will be for board-level directors and their direct reports within NHS bodies. Further legislation will set out new statutory powers for the Health and Care Professions Council to disbar NHS leaders in senior roles who have committed serious misconduct. Separate NHS England professional standards for managers will establish a 'consistent, national set of expectations about NHS management and leadership competency and conduct', DHSC said. Tom Kark KC, author of the Kark Review into the effectiveness of the fit and proper person test within the NHS, said: 'I am pleased that the recommendation made in my report into the application of the NHS fit and proper person test to create a power to disqualify board directors found guilty of serious misconduct is being implemented. 'Along with the ongoing implementation of my other recommendations for improving board competence, this is a positive move to strengthen management in the NHS by weeding out poor leadership. 'This is good news for whistleblowers and those looking for accountability in senior management which has long been lacking.' Rachel Power, chief executive of the Patients Association, said patients expect NHS managers 'to be held to the same high standards as clinical staff, and that should include consistent regulation'. Ms Power added: 'A clear, fair process to prevent those who commit serious misconduct from returning to senior roles will be an important step forward, and it's vital that patient involvement continues to shape proposals as further regulation is considered.' Saffron Cordery, deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, said the membership organisation for hospital, mental health, community and ambulance services thought 'only 'fit and proper' people should be running NHS services'. Ms Cordery added: 'Many big, complex NHS trusts employ thousands of people therefore we want to attract the very best to lead them. 'So we welcome the Government's commitment to developing and accrediting managers alongside proposals for disbarring those whose performance falls short.' Sam Allen, NHS national director for leadership and management, said: 'Managers will welcome this new regulatory framework, as part of the broader package of actions set out in the plan to attract, develop, and retain the best possible leaders for the NHS of today and tomorrow.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
I pored over John Swinney's strategy – here's what we must do now
Swinney started with a declaration of intent: 'Scotland's interests are best served only when Scotland's future is in Scotland's hands. Our nation will only fully flourish when the people of Scotland are in charge of our own destiny with independence.' He then went on to make his own personal case, arguing that he had 'steadied the ship', and that he had been able to 'restore the credibility of my party and my Government so that we could make – and importantly win – the argument for Scottish independence'. Looking at the polls, this is largely true, and Swinney is right to make the claim that under his leadership the SNP, over the past 12 months, have won 13 local government by-elections – a big shift after a 20-month period without a single victory. However, the irony is that they have achieved this by attempting to tackle the cost of living crisis, rather than focusing on independence. Swinney is right to assert the claim that: 'We restored Winter Fuel Payments for Scotland's pensioners when Labour chose to scrap them. We are taking bold action on child poverty by lifting the cruel two-child cap that pushes thousands of children into poverty – a decision which been welcomed by every anti-poverty charity in the country and which Labour, to their shame, have failed to take at a UK level.' But on other matters, the SNP's claims to be 'tackling the cost of living crisis' seem a lot weaker. For example, Swinney claims that: 'We are offering solutions to the ongoing cost of living crisis – with new policies such as the removal of peak fares on our railways. Our cost of living guarantee delivers savings for Scots that aren't available elsewhere. From council tax that is 30% lower than in England, or water bills 20% lower, or no charges for essentials like prescriptions.' But the big-ticket items, like housing and energy bills, are absent, and only this month the SNP missed a huge opportunity to back zonal energy pricing. The SNP's housing policy has made no dent in the massive urban and rural housing crisis. Swinney has steadied the ship but it is still taking water, and the sextant, compass and maps are all gone. But the point of all of this is to manage a range of constituencies, tribes and demographics, to ensure electoral survival and persuade people that, somehow, the SNP are still the only show in town and the best vehicle to achieve independence, and/or govern a pre-independent Scotland more competently than anyone else. In some ways, this is an impossible task. In other ways, this is a low bar. On the one hand, Swinney needs to manage this transition while operating within the fiscal restraints of devolution, with an overwhelmingly hostile media around him and with severe and vocal dissent from within the nationalist movement. This makes the task one that is just immersed in hostility and negativity. On the other hand, he is faced with opponents and opposition so abject and hopeless that it makes the SNP rise, Lazarus-like, over and over. Swinney has a dual task: to speak to those who want (and need) good governance and those who want movement-building. He is far better at the first than the second. His strategy, such as it is, is broadly to (re) build trust, then build an unstoppable coalition amid the rubble and decay of the debris of Late Britain for an independent Scotland. I would like to take this opportunity to examine this approach and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. Building a Coalition for Yes TO his credit, Swinney shows some humility saying: 'Our renewed unity and sense of purpose is clear for all to see, and that too is giving people confidence once again in the [[SNP]], as the leading advocates of Scottish independence. Some good and necessary first steps have been taken, but they have only brought us to the starting line.' Rather grandly, he writes: 'We are on the precipice of a new global age and that demands a bold new path for Scotland.' I don't really know what that actually means? Speaking to the opposition, he writes: 'Others speak glibly of a new direction or for the need for reform, but the change Scotland needs is more fundamental', before declaring: 'To meet the challenges of this new age, we need a Scotland that is reborn.' We do. He continues to lay out his case, arguing: 'Last time, many people gave the UK the benefit of the doubt, many believing that an incoming Labour government might put things right. But an incoming Labour government has only made things worse. 'The evidence is staring us in the face: Westminster is not working for Scotland. Life is just too difficult for too many and the UK is incapable of providing the required, essential boost to living standards.' This is self-evident, though worth re-stating, but this is where the cracks in the argument begin to emerge. At no point in this new declaration do the SNP show the intent, the resolve or the track record to offer a genuinely radical economic alternative to the neoliberalism of Labour/Conservative rule. What they have shown is some ameliorative polices to try to counter the most regressive impact of being in the Union. But that's not enough. Without many specifics, Swinney argues: 'It's therefore time for the people of Scotland to take our future into our own hands, so that we can ensure our vast energy wealth delivers tangible benefits for our people, including lower household energy bills and a more competitive business environment. So that we can create a dynamic, internationally connected economy, ensuring opportunities for all in an economy that works for all.' This is, in the words of Jonathon Shafi, 'Word Soup'. Having set out his stall, the First Minister then attempts to lay out his pathway to independence. He says: 'We have to challenge the democratic outrage that Westminster – right now – refuses to acknowledge Scotland's right to determine her own future. 'We demonstrated in 2014 that an agreed democratic referendum is the correct means to bring about that independence. And have no doubt, such a democratic, constitutional approach is necessary if our independence is to achieve domestic and international legitimacy. Something that is essential if we are to receive international recognition and a smooth return to membership of the EU.' These words, this plan, are the dividing line between those in the Yes movement, who want a new plan, a new direction, and Swinney's calculation that this is the route to take the majority of Scotland with him. The Plan SWINNEY lays out his ideas very clearly, saying: 'First, it will be a campaign designed to build the highest levels of support possible for independence as the best future for Scotland. 'I will be saying to those who voted Yes in 2014, and who have become independence supporters in the years since, that what they believed in then is just as valid today. 'They saw that Britain was fundamentally broken, that Westminster couldn't deliver on their dreams and aspirations, and what they saw has come to pass. And now it is time to do something about it. 'But I will also be urging people who were not persuaded of the merits of independence in 2014 to see the state of Britain today and take a different view.' This is all good and shouldn't be disputed by anybody. Who doesn't want to build mass support for independence? The problem, as we'll go on to in a moment, is the lack of detail, ideas or strategy on how to make that happen and to navigate the many contradictions and challenges that it entails. He continues: 'Second, that means building public pressure around Scotland's fundamental national rights. The UK parties speak of a partnership of equals, but those are empty words if Scotland does not have the ability to determine her own future. 'We are ready to turn the heat up on Westminster and its anti-democratic stance, mobilising the support, energy and the impetus of people in Scotland behind the simple idea: no ifs, no buts, Scotland has the right to choose.' This is good, and he's quite right to lay out the basic anti-democratic nature of the British state's 'offering' to Scotland. But again, the problem is the lack of detail, ideas or strategy. There may be more to come but if there was, why not lay it out here? Finally , the First Minister concludes: 'And third, I want to persuade independence supporters that the way to deliver independence is only with an emphatic SNP win in 2026 and the priority is to do that now. History tells us that only when the SNP are doing well is there any prospect of advancing on Scotland's constitutional cause. 'During the next parliament, we reach the point where there will be one million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed. 'It's time for the one change that will actually make a difference for Scotland, for the fresh start our nation needs so badly. It's time for Scotland to craft her destiny by ensuring Scotland's future is in the hands of the people of Scotland.' To be fair, framing the SNP as a 'fresh start' after 18 years in power is pretty gallus, but there is something among all of this which shines out, and which could be the centrepoint of a more dynamic strategy. Future Focused MUCH of the dismay about being trapped within the Union is the overwhelming sense of decay and decline that pervades late Britain. If this feeling reached its apogee at the death of the monarch, it can be seen daily in the appointment of ridiculous people to the House of Lords, the overarching power of the government within [[Westminster]] (as witnessed by the actions of Keir Starmer's whips' office against his own party last week) or the immersive deference inculcated by being subjects of a monarch in the 21st century. The feeling of being trapped in an ancient regime that is unreformable and corrupt at its core is overwhelming and debilitating. Beyond this fusion of cronyism and decay, though, is the reality of collapsing living standards, grotesque social inequality and elite grandeur. The response is a populist movement of the far-right that eulogises a mythical past. In among the platitudes and the normcore of Swinney's 'plan', there is an opportunity to really contrast this backward-looking Ruritania, this Britain of fossils and past-glories and relics of Empire. Countless commentators have remarked on how difficult it has become for anyone to 'imagine a better future' in timelines that seem dark and economic systems that seem all-pervasive. There is a glaring opportunity for the case to be made for a new Scotland to really address the multiple problems facing not just young people but future generations – and for this case to be made by framing Scottish independence as a future-facing project in stark contrast to broken Britain. What would that look like? It would mean really taking on the multiple problems faced by younger (and future) generations, which have been a dark inheritance passed on to them. A mammoth, impossible task? Yes, but one worth trying. Where to start? I would start with the crisis of affordable housing which is life-altering for millions of people. I would face the existential crisis of climate breakdown and create deep and radical action plans that would give hope and meaning for a liveable future. I would create the outline of what an 'ethical foreign policy' (to use Robin Cook's words) would look like for a future Scotland. I would begin to meaningfully address the crisis of social alienation and the epidemic of loneliness and mental health that has spooled out of lockdown, late capitalist anomie and digital culture, and particularly affects younger people. If these seem ridiculous, impossible or utopian ideas, that's OK. In such dark times, we need to imagine a better future beyond the confines of today. As the political philosopher Murray Bookchin said: 'The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.' Framing an independent Scotland as a project for future generations would be a reset for the entire independence movement, and would require a complete overhaul of thinking. But somehow, somewhat improbably, Swinney has stumbled on an idea: "During the next parliament, we reach the point where there will be one million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed.' This has two consequences. First, we begin to sweep aside the fragile excuse that the Unionist community has hidden behind for repressing basic democracy in holding up the phrase 'for a generation' and assert that that time has passed. Second, we go to, engage with and inspire the generation that are now eligible to vote, and who are overwhelmingly pro-independence. To do this properly, and to begin to explore the generational issues I touched on, would require a break from 2014 and an effort to re-imagine the case for independence in a much more expansive timeframe. This wouldn't be another 'campaign' with slogans and attack lines, it wouldn't be a politics of resentment, it would be a politics of imagination and possibility. That Britain is in a morbid state is plain for anyone to see, but that must be contrasted with a movement that offers not just a constitutional off-ramp but an alternative to the politics of fear and resentment that activates the populist right. In this sense, we need to rethink the case for independence and recast it entirely. In the words of Marshall McLuhan: 'Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness.' Remaining in this Union means being engaged in the 'slow cancellation of the future'. For Scotland to be 'reborn' demands that we step out of that paradigm and away from the hyper-nostalgia and denialism that characterises the most regressive elements of British and American nationalism.
