Musical Instrument Certificates

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The availability of the musical instrument certificates simplifies international travel for musicians with instruments. It is important to note that they are valid for three years. Currently, the musical instrument certificates are the only CITES permit or certificate available to applicants at no cost, so it is important that we consider through this consultation whether this is fair or proportionate as we move our current charging regime to full cost recovery.

I emphasise that no decisions as yet on fees have been made. The consultation is seeking feedback from stakeholders to ensure changes do not put disproportionate burdens on industry and businesses, including touring orchestras and musicians. The Government are supporting artists through measures such as the orchestra tax relief, the Arts Council England funding and the £30 million music growth package which supports talent development, music exports and grass-roots venues.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the burden on touring musicians of the botched Brexit deal has been so very punitive? Does she share our concern about any danger that this consultation will add to that botched Brexit deal and increase fees for those touring musicians? Could she please elaborate for the House on discussions that have taken place between her department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that this vital export to the UK is fully supported?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are continuing to talk with DCMS; it is an ongoing conversation. We are also continuing to constructively engage with the European Commission to tackle the challenges that face both creative and cultural professionals. To support touring artists, the Government are actively engaging with the EU on this specific issue. At the first ever summit between the UK and the EU, both sides recognised the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists, and we have committed to continue to support this.

Waste Crime

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really good point. One of the issues around non-reporting is that people think it is pointless. That has been the case in the past. There has just not been enough action taken, not just in tackling waste crime but in supporting people who are victims of it. That is why we are investing in the new schemes, why we are looking at data tracking to better understand it and why we are hoping that the investment in the Environment Agency is going to improve enforcement. If people can believe that it is worth reporting, they are more likely to. That is one of the reasons why we need to get people to trust that if they report a crime, something is going to happen about it.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we cannot continue, in effect, to subsidise organised crime in England on waste, costing our taxpayers £1 billion a year? Will the Government ensure that the Environment Agency can use environmental permitting income and start to tackle this criminality, given that so far we have not had a single conviction?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, the lack of convictions has been a problem, which returns me to my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This is the fundamental reason why we have increased the Environment Agency’s budget for front-line criminal enforcement: so that we can actually start to do this. The purpose for having that specific funding is to exactly address the issue the noble Baroness raises.

Deforestation

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We absolutely agree that forests in the UK are part of our critical natural infrastructure. To complement the international efforts I have referred to, we are taking significant steps to protect and expand domestic forests. Key achievements include setting a legally binding target to increase tree cover to 16.5% of England’s land area by 2050. Tree planting in England is at the highest level on record in over 20 years. In 2024-25, the total area of tree canopy established, and the number of trees planted, was over 7,000 hectares, or over 10 million trees. We are also creating three new national forests. The first was announced in March, the Western Forest, which will see 20 million trees planted across the west of England in the coming years.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, how do the Government plan to address continuing concerns about UK-linked supply chains that drive deforestation? Unlike in the EU, these trades remain legal here in the UK.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

244: Clause 55, page 92, line 6, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 244 and 287. These proposals have a clear and focused aim: to secure stronger and more reliable protections for our natural environment through the planning system. I wish to lay out why these changes are not just desirable, but necessary, in light of both recent evidence and practical experience.

Amendment 244 addresses the language on improvements to conservation status, requiring that any improvement to an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans be significant. At present, the Bill allows for any improvement to be considered a success, but the reality in England suggests otherwise. By introducing the word “significant”, the amendment raises the test and prevents superficial or minimal gains being counted as genuine progress. It recognises that piecemeal gestures will not restore all-important lost habitats or endangered species. Instead, substantial positive action must become the norm.

This approach also brings better alignment with recommendations that already exist from Defra and findings from ongoing reviews of environmental policy. According to the State of Nature report, wildlife abundance has dropped by 32% since 1970, and 13% of species are now under genuine threat.

On these Benches, we believe that existing standards are simply not sufficient to reverse these declines. The amendment provides clarity for both developers and planning authorities. It ensures that when environmental delivery plans are prepared, their targets must be meaningful and that stakeholders will know that marginal improvements are insufficient.

As a result, both local communities and our wider natural environment will benefit from projects that contribute to measurable ecological recovery. The purpose is not to block development, but rather to set a standard that matches the gravity of the challenge England faces. The amendment also provides transparency and accountability, making it clear to all involved parties exactly what is required for a project to meet its conservation obligations.

Turning to Amendment 287, the rationale is similarly rooted in evidence and practical experience. At present, the Bill requires that developments are likely to improve the environment. In practice, the term “likely” is too vague and too weak.

A University of Sheffield study revealed that 75% of bird and bat boxes, required already in planning conditions, were never actually installed. Such figures clearly highlight how easily requirements can fall through the cracks when they are based only on probability. The public and environmental groups have repeatedly raised concerns about such non-delivery. This amendment replaces “are likely to” with “will”. Its objective is very simple: to ensure that the promised improvements are delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Earl will be aware, there are standard timings for government consultations, so we would employ those principles as set out in the government regulations for all consultations. If the noble Earl is not familiar with those, I can certainly send him the details.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their responses on this. I thank them also for continuing to have an open door. I think that the whole Committee is conveying a huge ambition to work with the Government to get this over the line. I still have concerns that “material improvement” will be interpreted by some as a low common denominator, but we will go away, study the letter received this morning and the words used today, and I hope continue to meet between now and Report. I think that what a lot of Members who have spoken just now are trying to get towards is practical measures that can provide a level of specificity so there is clarity, so that examples that I raised in my opening speech—of much-promised and not-delivered measures—do not occur again. That is what we are striving to achieve here. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 244 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming earlier that the environmental principles policy is still in place. That matters in this particular group in terms of the mitigation hierarchy. When the Bill came through, the OEP expressed significant concern about the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy. I am not aware of its opinion on subsequent government amendments in that regard, but, of the five principles set out in the Government’s policy statement, “prevention” is a key element and “Rectification at source” is another one of the five principles.

We are trying to make sure this is crystal clear in the Bill and locked in because of comments made by the Minister in the Commons about flexibility. It is fair to say that, frankly, Clause 66(3) completely sets aside the mitigation hierarchy; to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, it is cash for trash —basically, you can do what you like if you are prepared to pay for it. In that regard, it matters that the Government think again and put this in place in primary legislation. Despite that, Amendment 256ZA in particular is very useful where it talks about “reasonably practicable”. That is an element that, if necessary, can be tested in the courts in due course. But we need to correct this in this House, putting it very firmly instead of saying, as in the words of the Minister, “Our flexibility is fine”.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 340 proposes a new clause after Clause 87. This amendment would enshrine clear duties on both the Secretary of State and Natural England to take all reasonable steps to avoid, prevent and reduce significant adverse environmental effects when exercising their functions under Part 3. It would require them to enhance biodiversity to safeguard designated sites—such as the European and Ramsar sites that we have heard mentioned in the previous group—except in exceptional cases, and to protect irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and veteran trees.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, who has signed the amendment. She sends her apologies and says:

“This amendment provides a great opportunity for the Government to clarify the core commitments to existing nature protection that they have stated should remain in the Bill. This amendment is an essential clarification and strengthening of legal duties that already underpin environmental protections but risk being diluted under the new framework established by Part 3. While the Bill aims to streamline development and introduce strategic fund-based mechanisms for environmental management through both EDPs and the NRF, there have been legitimate concerns that existing protections might be weakened or circumvented”.

So this amendment does not obstruct development. It ensures that decision-makers uphold critical environmental principles consistently and transparently. It explicitly requires the Secretary of State and Natural England to take all reasonable steps to avoid causing significant harm, applying the fundamental mitigation hierarchy that we have already talked about and which prioritises avoidance first, minimisation second and compensation only as a last resort.

The amendment’s emphasis on enhancing biodiversity aligns directly with the Government’s own Environmental Principles Policy Statement, which guides all departments to embed environmental protection in their decision-making, and it places biodiversity improvement alongside harm avoidance as a clear statutory duty. Of particular importance is the protection afforded to irreplaceable habitats, as I have mentioned already. These are a unique and fragile ecosystem systems comprising just 2.5% of UK land yet supporting disproportionately rich biodiversity, and the NPPF rightly sets the loss of such habitats as a matter to be refused unless wholly exceptional reasons apply and compensatory measures are in place. Embedding this principle therefore in primary legislation strengthens the hand of conservation and local communities.

The amendment also correctly restricts where significant adverse effects on European and Ramsar sites may be permitted—only where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public importance—and where compensation will occur. This follows long-established environmental law and international obligations, and provides clarity. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Global Plastic Pollution Treaty

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the first part of the question, the INC has been adjourned; it will be resumed at a later date, at a time to be agreed. We remain steadfast in our commitment. We think that it is important to work with all countries if we are to make the kind of progress that we need in order to make a real difference. So, although no agreement was reached in Geneva, and neither of the two treaty texts put forward by the chair was accepted as a starting point, progress was made on other areas of the treaty. It is important to point out that this was not a complete waste of time. For example, the work the UK co-led with Chile and Panama to progress articles on product design and releases of plastic production in the environment resulted in a much better understanding of country positions and progress towards a landing zone. So we will keep all options under review, but we will continue to work towards a treaty that has broad support, because we want to have absolute maximum impact. Regarding the domestic policy that my noble friend mentioned, we are very keen to work and drive towards a more circular economy. We want to recycle more plastic waste, and we also need to ensure that it is recycled in the most effective and appropriate manner. So all these things are being considered under our circular economy policy.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, given the collapse of the talks in August, does the Minister agree that a global agreement will not be reached if the petrochemical lobbyists continue to outnumber the independent scientists at the talks? What threshold of plastics needs to be found in human brains and reproductive systems for the oil-rich nations to treat this as an emergency and get everyone back to the table?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s last point was the main point—getting everybody back to the table. If we are to make a real difference globally, we need those countries with us to appreciate that the production method of plastic has to be part of where we move forward regarding plastic in the future. You cannot solve these issues on their own; it is a global issue. I know that it is incredibly frustrating that we feel that we have stalled. As I said, we have made some progress—we are getting to a better understanding of where other countries are coming from—and we will continue to try to make the further progress that we so badly need.

Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 1 July 2025.

Today is Back British Farming Day, and this instrument seeks to do just that: back our free-range poultry meat producers. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing poultry meat marketing standards to enable free-range poultry meat to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures introduced during outbreaks of disease, such as avian influenza, which restrict the access of birds to open-air runs. All other criteria upon which the “free range” marketing term relies, such as stocking density, age at slaughter, feed formula and poultry house pop-holes, must continue to be met.

Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months, as was the case in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2024-25, resulting in the introduction of mandatory housing measures for poultry that, in all cases, lasted longer than the 12-week labelling derogation period. This was for an additional 10 weeks in 2021-22, 11 weeks in 2022-23 and, most recently, eight weeks in 2024-25. So it will be important for the industry that this statutory instrument is in place for the upcoming winter period and beyond, in the event that we experience another avian influenza outbreak.

Currently, when free-range birds are placed under mandatory housing measures due to outbreaks of disease such as avian influenza, the poultry meat marketing standards regulations allow poultry meat to continue to be labelled as “free range” for a maximum period of 12 weeks, known as the 12-week derogation period. After this, poultry meat from those birds has to be marketed as indoor reared.

In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes together with the Scottish Government. Some 79% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. A separate consultation was conducted by the Welsh Government. The European Commission also consulted on plans to remove the 12-week derogation period from its legislation. In line with the Windsor Framework, any changes to EU legislation will also apply to Northern Ireland, when introduced.

When a mandatory housing measure is imposed on poultry producers, this is to safeguard the welfare of the birds, which must be our primary concern. However, we also recognise that the current requirement for poultry meat producers and processors to re-label free-range poultry meat once the derogation period is exceeded represents a financial burden on producers. This is primarily related to the higher operating costs that continue to be incurred to maintain their free-range system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that birds are temporarily housed indoors. This is also combined with the loss of income from the premium price that free-range products attract.

This statutory instrument will remove the 12-week derogation period so that free-range poultry meat producers and processors can market poultry meat as free range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. With the European Union introducing a similar change to its legislation, the introduction of this statutory instrument will enable English free-range producers and processors to continue to operate on a level playing field commercially with producers in the European Union and Northern Ireland. As broiler chickens are generally slaughtered before reaching 12 weeks of age, the removal of this derogation will apply primarily to higher-value free-range birds with longer production cycles, such as turkeys, ducks and geese.

We are working closely with devolved Governments to align the introduction of the planned changes. A statutory instrument was laid in the Scottish Parliament on 3 September 2025 to amend its domestic regulations in relation to the removal of the 12-week derogation period. We anticipate that the Welsh Government will make an announcement shortly regarding the removal of the 12-week derogation period within their legislation.

The change to be introduced by this statutory instrument will safeguard our Great British poultry meat industry by reducing costs, continuing to ensure it is competitive against imports and by protecting the value of its products without compromising the high welfare and food safety standards expected by UK consumers and our trading partners. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, this is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day—a moment to celebrate our farmers and the vital contribution they make to our economy, countryside and food security. I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important statutory instrument with significant implications for producers and consumers who value high food standards.

We welcome this proposal, which, after consultation, seeks to resolve a persistent challenge balancing disease protection with honest and transparent labelling. This amendment rightly removes the 12-week limit for how long poultry can be kept indoors under mandatory housing measures while retaining the free-range label. The change, as I understand it, has the greatest effect on turkey, duck and goose producers, as chickens are generally slaughtered before the time limit expires.

On this day dedicated to British farming, it is fitting to recognise the immense pressures faced by our producers, especially after the impacts of avian influenza, and the need for legislation that is fair and practical. Mass culls, supply-chain issues and uncertainty have taken their toll on our rural communities, and that is why the priority must be a regulatory system that protects producers from circumstances that are often beyond their control, without undermining their hard-won reputations, of which so many of our UK food producers can be rightly proud.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently championed high animal welfare standards. When in government, we introduced the all-out ban on caged hens. Consumers expect clarity and integrity in their food labelling, and the free-range label stands for quality, welfare and trust, and it is important that those values must not be diluted or diminished.

Support for producers should never mean weaker animal welfare or compromised consumer trust, so I urge the Minister to confirm, or respond with reassurances, that the statutory instrument will not do any of the following. First, will she confirm that it will not exclude British free-range eggs or poultry from EU markets due to regulatory divergence, risking essential exports? After the trading challenges of bad post-Brexit deals, this is a pressure that our farming communities cannot continue to bear. Secondly, will she confirm that it will not dilute the high welfare expectations associated with the “free range” label, which our producers and customers depend on?

Finally, will the Minister confirm that the statutory instrument will not lead to confusion or reduce confidence in what “free range” genuinely means—I note the examples from the polling that the Minister used in her introductory remarks—for so many of our consumers who today wish, in increasing numbers, to make ethical choices? Meeting public expectations and reflecting farm realities requires transparency. The reputation of “free range” must remain as a guarantee of higher welfare, not merely a technicality. Also, how will the Government audit compliance, ensure that labelling reflects actual living standards and work with producers and consumer groups to uphold these robust standards?

We support these regulations; we are looking at the small print, but we are very much in support of this statutory instrument when it comes to providing detailed reassurances on animal welfare and consumer confidence. On Back British Farming Day, we stand with our farmers while demanding the highest standards for animals, rural communities and our food security system. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying how delighted I am—indeed, the whole Committee will be delighted—that the noble Baroness is still in her place as a Defra Minister. We have continuity Defra, and that needs to be said.

But may I also say how sad I was to see that Daniel Zeichner has been brutally chopped? He was a good Minister doing a good job. He had been shadow Minister since 2020 and was a Minister for a year, and then was chopped for no good reason. One idiotic report in the press said that he had been chopped because of the tax on farmers. I think they got the wrong target there, since the Secretary of State’s replacement was in the Treasury, which imposed the tax. The reports said that the Secretary of State had been “promoted” away from Defra, diminishing its importance. What does Defra do? It is the only the department that looks after our food, farming, fishing and trees, and looks after the quality of our water, rivers, streams and the air we breathe. Yet the media regard that as less important than going to a department that cannot build houses unless it deals with ghastly local government.

I will not waste the Committee’s time by repeating the necessity of this SI. The Official Opposition wholeheartedly support it for the same reasons set out fully by the Minister. So long as avian influenza is a threat to all flocks in the UK, in addition to the devastation among wild birds, the only precaution is to keep poultry inside. That is unfortunate, but there is no other way.

As the Minister explained, that means that free-range poultry would be kept inside as well and lose the designation “free range” if it is kept inside for more than 12 weeks. However, that would not apply to Europe, which operates under different rules at the moment. Thus, without this SI change, English producers would find their poultry meat marketed as “indoor bred” but similar meat from Europe could be labelled “free range”. Clearly, that would be damaging to the UK poultry sector, so this is necessary to maintain a level playing field.

As the Defra Explanatory Note points out, there is very little free-range chicken meat at the moment. At this time of year, the main free-range poultry are turkeys, geese and ducks, and it would be wrong to damage our producers by labelling them “indoor bred” while letting foreign imports be classed as “free range”. For those reasons, we will support the SI.

However, I flag up the same point that I made in the debate on free-range eggs: we cannot go on like this indefinitely. For impeccable reasons, we are misleading consumers, even though I think the products need a label stating that they have been kept inside. I am not sure about that, so perhaps the Minister will clarify in her winding-up speech whether, in relation to products that have been kept inside, there is an explanation for how they comply with “free range”. I repeat that, ever since my time in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1990, I have felt that the definition of “free range” is misleading. Yes, chickens must have access to outdoors for half their lives, but they rarely go out of the little hatch and stay inside most of the time. However, now is not the time or occasion for me to start a war with the British poultry producers.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, offers us an excellent opportunity to modernise legislation which has been left standing for far too long, namely the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. This Act belongs to a bygone age of farming and dog ownership. Similar laws have already been updated in Scotland, where penalties are now significantly higher and more species are protected.

Dog ownership has surged, and with it has come an increase in preventable tragedies. Farmers have spoken of sheep mauled, cattle panicked and livelihoods threatened. Beyond the immense emotional toll, the financial impact is substantial. A 2025 survey by the National Sheep Association found that a very high proportion of farmers—more than four in five—had experienced a dog attack on their flock in the past year.

Balance is crucial. We want the countryside to feel welcoming and safe for everyone, but it cannot be safe if laws from 70 years ago are expected to cope with life as it is today. The current 1953 Act, for example, defines livestock narrowly and limits the offence to agricultural land. This new Bill, sponsored in the Commons by Aphra Brandreth MP, modernises the law by extending the offence to include roads and paths, and expanding the definition of livestock to include animals such as llamas and alpacas.

What I particularly welcome in this legislation is its measured approach. It strengthens police powers for evidence gathering, which is critical, as a lack of evidence is often why prosecutions fail. These new powers will be supported by advances such as the canine DNA recovery project, which is developing best practices for collecting DNA from attack scenes to identify the dogs responsible, as was ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The Bill increases the maximum penalty for an offence, which is extremely welcome, thus creating a stronger deterrent. As other noble Peers have mentioned, the devil, as ever, will be in the detail of enforcement, and I look forward to hearing more on that from the Minister.

Many people simply do not understand just how quickly their loveable dog, while gentle at home, can cause panic and injury. Research suggests that most incidents arise when dogs are simply not kept on a lead. As others have mentioned, education remains as important as enforcement. Stakeholders agree that, while legal reforms are essential, education and responsible ownership are key to reducing these kinds of incidents.

For our part, the Liberal Democrats see this as more than a narrow rural crime Bill. This effort has widespread cross-party support, and is welcomed by the NFU, the RSPCA and others. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her determination in bringing this forward—again. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, on his excellent maiden speech and expert insight on the subject of today’s debate; I look forward to hearing more from him in the future.

This Bill has all-party support and is, in effect, the same as the one that the noble Baroness introduced in 2023, which fell when the general election was called. This Bill is long overdue but carefully crafted, and it deserves an easy passage. From these Benches, we will support it wholeheartedly.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate my Liberal Democrat colleague and vet, the honourable Dr Danny Chambers, MP for Winchester, on tabling this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, his veterinary teacher, for sponsoring it in the Lords, and the Minister for working with them both to make this a Bill backed by the Government. The Bill represents a vital step forward in tackling the deplorable practices of puppy smuggling and the cruel importation of mutilated and severely stressed animals.

The veterinary profession, including Dr Danny Chambers, has been campaigning on this issue for over 10 years, so it is great that he has been able to deliver this much needed change in the law just one year after becoming an Member of Parliament. Danny Chambers continues the Liberal Democrats’ track record of animal rights advocacy, including improving standards of animal welfare in agriculture and ensuring the protection of funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit. It was Liberal Democrats who ended the practice of housing chickens in battery cages during the coalition Government. We continue to strongly believe that we should be ending live exports of all animals. The Bill is an important step towards those wider goals.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches, like the other parties, are united in asking that no changes be made to the Bill within the House of Lords so that this legislation can be passed as quickly as possible That is because dogs and cats—and ferrets—cannot wait any longer. The scale of the problem is alarming. The current system has proven vulnerable, with commercial imports frequently disguised as non-commercial movements to deliberately bypass more stringent requirements. The Animal and Plant Health Agency reported that, in 2022, the import of pet dogs into the UK had gone up by 43% since 2020.

I thank Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for its detailed briefing in support of this Bill—and for our own, much-loved rescue cat. The story from Battersea of Milo the Dobermann puppy is enough to break any heart. He was born in the UK but, using the current loophole that this Bill sets out to fix, his ears were cropped using cotton thread, not surgical thread, and his tail was docked—all illegal in this country but done here because the protections are not strong enough. He came to Battersea at six months and, following surgery and support, I am delighted to report that he now lives with a loving family and his older Dobermann mentor. People can get away with this and claim that Milo came from abroad; therefore, this barbarism can been meted out to dogs like Milo here in England—likewise for the horrific declawing of cats that we have heard about.

The Bill also addresses several critical issues that have long concerned animal welfare advocates. It seeks to raise the minimum age for imported dogs and cats from 15 weeks to six months. This ensures that young animals are not separated from their mothers too early, allowing them to develop adequately before undergoing potentially long and stressful journeys that can have a lasting impact on their temperament and health.

These measures, and others already described by many Peers, are essential not only for animal welfare but for human public health, as they reduce the risk of importing diseases such as rabies.

The Bill has widespread cross-party support, evidenced by today’s debate, and has been warmly welcomed by leading animal welfare organisations. The RSPCA has explicitly supported the proposals. The British Veterinary Association sees the Bill as a vital tool to end puppy smuggling. Dogs Trust, which was also mentioned, a charity that has campaigned against puppy smuggling for over a decade, is “delighted” that the Bill will finally address this “cruel trade”.

Some have raised the issue of the numbers—five pets per vehicle—feeling that it is arbitrary in some way. However, I thank Danny Chambers, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the Minister for the extremely useful meeting earlier this week and the clear explanation of support for this number from animal welfare organisations and the EFRA Select Committee, and the need identified by those in the disability sector. I also thank the Minister for her explanation that further regulations will be able to reduce that number in the future if it is deemed necessary.

I urge all noble Lords to support this vital legislation. It is a testament to what can be achieved when Parliament works as a united team. I thank Dr Danny Chambers MP again for his initiative and unwavering commitment to animal welfare. He is a recent and superb addition to this Parliament. The Bill is a beacon of progress on animal welfare, and I wish it a speedy legislative journey.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct. As he is aware, I strongly supported the then Bill when it went through Parliament, because I do not want to see the abuse of animals in any circumstances. However, having looked at the Act and how to take it forward, there are certain challenges to ensure that it is effective when it is brought in. There is no point having legislation that is not going to do what we want it to do. First, it has to be clear for advertisers and enforcement bodies which activities are in scope, so we are looking at which activities to prioritise and bring into scope. We need to determine whether an advertised activity meets the criteria for being low welfare, because we need to ensure that high-welfare activities are not inadvertently impacted. We also need to ensure that the party placing the advert can be identified. This is complex, because it is about banning advertising only in this country, whereas many advertised holidays are not from organisations based here and the activities are abroad. It is complex, but I am determined that we get this right.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of media reports suggesting that this appalling practice is on the increase? In the light of that, what urgent support and guidance can she provide for the UK tourism industry that could be used right now to reduce this immediately, particularly given the current delay that she described in the introduction and implementation of the Act?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One reason I talked about non-legislative options is that we want to stop people buying such holidays in the first place. One problem is that, when people book a holiday with an elephant ride, they simply do not understand what has happened to that elephant and how it has been treated so that it can be ridden—so there is an education piece. It is currently the case that ABTA, which represents around 90% of British travel agents, offers guidance, working with its own members, as to what kind of activities are considered to be unacceptable. That guidance is there and we have been working with ABTA to look at how we can encourage further uptake—90% is a high number, but it is not everybody.

Forest Risk Commodities

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that we are looking at the best way to bring this forward at the moment. I cannot commit to a timetable, but I can confirm that Defra is absolutely committed to bringing in this legislation and is working within government to ensure it is done in a timely fashion.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, she cannot point to a timetable, but after three years of delay, can the Minister point to any government analysis that quantifies the environmental cost of this inaction? Does she accept the estimates of Global Witness and the WWF that UK consumption has destroyed an area of forest larger than the New Forest? Do the Government have any analysis to refute that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There are different things we can look at. Forests are a priority for the UK’s international climate finance spend—the ICF—and we are delivering ODA programmes to deliver improved forest governance, support sustainable trade and investment and mobilise finance for forest protections and restoration in developing countries. Since 2011, it is estimated that the UK ICF programmes have prevented 750,000 hectares of ecosystem loss, which is the equivalent of around 1 million football pitches. There is work taking place, but I absolutely understand why there is frustration that we have not brought in this legislation as yet.