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

Baroness Grender Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, it has been a great privilege to bring forward this Bill, which seeks to prevent the illegal and low-welfare movement of pets into the UK. At Second Reading I remarked that I hoped it would be third time lucky for this Bill, and today I am thrilled to present it for its third and last reading before it makes its way on to the statute book.

It has been a privilege to play a part in advancing this legislation, which will strengthen protection for animals so dear to so many of us. However, the milestone is not mine alone, of course. The progress of the Bill has been a truly collaborative endeavour, and I express my sincere gratitude to those who have contributed to its journey. It is a particular pleasure to thank Dr Danny Chambers from the other place, because I had the pleasure and privilege of teaching him when he was a veterinary undergraduate at the University of Liverpool. You know you are getting old when your former students become MPs.

I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and her team at Defra for the great work they have done in supporting the Bill. I am very grateful to fellow Peers who supported us so well at Second Reading; I am assured that the points they made then will be considered by the Government in developing the Bill further through secondary legislation. Finally, I thank various organisations, including the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Battersea and others, which have long lobbied for the measures encompassed in this legislation.

When quarantine was replaced by rabies vaccinations in 2000, there were fewer than 8,000 dogs moving non-commercially into the UK; by 2024, there were 368,000 dogs moving. Many of them were not day trippers but one-way trippers: illegally imported dogs that were poorly bred, poorly kept, unsocialised and vulnerable to ill health. In 2025, the PDSA estimated that 21,000 dogs were imported with cropped ears, a mutilation that is illegal in this country. In 2023, Cats Protection estimated that 65,000 cats had been imported, many of which had been declawed—another illegal process in the UK.

This Bill will bring these practices to an end. It closes a loophole in pet travel rules that have been exploited for profit and introduces a proportionate limit on the number of pets that can be brought in during a single non-commercial movement. It makes it harder for unscrupulous individuals to abuse the system. The Bill also grants the Government powers to introduce secondary legislation to restrict low-welfare imports, by prohibiting the import of puppies and kittens under six months of age and restricting the import of heavily pregnant animals and of pets that have been subject to mutilation, such as ear cropping in dogs and declawing in cats.

I welcome the Government’s assurances that they intend to work with stakeholders to consider appropriate exemptions to these restrictions as these regulations are further developed. I echo the Government’s words of caution that any exemptions must be extremely selective and must not allow the creation of loopholes that could be exploited.

The Bill is a testament to what we can achieve when we work together across this House. I know that noble Lords will support its passage and help us take this important step forward to ending pet smuggling and improving the welfare of pets brought into the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, today we can be proud that we are a nation that truly loves our pets and legislates for them too. Dogs, cats and—yes—ferrets will be protected in the future by this new law. That is a tribute to all the vets, owners and rescue charities who have dealt with these terrible cruelties and campaigned for change.

I congratulate my Liberal Democrat colleague and vet, Dr Danny Chambers, who has made this a law so soon after becoming an MP. My heartfelt thanks also go to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for all the work they have done to deliver this. My thanks also go to every parliamentarian—it is wonderful to see so many here today to mark this moment—who has fought for and delivered this excellent and long-overdue change in the law.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, please allow me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, on his success in guiding this important Bill to its Third Reading in your Lordships’ House. Today we see a Private Member’s Bill sail through both Houses of Parliament to become law. It is a rare feat and a testament to the relentless focus and determination of the noble Lord, Lord Trees.

As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, highlighted at Second Reading, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are fully supportive of the Bill and we are most pleased to see it go on to the next stage. We believe it will play a key role in reducing the cruelty that cats, dogs and ferrets currently suffer through the smuggling trade. A great many animal lovers across the whole United Kingdom will today be incredibly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and we thank him for pursuing this with a laser focus that will now be enshrined in law.

Biodiversity and the Countryside

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for securing this Opposition day debate and for the opportunity it presents to take stock of how government policies are shaping biodiversity and the health of our countryside. It has been an absolute privilege to hear the speeches that we have had this afternoon on this issue.

This debate touches on all our shared national identity and environmental stewardship for future generations. Everyone has spoken with determination and passion on the need to halt the decline and work to preserve our precious heritage, from our ancient woodlands to our unique and fragile chalk streams. We have heard many times about the nature depletion levels in the UK. The abundance of species in England has fallen by 32% since the 1970s, with one in seven species at risk of extinction. I thank the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefing and the analysis that it shared with us, which confirms that only 3% of England’s land area can count currently towards the 30 by 30 target. Does the Minister’s own department’s research show a different percentage? If so, what is it? If she does not have it with her, she can write.

We have made some progress on this issue. When it comes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is obsessing many of us in this House, the amendment from the excellent lobbyist and right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on Report drew attention to the unique and irreplaceable value of our chalk streams. Those rare ecosystems, found in only a handful of places worldwide, are one of the jewels in the crown of our natural heritage.

His amendment, which was supported across the House, was a reminder that care for the environment is not peripheral but a duty central to any credible planning policy. We hope that it survives the bumpy ride in the Commons right now and comes back and survives in some way.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Parminter, whose persistence and expertise ensured that the Government accepted the inclusion of the mitigation hierarchy written into the Bill. I thank the Minister for including it. That hierarchy—a clear sequence requiring avoidance of harm before mitigation or compensation—is a small but vital safeguard against the steady erosion of biodiversity that has, for far too long, been the by-product of unbalanced development. It means that, when we make decisions about where to build, we do so with nature in mind, not as an afterthought but as a founding principle and starting point.

It will therefore not come as a shock to hear that we believe there are other improvements that can be made to the Bill, even at this late stage, to ensure that biodiversity has the urgency attached to it that is so vital. I particularly support the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis and Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, as we continue to believe that the Bill could be improved by ensuring that EDPs are not used inappropriately when it comes to harming wildlife. I genuinely know and trust that the Minister will ensure that we continue a dialogue on this between now and ping-pong.

While others elsewhere have been a bit obsessed about spin from No.10 over the past 48 hours, I know that all of us on these Benches do not share the sentiments behind some of the spin that might have come from next door—I do not know—suggesting that newts and bats are standing in the way of bulldozers and building. I certainly know that that is not a sentiment shared by the Minister. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, all the statistical information suggests that planning and development are not constrained in this way. Again, can the Minister share what her department’s analysis shows? For example, what percentage of developments since—to pluck a month and a year out of the air—July 2024 have been constrained by species?

As the briefing from the RSPB makes clear, progress on biodiversity recovery remains hesitant and fragmented. The Government’s own environmental improvement plan has admirable ambitions, but the gap between aspiration and delivery is the frightening issue from all the briefings that we receive. The Office for Environmental Protection warned in its latest annual progress report that, unless things change materially, key targets such as the 30 by 30 for land and sea will not be met, citing a lack of strategy, guidance and action.

We are told that record sums are being allocated to environmental programmes, but too little of that funding seems to find its way to those on the front line: farmers, local authorities struggling to maintain conservation staff, or community groups restoring habitats destroyed by neglect. Vision is great, but it is quite another thing to sustain structures, commitments and action.

The decline of biodiversity cannot be reversed through these aims alone. The most important thing is coherence between Defra, MHCLG and, above all, the Treasury, with all departments moving in the same direction. Yet time and again we see competing priorities, particularly in planning, undermining this unity.

We should also remember that the biodiversity crisis is not confined to designated habitats. Nature does not recognise the boundary at the edge of a national park. The character of the countryside depends as much on the health of its working land—its farms, rivers and rural communities—as it does on protected zones. That is why we have long argued for integrated, locally driven environmental policy that trusts local partnerships to steward the land they know best.

We should also recognise, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the central role that farmers play in safeguarding biodiversity across the countryside. Farmers are not only fundamental to our food security but pivotal in shaping the health of our soils, wetlands and wildlife habitats. Government policies must support and reward those farmers who adopt nature-friendly practices, such as maintaining hedgerows, planting wildflower margins, reducing pesticide use and restoring wetlands.

I join with other noble Lords in asking what the update is on the SFI and other subsidies. I am keeping my fingers crossed about the Budget and the threshold with regard to inheritance tax. I know that the Minister will not be able to comment on that, but it is a defining thing and the recommendations from the EFRA Committee in the Commons are extremely helpful in that regard. If at all possible, I would also like any information the Minister may have, given that we are nearly at the end of 2025, on the farming road map.

In that spirit, I hope the Government will take seriously not only the criticism raised in the debate but the spirit of collaboration expressed in it. When this House works together, it is possible that we can deliver 30 by 30, but we will all need to work as a team.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

The funding is being allocated using the Barnett formula, which is the normal mechanism used by HM Treasury to determine funding for the devolved Governments. That is the mechanism used and, while allocations are not directly linked to the size of each nation’s fishing industry—the noble Lord mentioned the Scottish fishing industry—devolved Governments have full flexibility to target this funding to best meet the needs of their coastal and fishing communities, so there is an opportunity. This is extra funding on top of other funding that has been granted, so it is providing a support to coastal and fishing communities.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the botched Brexit deal that the Conservatives negotiated has done great damage to our coastal and fishing communities? Fish exporters have been wrapped up in red tape and penalised with extra costs for trading with our closest neighbours. To better support our communities, what steps are the Government taking to address the delays and implement the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness mentioned the Brexit deal agreed by the previous Government, which provides de facto guarantees for EU boats to UK waters beyond 2026. What we have done is to secure a deal with the EU that ensures returns for our fishing community, including scrapping red tape and restoring shellfish exports to the UK. This demonstrates that we are absolutely committed to the long-term prosperity and sustainability of our fishing industry. On the SPS agreement, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that negotiations are due to start shortly. I cannot give any further details until we move further down the line, but we absolutely want a really good deal for our country.

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.