Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Sugg]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards banning bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas.

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

My Lords, the consultation on the latest round of proposed by-laws to introduce restrictions on bottom trawling in 41 marine protected areas resulted in a very large number of responses being received. The Marine Management Organisation is now carefully considering those responses and reviewing the evidence. When all of that has been considered in full, the decisions will be made. Our environmental improvement plan commits us to finish putting MPA fisheries by-laws in place by the end of this year.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that response. She will know that bottom trawling is a hugely destructive fishing practice that causes widespread, severe and often irreversible environmental damage to our marine ecosystems. I would like to push the Minister a bit more on the response to the consultation; it has been over six months since it closed. Bottom trawling is taking place in our waters every day. It depletes fish populations and habitats, undermining the healthy seas that our fisheries and coastal communities rely on for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that time is of the essence, and can she say any more on when the consultation response will be published?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a serious issue that we need to move on as soon as we can. We have proposed that we will do this by the end of the year. The big issue is the sheer number of responses that were received; it is taking a long time to go through them. Also, the proposed by-laws are very substantial. We are absolutely determined to get it right. It is better to take the right amount of time to come out with the right decisions that will genuinely make the differences that we need to see in our marine environments.

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

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for setting out the detail of this Bill and for his long-standing commitment to animal welfare—and, indeed, human welfare. He makes a compelling case for its swift introduction, and I am grateful to him and the Minister for the meeting earlier to discuss the details of the Bill.

I fully support this Bill and hope that it will move through this place quickly and unamended. We know why it is important. We are seeing the exploitation of the current non-commercial route system of imports, and this is impacting animal welfare. We have all heard distressing stories about the treatment of animals being imported through this non-commercial route. We are seeing a burgeoning illegal trade, where criminals are exploiting the current system in an organised and lucrative way, with a clear focus on money rather than the health and welfare of animals. We are seeing a lack of consumer protection, with well-meaning potential pet owners finding it difficult to get the knowledge and reassurance that they would like. So I fully support this Bill, and I hope that in her response, the Minister can come back on a few points.

First, I would like to hear more about enforcement: have the provisions in the Bill been discussed with the police and Border Force, and do they feel that they are sufficient? Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, we have been contacted by organisations concerned that the Bill will stop the rescue and bringing in of animals that have been mistreated through mutilation. Can the Minister confirm whether these organisations should be using the commercial or non-commercial route? If the reduction of the number of animals allowed to five per vehicle, rather than five per person, is not sufficient to stop bad practice, can she confirm that this could be reduced further, though not increased, through secondary legislation? I do not think that we should risk losing this Bill, as we have done previously, by bringing forward any amendments, but I should be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on those points.

Finally, on public education, I am very much an aspiring dog owner, and I hope that one day I will have the opportunity to care for a dog in the way that I would like. Until that day, I bide my time considering where I would find my future dogs: researching both pedigree breeds and breeders and rescue organisations and charities. Of course, it is not just their breeding that can detrimentally impact the future health of a pet; the treatment that they receive in the first few weeks and months of their lives can also have a permanent impact on their behaviour. I speak from experience here, as the owner of two rescue cats that are, sadly, deeply and seemingly permanently traumatised because of abuse that they suffered in the first weeks and months of their lives, most probably at a kitten farm. There is a wealth of information out there, but it can be difficult to navigate to get the assurance that animals have been cared for in a way that any responsible owner would like. Alongside this Bill, is there more that the Government can do to help educate prospective pet owners about what they should look for to ensure that they have a healthy and happy pet?

This Bill, when fully enacted, will lead to a marked improvement in animal welfare. It will tackle the burgeoning illegal trade in animals, and it will improve consumer protection. I hope all noble Lords will support it.