Large-scale Waste Crime

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we do not think the status quo is working. We need to look at how tidying up and tackling waste crime, both from the start and at the clearing up end of things, are properly resourced, and at how the criminals carrying out this illegal activity are caught and dealt with. As the noble Lord said, that is difficult because of the nature of where it happens but, again, we are working across government to look at the best way to tackle this, because unless we all come together across government, we will not resolve this issue.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the Environment Agency may be good at prosecuting a known farmer who damages a river or a known factory which has a chemical spill, but fly-tipping style is now a national organised crime on a mega scale, costing the economy over £1 billion per annum, and it is beyond the competence of the Environment Agency to tackle it. In the Defra-led Joint Unit for Waste Crime there are also the police, HMRC and the National Crime Agency. I was interested that the Minister said that she has to do things differently and that the status quo is not an option, so will she now consider making the National Crime Agency the lead agency in that unit to tackle this growing national problem that is doing incalculable damage to some of our finest countryside and SSSIs?

Environmental Improvement Plan 2025

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in a debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who made a very good point about the condition of our SSSIs. The Government’s 2025 plan speaks with confidence about restoring nature and becoming a clean energy superpower. That confidence must be matched by clarity. Where the plan allows trade-offs, we need rules that protect the natural systems we depend on. The Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 sets out ambitions we can all support: cleaner water, richer soils, healthier wildlife and a transition to cleaner energy. Those ambitions are necessary, but a plan’s rhetoric is only as strong as the targets, timelines and delivery mechanisms that underpin it.

Today, I will focus on two areas where the gap between rhetoric and delivery is most worrying—our seas and our farms. On the marine side, the plan introduces recovery targets for marine protected areas, yet it also explicitly allows up to 5% of MPA features to be left in neither favourable nor recovering condition to “accommodate net-zero ambitions”. That is not a technical tweak; it institutionalises a trade-off.

Everyone knows that the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr Miliband, is obsessed with net zero, and his fanaticism will countenance any damage to our economy and cost to the public by driving up the cost of UK energy to be the highest in the world. Now he is damaging our seas as well. When we write a carve-out into a national plan, we change the default from recovery to compromise. Offshore wind and other infrastructure can contribute to our climate goals, but they must not become a standing excuse to delay or dilute recovery in protected areas. Any deviation from recovery must be time limited, independently scrutinised and accompanied by mandatory like-for-like enhancement measures that restore what has been lost. The real tragedy of this carve-out is that our seas will be damaged by wind turbines that will be switched off for about half the time. Billions will be paid to the operators not to produce electricity, as we read in the press yesterday.

We welcome ambition on this side, but ambition without detail is a promise unkept. Allowing a formal carve-out for marine protected areas to accommodate energy projects, delaying a marine litter strategy and failing to commit to PFAS consumer bans are not small omissions; they are structural weaknesses that will determine whether our seas recover or continue to decline.

As has already been said by noble Lords, marine litter is another glaring omission. It cannot be left to a general circular plan scheduled for next year. We need a dedicated marine litter strategy now, with measurable interim targets, funding for deposit return schemes, fishing gear management, improved port reception facilities and coastal clean-ups. These are practical measures that reduce harm to wildlife, protect coastal economies and cut the cost of clean-up for local communities. The marine recovery fund has currently framed this as becoming a mechanism that enables development rather than driving restoration. Compensation must be like-for-like by default, and there must be a separate ring-fenced enhancement fund to finance proactive habitat creation and ecosystem recovery at scale. Without that, we will see payments in place of genuine ecological outcomes.

On farming, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that there is no Minister in the Government who understands the countryside. I say to her that there is one—she is winding up this debate, and it is a pity that she is not the Secretary of State for Defra. The plan’s target to double the number of farms providing sufficient year-round resources for wildlife by 2030 is welcome in principle but underspecified in practice. Farmers need certainty. They need clear definitions of what “sufficient resources” means. They need published payment rates, long-term contracts and technical support. The sustainable farming incentive must be reformed and published with predictable payments so that farmers can plan investments without risking their livelihoods or domestic food production. Sequencing matters. Biosecurity targets and invasive species scanning must be timed so that there is adequate opportunity to respond before deadlines arrive. If we are serious about the rhetoric, we must strengthen the EIP now, remove the carve-outs, ban non-essential PFAS, fund enhancement—not just compensation—and give farmers and fishers the certainty and support they need to deliver. That is how we turn a plan into recovery.

To be concrete, I conclude by calling for six immediate actions. First, remove or tightly condition the 5% MPA carve-out. Any deviation from recovery must be demonstrably unavoidable, time limited and independently scrutinised, and require mandatory like-for-like enhancement. Secondly, ban PFAS in non-essential consumer products and publish a clear phase-out timetable for other uses, applying group-based controls to prevent substitution. Thirdly, please publish a dedicated marine litter strategy immediately, with measurable interim targets and funding for ports, coastal clean-ups and fishing gear management. Fourthly, redesign the marine recovery fund with two streams, mandatory like-for-like compensation and a separate enhancement fund for proactive restoration. Fifthly, accelerate SFI reform and publish payment rates and transition support so that farmers can plan, with explicit safeguards for food production and farm viability. Sixthly, strengthen fisheries management plans with binding spatial and gear measures, and fund a just transition package for fishers to adopt low-impact methods.

We can be a clean energy leader and a world leader in nature recovery, but only if we stop treating nature as negotiable. Strengthen the rules, fund the delivery and give those who steward our land and sea the certainty they need. Do that, and the rhetoric of the plan will become the recovery that our communities and our children expect.

Welfare of Domestic Animals

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord is probably aware that there are an awful lot of popular policies that everybody would like to see put forward immediately, which is why I wanted to spend time on getting an animal welfare strategy that actually looked right across the board at what was going to make the biggest difference for animal welfare and at different bits of legislation that were much more achievable. So again, I say to the noble Lord, as I have said to others: keep a watching eye out for the animal welfare strategy.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for raising this Question. As he said, the House did pass the last Government’s banning regulations in 2023, but they did not go through the Commons. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering all the evidence on this. As she knows, the British Veterinary Association and many dog trainers say that positive incentives are far better than shock treatment. However, many farmers say it is essential for sheepdog training, although that great sheepdog country, Wales, has banned it since 2010 without any difficulties. I suspect that I am in the same boat as the noble Baroness. If someone tried to put an electric shock collar on my cat, they themselves would get an awful shock. Can the Minister give any indication of when a conclusion may be reached in this evidence-gathering exercise? If Defra does decide to proceed with a ban, could we expect regulations similar to those we introduced in 2023?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, we are considering all the evidence around this. It is something that we want to consider how to bring forward. As the noble Lord and others have said, we supported the work that the previous Government did on this. I cannot give a date, but we are looking at the evidence now, and obviously we want to move forward.

Global Plastic Pollution Treaty

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we are keeping all options on the table. Our priority at the moment is to try to move forward with all the countries, because that is what will make the biggest difference globally, but we will consider all options.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

First, let us put on the record that under the last Government and this one, the UK negotiating team was regarded as one of the best in the world on this subject. Do the Government agree that recycling alone will not solve the problem of the planned massive plastic production we will see over the next 30 years, and will the Government rule out unilateral UK action on production, which would damage our own industry? However, recognising that the oil-producing countries will never agree to a unanimous UN treaty, will the Government now take the lead with the 70 countries in the high-ambition coalition—a group that, as the Minister said, we founded—and the 130 countries which want to cut plastic usage, to agree a new treaty on reduction, use and the most dangerous chemicals used, and thus avoid the obstruction of the oil-producing countries? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, stole my ending line: I was going to say, let us have a coalition of the willing, bypassing the cabal of the blockers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are looking at all options, but we want to have a treaty that is going to make the biggest difference. The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we have a fantastic negotiating team. We have made progress and we want to continue to make progress. It is very frustrating that production is becoming a blocker to agreeing a treaty, but if you take production out, you do not get the end result that is most beneficial. We want to continue working forward, but we will consider all options.

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

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Grand Committee

[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

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as a former Chief Whip, I am pleased to follow the convention of congratulating my noble friend Lord Hart on his maiden speech. He has demonstrated his long experience of the countryside and rural affairs, and the House will look forward to his future contributions.

The House may be relieved to know that I do not have an old MAFF t-shirt on dogs worrying sheep. However, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey on her persistence as a leading advocate of this Bill in the Commons and on now piloting it through this House. There is not much I need to say, since she has clearly set out its excellent provisions, and the Official Opposition are pleased to support it. I hope that we can get it on to the statute book as soon as possible.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I looked at the National Sheep Association’s 2023 survey, the eighth that it has conducted since 2013. There were 305 respondents, or 79% of NSA members. Some 70% of respondents had a sheep worrying incident, with 95% of them involving between one and 10 sheep. In almost 70% of cases, a single dog has injured or killed multiple sheep. Respondents still have severe concerns around education and irresponsible dog ownership, and only 14% were alerted by the offending dog owner, with the majority left to discover the evidence later.

It is right to make a separate offence of attacking animals, as opposed to worrying animals. I often think that the term “worrying” plays down the terrible damage that dogs can do to sheep, especially pregnant ewes, by chasing them round a field and causing their lambs, as well as the ewe herself, to die. A dog does not have to land a bite or make a physical attack on a sheep to kill it. There will be those letting their dogs run wild in a field who do not care what damage they do, but I suspect that many simply do not realise that their dog or dogs chasing sheep can result in the sheep’s deaths.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I will mention “One Man and his Dog”. I wonder sometimes whether ignorant townies have seen the sheepdogs herding sheep and thought that it was okay for their dogs to chase sheep around too. I say “ignorant townies” because of an occasion many years ago when I attended a young farmers’ open day held in the city of Carlisle, which my rural constituency surrounded. The idea was that the young farmers would take a bit of the countryside into the city and let townies see what they did. One demonstration was sheep shearing. I was standing beside a couple, when a child, aged about 12 or 13, said, “Mummy, mummy, look at that awful man cutting all the hair of that poor beast”. “Yes,” she replied, “It’s disgusting. Don’t look. Let’s go”. For a garrulous politician, I was absolutely speechless; I could not believe the complete disconnect between town and country and that level of ignorance. It may be similar ignorance among non-country people that means they do not see the dangers of letting their dogs run wild in a field of animals—or of lighting disgusting disposable BBQs that they then leave behind, if they have not already set the place on fire.

I note that the Bill now includes all camelids. I have seen herds of llamas and alpacas in east Cumbria and around Penrith, but perhaps over in west Cumbria the Minister has dromedary and Bactrian camels too. I think they would make short shrift of any dogs trying to attack them.

Although the Bill is excellent, I worry about enforcement; other noble Lords have commented on this. The police—even rural police forces—may not give it the effort it deserves, then the CPS may not bother prosecuting and the fines may end up being derisory.

Taking the police first, I worry that the culprits will be long gone before a constable turns up to seize the dog. The National Sheep Association survey showed that 84% of farmers found out about an attack and a dead sheep much later. Even if the police turn up when the attack or worrying is in progress, the decision may be that, without a full risk assessment and protective clothing, as well as other health and safety concerns, they cannot intervene. If there are recorded cases of the police not jumping into a pond to save a drowning child, they might never intervene to seize an attacking dog.

There are countless cases of the police failing to attend a burglary. In 2022-23, the average police response time for a burglary in England and Wales was nine hours and eight minutes. Some rural forces had some of the worst times: in Northamptonshire, it was 28 hours and two minutes; in Durham, it was 26 hours; in South Yorkshire, which is big sheep country, it was 12 hours and 47 minutes; while Cumbria was one of the fastest, at a little over an hour. Without labouring it further, my point is that if the police fail to turn up expeditiously for burglaries, there is little hope of them rushing out to sheep worrying attacks.

Yes, taking samples is an excellent innovation, but I did a Google search this week and found that the cost of a court-admissible DNA test is between £300 and £400. Let me be clear: I am not criticising the Bill—it is an excellent Bill—but I urge the Minister to write to all rural forces after the Bill becomes law to stress to them that they must enforce the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 on investigating, taking samples, seizing dogs and making the owners pay. I want her to stress that the police must take this seriously; possibly of even more importance, so must the courts.

The current law is a level 3 fine, which goes up to £1,000, which may be a fraction of the cost of the killed sheep. The Bill states simply that it shall be a fine, with no level attached. In theory, that could be an unlimited fine, with which most of us here—everyone in this House, I think—would agree, but who will determine the level? I am afraid that it may be the discredited Sentencing Council. Parliament has already had to intervene in the past few months to pass a law to stop the council undermining the laws we have passed with some of its laughable sentencing guidelines. The Justice Secretary announced this week that the Government will take a power to overrule its sentencing guidelines. Why stop there? Tony Blair created this anti-democratic organisation, so it should be abolished—but that is a separate debate.

I have been in Parliament for 42 years. Almost every single year, under every Government, we have voted through tougher sentences for a whole range of crimes but then, behind our backs, the Sentencing Council has made sentencing recommendations that give the maximum sentence only in very rare cases. So I welcome the fact that, in this Bill, we have the possibility of large fines. However, I am afraid that the courts may be advised to make derisory penalties, as urban-based judges and council members may have no real appreciation of the damage caused in the countryside. Again, I urge the Minister to get her officials to look at any guidance produced in future by the Sentencing Council and, if it seems to undermine what we in this Chamber today are expecting from this Bill, to notify the Justice Secretary and get it overruled.

I repeat: this is an excellent Bill. The contents are right, and I hope that it becomes law as soon as possible. As the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—said in her winding-up speech in our debate on the previous Bill, any new legislation is only as good as the enforcement of it. This Bill must be enforced by the police, the CPS and the courts. I want assurances from the Minister that she will—pardon the pun—doggedly hound those bodies to ensure that they do what we in Parliament have mandated.

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

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the importance placed on controlling rabies in the Bill, I need to tell the House about a campaign run by me and my noble friend Lord Deben when we were Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1990. I was tempted to wear our campaign T-shirt for the whole of this debate—it says, “Rabies: bringing it in is madness”—but I thought it may not be for the decorum of the House if I were to do so. I do not have any spare ones for sale. It proves the point that, if you hang on to something for 30 years, it may have relevance again one day.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on taking through this very important Bill. He has my full support and that of the Official Opposition. It is long overdue, and we all look forward to it being on the statute book. Animal smugglers are despicable people, since they are making money from animal cruelty and doing it over and again. Personally, I would add cropping of their ears to the penalties in the Bill, but I suspect that the Sentencing Council would not approve of that.

The figures showing that, in 2023, 500 cases of illegal cat and dog imports were intercepted at Dover are appalling. That is just one port out of many where port health spotted the activities. It is just the tip of a very large iceberg of animal cruelty as racketeers make money from this inhumane trade.

What does non-commercial mean? It is people like you and I, ordinary animal lovers, bringing in a cat or dog we have seen abroad and adopted. They want it as part of their household, not to sell on. That is usually a one-off—not a weekly occurrence, as we now see, with cars and vans stuffed full of animals, possibly with five people bringing in 25 cats and dogs at any one time.

Reducing the number to five per vehicle is right, and, as other noble Lords have said, I would personally have gone further and reduced it to three for vehicles and one for aircraft. Why would any individual or non-commercial owner want to bring in five cats or dogs at any one time?

That is bad enough for fit and healthy animals, but this vile trade is now bringing in heavily pregnant cats and dogs and very young puppies and kittens. Not content with that cruelty, they are also bringing in dogs with their ears cropped and cats with their claws ripped out. Therefore, I warmly support the restrictions on bringing in pregnant cats and dogs which are more than 42 days pregnant, and puppies and kittens which are younger than six months. That is wise and right.

People who care about pet cats and dogs want to accompany them in transit if at all possible and not to bung them in a hold. I therefore like the idea of animals being accompanied by the owner. If I had a free hand—it is probably fortunate that I do not—I would not have permitted the exemptions in the rest of proposed new Article 5A.

On mutilations, I am in complete support of the provisions. I can see some veterinary merit in shortening the tails of working dogs by qualified vets when the puppies are very young, since long bushy tails in Spaniels can get tangled in gorse and brambles when they are working. However, there is no veterinary nor medical justification for cropping of dogs’ ears. It is a disgusting fashion fad which needs to be outlawed everywhere. Therefore, bans on bringing in dogs with cropped ears are essential.

I sympathise with those caring animal welfare groups who rescue damaged and mutilated animals from Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, but the disease risks are great, and each animal needs to be thoroughly checked out. Also, bringing in rescue dogs with cropped ears gives the impression to the rest of the people in the UK that it is a perfectly okay practice, and it is not.

I press the Government to go further on ear cropping. We dare not amend the Bill, since it might not get through, but we need a ban on selling ear-cropping equipment in this country. I could not believe it when my honourable friend Dr Neil Hudson MP said in the other place that one could still buy that kit in this country even though cropping is illegal. So, two days ago, I did a Google search to buy dog ear-cropping kit. There are dozens of sets for sale in this country—legally. You can get “Ear Cropping Guide Clamp with Teeth Pitbull Dog Ear Cropping Tools” from AliExpress for just £29.99 and “Terrier Ear Cropping Trimming Clamps Set” on eBay for £130.25. They all have coloured photographs showing these things: there are two blades, six inches long, with serrated teeth and thumbscrews at the end; you stick the dog’s ears in between, you tighten the thumbscrews, and the serrated teeth cut the ears off. I make no apology for that sickening description, because people should be aware of what these things are and the suffering they cause for no good reason.

Then we come to ripping out the claws of cats. Why in the name of God would anyone do that? Removing the ability of a cat to use a scratching post is like trying to remove their purring ability. It is an important part of the cat’s personality. If people do not want a cat to scratch their sofa, then they should buy those excellent scratching posts with the sisal cords on them—or do not buy a cat in the first place if you do not like its natural behaviour.

Again, we do not have the time to propose an amendment to the definition of mutilation in Clause 1(9), but it does not go far enough in my personal opinion—indeed, it would probably be for another Bill—but, at some point, we have to tackle the other cruelty of breeders deliberately breeding dogs with genetic defects knowing full well that the progeny will suffer those defects as well. I raise this issue here; it is not relevant to the Bill, but I cannot see any other opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future.

The prime example is the Shar Pei dog, where some breeders let them have litters in the full knowledge that the puppies, when older, will have ingrowing eyelashes, which is called entropion. A study by the Royal Veterinary College in London showed that 18% of Shar Pei have ingrowing eyelashes. Can noble Lords imagine how painful that must be? The Shar Pei breed has very wrinkled skin, and 16% of them suffer ear infections because their skin covers their ears.

Unscrupulous breeders are also deliberately breeding dogs with hip dysplasia, especially retrievers, causing arthritis in the hip joints, pain and suffering. Cavalier King Charles spaniels and dachshunds are at risk of heart valve disease. Boxers and bulldogs suffer irregular heartbeats and sudden death. One of the new growing problems is brachycephalic syndrome—the fad for dogs with flattened faces, meaning the poor things cannot breathe. That mainly affects bulldogs, Boston terriers, pugs, Pekingese, Shih Tzus, and Cavalier King Charles spaniels.

Animal welfare must not suffer because fatuous and inconsequential actresses want a cute little designer dog to fit into their Gucci handbag. That goes for equally bubble-headed male actors as well. The point here is not that I am seeking to stop animals ever contracting assorted diseases that happen in nature but to stop breeders deliberately breeding animals that they know from the bloodstock will inevitably have those cruel and debilitating diseases.

As I said, those issues are not for this Bill, but I appeal to the Government to take action on them. Will the Minister ask her Chief Veterinary Officer for a report on genetic defects in dogs, and then perhaps call a meeting with her officials, the BVA and the Royal Veterinary College to see what can be done to stamp out the deliberate breeding of dogs that will suffer cruel defects in later life? It is apparently illegal at the moment to do it, but it is happening time and again. It is happening deliberately, and it ought to be stopped. If some breeders are breeding animals that they know will suffer horrendous and painful health problems, that is about as evil as declawing and ear cropping.

Finally, I turn back to the Bill and enforcement. Inevitably, because of the inadequacies of the Northern Ireland protocol—now the Windsor Framework—our friends in Northern Ireland will not get the benefit of the Bill. So, not only will the animal welfare of cats and dogs in Northern Ireland continue to suffer but there could be a big loophole, as other Peers have commented. What is to stop the smuggler crooks bringing the animals into Northern Ireland and then funnelling them into Great Britain? I understand that Northern Ireland may have the power to change the 2025 importing of cats and dogs rules as well. If they do, I hope it will be used in due course.

Can I have an assurance from the Minister that there will be increased surveillance at all ports of entry into the UK to enforce the five pets per vehicle requirement, and extra vigilance to ensure that excessive numbers of cats, dogs and ferrets imported into Northern Ireland are not then exported to Scotland, England and Wales if the EU rules do not change, as they might do?

This is an excellent little Bill. Despite its small size, it will make a huge difference in reducing the cruelty that cats, dogs and ferrets currently suffer through the despicable animal pet smuggling trade. I am grateful to have the opportunity to rant about tackling the cruelty of breeding animals with known genetic defects. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trees, can take through a Bill to tighten up on that in the next Session of Parliament.

If we had ample parliamentary time, I would have tabled a few amendments, but I repeat what others have said: if we seek to amend the Bill, it may not get through Parliament in time. Yes, we might be able to conclude it here, but they will not have the time in the other place to deal with Commons consideration of Lords amendments. With those words, the Bill is too important to fall or fail, and I commend it to the House.

Independent Water Commission

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team on this thoroughly detailed review of the water industry. There are many of his 88 recommendations we support, including the replacement of Ofwat.

In the other place and on the airwaves last weekend, the Secretary of State for Defra tried to demonise the last Government for lack of progress on water improvement. Will the noble Baroness the Minister acknowledge that £93 billion of the £104 billion the Government boast they have raised was raised by the last Government and that the target to cut 50% of sewage discharges is less than the target of cutting phosphates by 80% set by my noble friend Lady Coffey in the last Government? The Government are able to set meaningful targets now only because the last Conservative Government increased monitoring of storm overflows from 7% under Labour to 100% in 2023.

We welcome the new regulator. Does the Minister agree that it should be independent of the water industry but completely answerable to the Secretary of State and, through that, to Parliament, so we get proper parliamentary scrutiny for the first time?

I note there is a recommendation for metering for all and for a social tariff system. While metering and paying for usage is a legitimate aim which would benefit low water users, a social tariff system is just a euphemism or another term for a tax based on income or wealth. Does she accept that turning water charges into a tax to make some people pay more, such as retired pensioners, even if they use little water, is regressive and unacceptable?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for making time for the repeat of this Statement. I also thank my noble friend Lady Grender for having another critical engagement at this time, thus allowing me to speak on the subject which had become routine for me over the preceding years. The noble Baroness the Minister and I have made many contributions on this subject in the years running up to the general election, both of us vehement about the lack of control Ofwat was exercising.

Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report is lengthy, robust and to be welcomed. We look forward to knowing exactly how many of his recommendations the Government will take forward.

Since 2022, Liberal Democrats have called for the abolition of Ofwat. It is an organisation that is completely out of its depth. It had no real way of dealing with water companies, which seemed to have forgotten that their real remit was to provide a plentiful supply of clean water and dispose of sewage in an efficient and environmentally friendly way. Although some water companies were fined by Ofwat, their sanctions bore no relationship to the number of bonuses and dividends that the executives and shareholders received for doing an abysmal job.

Like others, I welcomed the Government’s ban on bonuses for water company executives who oversaw sewage discharges. However, at least one chief executive and his colleagues got round this by receiving a 100% increase in their pay by way of compensation for the absence of a bonus. It is ordinary water users and taxpayers who have to foot the bill for this, just as they have to contribute to the bill for the increases which will be needed to repair the creaking and dilapidated sewerage system and to build new reservoirs.

The Government have stated that they will cut water companies’ sewage pollution by half by the end of the decade. This is to be welcomed, but how exactly will this be achieved? Bringing the oversight of the water industry under a single regulator which has the means to ensure high standards is essential, but I have some concerns. Previously, we have seen a rotation of officers from the water companies into Ofwat and from Ofwat into the water companies—a merry-go-round of incompetence. Is the Minister able to give the House reassurance that no existing or previous officer of Ofwat or any of the failing water companies will have a role in the new regulator once established? It is essential that the incompetent are not rewarded with having a role in the new regulator. A fresh start has to be just that, and not tainted with previous failure.

We look forward to the interim strategy policy statement giving directions to Ofwat and the Environment Agency on how to move forwards towards the transition plan. The Environment Agency is not without involvement in the sewage discharge debacle. While the EA has been underfunded over recent years, and with ever more responsibilities thrust upon it, a radical rethink of the way it operates has to be part of the solution going forward.

Since Liberal Democrats have been raising the issue of sewage spills in this Chamber and the other place, the EA has found that last year alone, there was a 60% increase in serious pollution incidents. We are at the start of the school summer holidays. Children and their families will be going to beaches and rivers to enjoy relaxation and at least a paddle, as well as swimming to cool down in the heat—which we hope will return.

So many of these children will be in water that is polluted with raw sewage spills, discoloured and stinking. Certainly, I would not want my grandchildren to swim in such waters. Families should be able to take their children for a day out at the beach without having to worry about whether the water is contaminated. The sooner the Government can bring the water companies to book, the better. The lackadaisical approach to sewage discharges has to stop, and quickly.

Last year, water companies breached their permits more than 3,100 times, at the same time as paying out a total of £9.3 million in executive bonuses. No single stretch of river in England or Northern Ireland is in good overall health; no English river is in good chemical health; and just 14% of English rivers are in good ecological health. This is a far cry from my childhood, when the babbling brook ran with clear, transparent water and I could see the minnows swimming along, trying to escape my small fishing net. I am confident that the Minister is as concerned about these issues as the rest of us.

What is needed is: more access for communities and citizens to hold water companies to account, including representation on water company boards; improvements in how pollution is measured and strict targets set, using volume flow meters and penalties for missing targets; an urgent implementation of a social tariff on water bills to help eliminate water poverty; and legally binding targets on the quantity and quality of bathing waters and sensitive nature sites, with independent and transparent testing of water quality. Local authorities, although already overstretched, should have strengthened powers to monitor the health of our rivers, lakes and coastlines in order to restore our natural environment and help tackle climate change.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on this vital issue, which affects every single water user in the country.

Forest Risk Commodities

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I reassure my noble friend that I regularly talk to my counterparts in the Scottish Government, as I do with the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government. Working closely with the devolved Governments is very important, and we can learn from each other.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the last Government announced on 12 December 2023 that they planned to introduce these regulations. I appreciate that the general election has intervened, but Labour has been in power for over a year now. Can I press the Minister on clarification on what the Government intend to do and when we may see the regulations? Will the Government keep the exemption proposed by the last Government for small companies with a turnover of under £50 million or using under 500 tonnes? Given the challenges in tracking supply chains, can the Minister outline what practical measures will be in place at UK borders to verify compliance and whether this will require additional resources for customs and enforcement agencies?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked me quite a few specific questions as to exactly what the legislation is going to look like when the Government bring it forward. I am afraid I am not in a position to give the detail of what that legislation would look like at the moment, but I can only reiterate that we want to see it coming forward as soon as practically possible. We are looking at a number of different options of how we can do that, because it is important that, when we bring this forward, it is going to work for smallholders, for example, and small businesses, and that it will be effective and genuinely tackle the issue.

Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion and therefore beg to move formally.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I hope my words did not provoke last night. I was reminiscing with Northern Ireland Members about those days in the 1980s and 1990s in the Commons when we used to speak all night on Northern Ireland business and then my late colleague Eric Forth and I pulled the stunt of having a renegade vote. I have a certain admiration for the stunt that colleagues pulled last night, but I see that there is a full Labour House tonight. If you want to know the Official Opposition line, you will find it in yesterday’s Hansard, column 577.

Motion agreed.