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.

Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, as well as for her continued tireless work in trying to find pragmatic solutions to these highly complex issues. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on his excellent assessment of why we are where we are. The rush to get a deal at any cost means we are now living through this; he and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, were right in their assessment of that.

On a recent visit to Brussels with the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, it was clear that our European partners are welcoming this more pragmatic approach to finding solutions, and the relief of the change of tone coming from this Government was palpable. Given the hour and the heat of the day, and the rather overexcessive air-conditioning in this Chamber, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks extremely brief.

I am sure that the noble Lords opposite will not be surprised that from these Benches we support at least the intent behind these regulations, which give the Government power to protect the UK internal market and should assist in ensuring consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It is important, as others have said, that there are not disincentives for GB businesses wanting to sell their goods to Northern Ireland, and that red tape and bureaucracy are kept to a minimum. It is therefore welcome that there is an exemption for smaller businesses.

In his concluding remarks on the debate on these regulations in the House of Commons, Minister Daniel Zeichner MP said that the Secretary of State will conduct the first review after two years, rather than the usual five, and it is contained in these regulations. The Minister in the House of Commons stated that this will

“allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23/6/25; col. 10.]

This suggests that the Government are confident of having the SPS agreement in place well before that two-year review. Can the Minister in her concluding remarks confirm that this is the case, and can she give a rough estimate of the timing for the SPS agreement?

The Minister in the House of Commons also suggested that these regulations that we are debating this evening will be much less necessary once the SPS agreement is in place. Can the Minister say a little more about how, in practical terms, these regulations will fit in with the proposed SPS agreement?

Finally, following the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, can the Minister confirm that, in many ways, these regulations are a stopgap until the various agreements announced at the summit on 19 May are concluded?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, being here tonight reminded me of some of those wonderful days in the House of Commons in the 1980s and 1990s, when we used to do Northern Ireland business on Wednesday, and it would go on until 10 pm, 11pm, one, two or three in the morning, before Tony Blair changed the hours and we could no longer do it—I was reminiscing about that tonight.

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, a statutory instrument that addresses a complex issue which is the result of the Windsor Framework. The regulations aim to safeguard the continuity of retail goods into Northern Ireland, enabling the Secretary the State to mandate “not for EU” labelling on certain goods sold in Great Britain, but only in response to clear evidence that the supply to Northern Ireland would otherwise be seriously disrupted. Noble Lords have challenged that.

Once again, I find myself having considerable sympathy with many of the points made by my noble friends from Northern Ireland, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a key point that we are now dealing with minutiae and some of the absurdity of these regulations which, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, are a kind of sticking plaster, but the real problem goes back to what was negotiated six or seven years ago, when the then Government caved in to the demands of Varadkar, and we ended up with the Northern Ireland protocol—now the Windsor Framework. The noble Lord described it as one of the worst agreements ever negotiated by any Government. He and his noble friends can say that; I, of course, could not possibly comment.

Given the comparatively small size of Northern Ireland’s retail market, we acknowledge the risk that businesses may consider delisting products rather than incurring added costs of compliance. In this context, the contingency power created by this instrument appears to be a proportionate tool, aimed at protecting supply chains and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It would be utterly unacceptable that goods only for Northern Ireland were labelled, because they would then be delisted. It is slightly less absurd that we try to label them for the whole UK, or certainly for England, but I hope other countries as well. If they are labelled for everybody, there is less chance that we will delist them for Northern Ireland. That is one of the hoops we must go through now we are stuck with the Northern Ireland protocol, or the Windsor Framework.

We do not oppose these regulations, but I seek clarity from the Minister on a number of points, which are essential for ensuring that this policy is both proportionate and effective in practice. As an aside, was there not someone who had a big shed on the border, half in Northern Ireland and half in the Republic of Ireland, and the cattle used to move to and fro between them? Listening to noble Lords from Northern Ireland, I am surprised that someone has not opened a huge supermarket a few yards inside Northern Ireland and encouraged everyone to come up there for their shopping. That is not an official policy, but it seemed to me that it is bound to happen if goods in supermarkets in Northern Ireland are so much cheaper.

First, on the thresholds of evidence, can the Minister outline what specific types of evidence will be required to trigger a notice? Secondly, with regard to the impact on business, while we welcome the exemption for small businesses, what practical support—whether it is financial or advisory—will be offered to those just above the threshold to mitigate undue burdens, particularly for SMEs? It is all very well being exempt at 50, but if you have 51 or 60 employees, then you are caught by it and the burden could be astronomical.

Secondly, they have been quoted already, but I read the concerns raised by industry and they should be carefully considered. The chief executive of Marks & Spencer, Stuart Machin, described the current requirements of “not for EU” labelling as “bureaucratic madness”. He highlighted the potential for added costs, confusion for consumers and disruption to supply chains. He also said that more than 1,000 M&S products will now require labelling for Northern Ireland and a further 400 will be subject to red lane checks. Such feedback underlines the importance of ensuring that any new burdens placed on retailers—especially those operating across the UK’s internal market—are genuinely proportionate and that government support is made available where needed. I would be grateful if the Minister can tell me why Mr Machin has got it wrong.

Thirdly, on enforcement and consistency, given that enforcement will fall to local authorities across England, Wales and Scotland, what steps will be taken to ensure consistent interpretation and application of the rules across the devolved nations?

Fourthly, on public understanding, do the Government have plans for a co-ordinated public communications strategy to ensure that consumers both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland understand what the “not for EU” label signifies—that it does not reflect on the quality or safety of the goods in question—because that could be misconstrued?

Fifthly and finally, on future adaptability, as UK-EU trade dynamics continue to evolve, how will these regulations be reviewed—and, if necessary, revised—to reflect changes in market conditions or the operation of the Windsor Framework? Can the Minister confirm how soon Parliament will be updated following such a review?

As all noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness have pointed out, while these regulations are technical in nature, they are far from trivial in effect. I understand the points made by noble Lords opposite, that, in their opinion, they affect the fundamental sovereignty of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The issues they seek to address go to the heart of supply chain integrity, consumer protection and the delicate balance of the UK’s internal market.

We welcome continued dialogue on the implementation of these powers and look forward to the Minister’s reassurances on the points raised.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think my feet have gone to sleep—it is very cold on the Front Bench.

I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to this evening’s debate with such passion and energy. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for considering my welfare so carefully.

Obviously, much of what has been said today goes wider than the scope of the debate’s title, as other wider concerns have been raised. I want to draw noble Lords’ attention back to the need for this legislation to protect the supply of retail goods to Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, the legislation delivers on a key commitment of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. As colleagues know, this is what provided the basis for the return of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will do my best to address the points raised by noble Lords. It is late; if I miss anything out, I will go to Hansard and respond further in writing.

The delisting of goods and the impact on business was a very strong theme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, rightly expressed her concerns about the potential delisting of products into Northern Ireland and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, talked about the impacts on business. Of course, I am aware of the comments that came recently from Marks & Spencer. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are engaging comprehensively with businesses right across the United Kingdom to understand their state of readiness for 1 July. I also take this opportunity to say that we very much recognise the efforts and commitment of businesses that serve Northern Ireland.

It is also our strong expectation that the long lead-in time to prepare for the phasing in through the announcement of these changes last October—although the legislation has not been with us until today—and the ongoing support being provided by government to adapt will deter businesses from removing goods from sale in Northern Ireland. However, in the event this appears likely, the Government will not hesitate to act by introducing labelling in Great Britain to prevent this.

The noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked whether the SI applied only to GB goods. To confirm, all products of that type need to be labelled to be placed on the market in GB, no matter their origin, whether they are made in GB or imported from elsewhere. This is to help ensure that Northern Ireland has the same range as the rest of the UK.

I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that this is a power of last resort. My officials continue to work closely with businesses across the United Kingdom to encourage them to move their goods to Northern Ireland. Obviously, if the evidence proves that we need to take action, we will not hesitate to intervene.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned Article 16. We are concerned that triggering Article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade, both now and in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked about the impact of the policy on economic growth and inflation. The policy, as intended, is expected to have a negligible impact on economic growth and inflation. It has been specifically designed to minimise any negative impacts, such as price ranges or changes in availability, through the targeting of the legislation to balance achieving the policy objective with minimising economic impacts.

Wild Camping

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, it is a real problem. The noble Lord mentioned Covid, and the amount of rubbish left behind by illegal campers then was shocking. People abandoned their tents and all their rubbish. Who does the clean up? It is the National Trust, the national parks and the general public. He is absolutely right that this is not acceptable. However, at the same time, we have to recognise that some people camp very responsibly, in the right places and in the right way—and Dartmouth is an excellent example of that. As we develop our access strategy and promote the Countryside Code, which is also important, we will take all this into account.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have strong views on wild camping; like the Minister, I am content with it as long as it does not damage the environment, the landscape, private property or farmers’ fields, and every national park has the right to decide about it locally. However, I have very strong views on people lighting fires in the countryside, whether they are camping, picnicking or just visiting. Fires in national nature reserves and moorland do enormous damage, such as destroying one-third of the magnificent Thursley Common nature reserve in 2020. They do not happen spontaneously because of global warming; in every case, people have caused the fires by discarding cigarettes or disposable barbecues. Accessing the countryside is one thing but no one has a God-given right to set fire to it with barbecues. Will the Minister give full support to all national parks, national nature reserves and Natural England by encouraging organisations and landowners to ban the use of disposable barbecues in the countryside?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I mentioned walking my dog at Ennerdale Water, where there are signs saying, “No fires”. Yet, I regularly walk along the lake and see clear evidence of people lighting fires and even chopping down saplings to try to light those fires. We need better understanding around responsibility in the countryside.

Local authorities currently have powers to ban the use of sky lanterns or disposable barbecues if they so wish. Existing powers in legislation can be used to regulate the lighting of fires in national parks and protected national landscapes. We also have the “respect, protect and enjoy” code around wild camping, which would include fires. With the dry summers we are seeing, it is becoming much more of an issue. The irresponsible use of disposable barbecues is particularly worrying; we know that we have had fires in the countryside because of them.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, while we support the potential of precision breeding, we have some questions for the Minister. In particular, given the overwhelming public desire for labelling and the implications of that for the organic sector, why have the Government definitely ruled out any kind of mandatory labelling for precision-bred foods and feed products? As I said earlier, while I recognise that it is a small percentage of farms, can the Minister tell us what specific measures are being taken to ensure that the integrity of the organic supply chain is protected and organic farmers are not burdened by the lack of traceability? This House needs clarity on these points before we can be truly confident, especially in the public acceptance of these regulations. We agree with many noble Lords on the broad support for this statutory instrument, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument enacts policy from the ground-breaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, brought in by the previous Conservative Government in 2023. It is a fantastic innovation, which we should welcome. This legislation permits us to use safe science to speed up what nature has been doing for millennia and plant breeders for 100 years or so. Britain has used its Brexit freedoms to bring in the well-tried and tested procedure of gene editing, and we now see the EU considering following behind it.

I also commend my old friends from the FSA for their simplified regulatory regime for marketing precision-bred plants and a proportionate regulatory regime for precision-bred animals to ensure that animal welfare is safeguarded. I am proud to say that I was on the board of the FSA when we agreed the regulatory regime, and we took into account every representation made, including consumer concerns.

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and a few others in the other place attempted to muddy the waters when the Bill went through by claiming that gene editing is the same as genetic modification, but that argument was overwhelmingly rejected as bogus by all major parties in the Commons and Lords, and by Cross-Benchers. Parliament, especially this House, debated this in detail and rejected the ideas produced by the noble Baroness tonight. I therefore deplore the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness —she is entitled to table it—in particular the completely misleading words

“genetically modified precision bred organisms”.

I do not want the Whip on duty to report this to the Chief Whip, but I am tempted to say that I agree entirely with every word of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it is my policy as well, and sit down and say no more. But I had better stick to my script.

Gene editing simply makes changes that could occur through traditional breeding methods in plants or animals. It takes about eight years to produce a new variety of strawberry, 10 to 15 years for a new variety of potato, and about 25 years for a new variety of apple. Essentially, gene editing produces a natural but faster process. In precision breeding, there is no foreign DNA. All the genes being edited belong to the species.

I say to the noble Baroness that if Rothamsted has found a wheat with a GMO in it, that is its problem. It will not be approved by Defra or the ACNFP, so there is no threat to consumers. As Professor Cristóbal Uauy of the excellent John Innes Centre, has said, all crop breeding relies on the creation and selection of genetic changes to produce beneficial traits. Precision breeding is a way of creating the same genetic changes that could have been made through traditional breeding methods, but much faster and more precisely. All new varieties are subject to strict standards, and this will be the same for precision breeding. The new regulatory framework maintains protection for public health and the environment, allowing scientific advances that support sustainable agriculture to be brought safely to market with consumer confidence, offering enormous benefit to farmers, the public and the environment.

I reiterate that we warmly welcome the Government’s decision to follow Conservative policy and lay these regulations. We should acknowledge that genetic editing enables precise improvements to crops, making them more resistant to pests and diseases, reducing the need for harmful pesticides and increasing tolerance to extreme weather conditions such as drought and floods. These advances help ensure a stable food supply, despite environmental challenges. This increased resilience, as other noble Lords have said, is vital for enhancing food security not only here in the UK but in other countries where farming communities are especially vulnerable to challenging climates. With stronger, healthier crops, farmers can produce more consistent harvests with fewer resources, lowering their reliance on pesticides and fertilisers, which are often expensive and environmentally damaging.

As a result, gene editing supports more sustainable and efficient agriculture. By investing in this technology, we can help ensure that future generations have access to nutritious food. Genetic editing, particularly using tools such as CRISPR, involves making precise, targeted changes to an organism’s existing DNA without adding foreign DNA. It is often used to fix genetic defects and enhance natural traits.

I understand that some of the things being worked on are banana trees resistant to Panama disease and, as the Minister said, bananas which do not go brown in hours. Personally, I would love to find in a supermarket bananas which are yellow instead of the horrible bright green things we get these days, which are unripe and inedible—but that is an aside. People are working on strawberries and tomatoes which will be mildew resistant, wheat which will be able to grow in hotter, drier climates, and broccoli with enhanced glucosinolates —whatever they are—that help prevent heart disease, apparently.

Work is going on to eliminate magnaporthe grisea—rice blast disease—which destroys enough rice crops to feed 60 million people per annum. Gene editing will give us tomatoes with enhanced vitamin D. One day, I hope, we will get tomatoes which are properly ripe and sweet in the supermarket; they are picked when they are bright green and unripe, stored at 12 degrees and then zapped with ethylene, which turns them red. That is another benefit we may get in future.

Precision breeding is not an alternative to conventional breeding. We can get all the benefits I have just described with conventional breeding if we are prepared to spend 20 to 30 years tinkering about with cross-breeding techniques and rejecting 95% of the failures. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, these products will not be on our shelves next year or the year after, since they will have to go through the strict testing regime and the final Food Standards Agency regulatory regime. There are 55 clauses and five schedules—yes, the regulations are complex, but we have to demonstrate to consumers that we have built in all the necessary safety features, which I believe the Government have.

I understand that potential UK developers are taking it carefully and slowly, and that must be the right approach to reassure the public. I am also told that these developers are small start-up companies, not the huge agrochemical companies of the world—the Cargills or whatever. The FSA and its expert scientific committees always adopt a strict precautionary approach. If they are satisfied with the inherent safety of any gene-edited product approved and placed on the new register, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is very safe indeed.

Talking of dollars, I want an assurance from the Minister that if we do a trade deal with the USA and it involves food, we will not permit any product that is produced to lower welfare standards than ours or treated with drugs or chemicals that we have banned. That also means that we should not permit any US gene-edited products to enter our shops without their going through the whole safety and environmental testing regime we have invented in this Act and these regulations. No matter how safe the Americans may think they are, we have to reassure our consumers that we are checking them out too.

Since gene-edited species have genes that are no different from species that have been created slowly, labelling is also nonsensical, as nearly every other noble Lord has pointed out. When I cannot get English apples I buy those delicious Gala apples, which were invented by a Mr Kidd in New Zealand 90 years ago. Since then, Gala apples have been cross-bred and tweaked conventionally up to 36 times. If we label any new gene-edited version, logically we would have to label the other 36 variations as well. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: Parliament rejected calls for labelling, and our expert scientists pointed out that it is impossible to label something as different if it is actually just the same as the other varieties of the same species. That was beautifully and bluntly put by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his usual style. We all laughed.

Let us be honest: those who call for labelling simply want to discredit gene editing by trying to show that the product is somehow different; they claim that it is actually genetic modification by the back door and somehow dangerous. Labelling, rightly, will not happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was also right: if you ask consumers 100 questions on different things that they would like labelled, there will always be some who say, “Yes, we’d like that label”, and we would have to put 200 different things on the label. We all have our own personal fetishes about what we would like to see on food labels. If any Government tried to apply all of them, the label would be about 3 feet long.

I have more bad news, I am afraid, for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. A survey conducted by the FSA showed that 65% of the population would eat a precision-bred product if it had health benefits, 64% would eat it if it was better for the environment, 64% if it was safer for people with allergies, 62% if it tasted better, 61% if it was cheaper and 60% if it was more resilient to changing climates. Consumers are onside, provided that we follow the safety regime in these regulations.

Ultimately, as was so neatly explained by Professor Stephen Penfield of the John Innes Centre:

“The resilience of the UK’s food supply depends on our farmers and growers being able to sustainably and reliably grow their crops”.


This legislation unlocks agricultural innovation, accelerating the development of new crop varieties with higher yields and enhanced pest and disease resistance, enabling farmers to reduce the environmental impact of their agricultural practices.