Deforestation

Lord Trees Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK welcomes the strong focus on forests from the Brazilian presidency at COP 30, and we will continue to shape our approach for putting forests at the heart of the climate agenda at COP 30 in Brazil. We are working at pace to move forward in this area.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, it is not just forest commodities per se that are driving deforestation in, for example, Brazil and Australia; it involves the production of other agricultural commodities such as beef. Beef imports to the UK are rising while our indigenous production is falling, yet we produce 1 kilogram of beef for a fraction of the global average greenhouse emissions, without deforestation. What are we doing to support our British beef farmers? In particular, what are we doing to ensure that imported beef is not being produced from deforested land?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have a new Farming Minister in the other place who is very keen to support farmers. We want to ensure that farmers become profitable, and that includes beef farmers. It is important that we support our food security in this country, and that we work with farmers to help them do so. We also do not want imports that are below our own standards and that have a negative impact on the environment. It is important that we find the balance between providing sufficient choice in the food on people’s plates and supporting local food production and our own farmers.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for bringing the Bill to the House.

I am sure all of us have enjoyed the TV programme “One Man and His Dog” or marvelled at the skill of sheepdogs and shepherds working with very mobile and awkward animals such as sheep, but, historically and in evolutionary terms, the main predators for hooved animals, whether they be ovine, bovine or cervine, have been and are canids, notably wolves, from which of course our domestic dog is derived, so dogs and livestock are uneasy bedfellows—or should I say “field fellows”? In fact, most human fatalities from cattle are a result of dogs alarming the cattle, which all too sadly highlights the potential dangers.

Livestock worrying and attacking is a terrible problem, particularly in sheep. Dogs not under proper control cause panic, miscarriages of pregnant animals, often horrific injuries and death. Sometimes, sadly, farmers have to shoot their own sheep, in humane acts to relieve their suffering, or shoot the responsible dogs, which is equally distressing.

The majority of these incidents involve unaccompanied dogs—I will come back to that in a minute. The National Police Chiefs’ Council recorded 1,700 incidents between 2013 and 2017, with over 900 livestock killed and over 600 injured, as well as 92 incidents when dogs were shot. Those incidents have been rising: a 2025 survey by the National Sheep Association showed that 87% of its respondent farmers reported at least one sheep worrying incident in the last 12 months. The worst such incident resulted in the death of 44 sheep. From an earlier NSA survey in 2021, we know that the financial losses from a single incident of sheep worrying and attacks can be as high as £50,000. The average cost to each survey respondent was estimated at more than £1,500 per farm per year. Finally, NFU Mutual calculates that the total cost of dog attacks on farm animals in 2024 was more than £1.8 million. In summary, these events can cause great suffering to animals and great distress to farmers, dog owners and landowners, as well as substantial financial loss.

I strongly support the measures in this Bill. Perhaps the most significant that I want to pick out are the measures in Clauses 2 and 3, which give police the power to seize and detain suspect dogs and take samples, including DNA for analysis. Given that the majority of incidents involve unaccompanied dogs, these measures, and the powers of identification inherent in DNA analysis, should substantially increase the ability of the police to identify the responsible dogs and their owners, link them to a particular incident and bring appropriate charges. It is often the case that repeat offenders cause these incidents, so these sorts of powers should help enormously to prevent such repeat offences.

I am very supportive of the measures in the Bill, without reservation—but while I welcome the Bill, legislation is but one way in which to approach this problem. Essentially this is a problem of irresponsible dog ownership or a lack of awareness and knowledge on the part of some dog owners. A great deal can be and is being done by way of information and education to the public and dog owners to reduce the incidence of the problem. The NFU, in collaboration with the Kennel Club, provides free signage for farmers and other landowners to warn the public of specific risks or dangers to livestock, their dog or themselves—and the risks of abortion pathogens such as Neospora.

Let us hope that more information and public education, together with the strengthened legislation provided in this Bill, will significantly reduce this shocking problem.

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

Lord Trees Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Trees]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will know of my enduring commitment to animal welfare. As a veterinary surgeon and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, I have tried to be a vocal advocate on a range of animal health and welfare issues.

I am honoured to present the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill to the House today. I thank all those involved with its successful passage in the Commons, notably the Member for Winchester, Dr Danny Chambers. It is a real pleasure to acknowledge Danny’s contribution, because I was privileged to be one of his academic teachers at the University of Liverpool’s veterinary school when he was a student and I the dean; I got to know him very well at that time. I was heartened to see how well the Bill was received in the Commons, and I am confident that it will achieve broad support in the House of Lords and that, together, we can tackle the illegal pet trade that causes such substantial welfare harm to our most popular pets.

It might be useful to outline briefly some of the history that has led us to the current situation. The Bill covers dogs, cats, and ferrets for two reasons. First and specifically, because they are all highly susceptible to rabies, a terrible and universally lethal viral disease, affecting both animals and humans. Because of their close contact with humans, those species are the most likely source of rabies infections in humans. Secondly, because of more recent criminal misuse of the existing travel rules, the welfare of our most popular pets is being seriously compromised. Before 2000, the UK kept our animals and us free of rabies by requiring all imported dogs, cats and ferrets to undergo six months of quarantine. However, with the advent of effective vaccines for dogs, cats and ferrets, and increasing human travel, substantial public pressure grew to replace quarantine with compulsory rabies vaccinations, thereby allowing people in the United Kingdom to take their pets abroad, often to Europe, and back without quarantine. Since then, however, there has been a huge increase in pet movements, and data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency shows that the number of non-commercial pet movements in 2011 of 100,000 rose to over 368,000 in 2024. That was compared with figures from a 1995 Hansard, which suggest that approximately only 8,000 dogs, cats or ferrets were imported per year before quarantine was abolished.

This huge increase gives rise to concerns that the less stringent pet travel requirements intended for genuine pet owners are being abused by commercial traders, who are moving pets for sale or rehoming, and taking advantage of the increased demand for pets, particularly dogs. Published sources have estimated that we need approximately 950,000 puppies per year in the UK to maintain our current dog population, but there is insufficient UK supply to provide those numbers. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, some of this demand is therefore being met through the illegal imports of young dogs. In 2021, for example, an investigation by FOUR PAWS International found that about 50% of puppy adverts surveyed on the UK’s Gumtree website were found to be of illegal imported origin.

Every responsible pet owner wants to give their new puppy or kitten the best start in life. However, it has become apparent that unscrupulous pet traders are exploiting loopholes in our pet travel rules. Often, these illegally imported animals have been raised in poor conditions abroad, transported for many hours in bad conditions and have arrived in their destinations not in the best of health and perhaps not vaccinated against various puppy diseases. These animals may thus have health and behavioural problems, and may not have socialised properly with humans, which can create serious problems both for the pet and, subsequently, for the owner. This Bill will close these loopholes by making it more difficult and less profitable for these traders to import animals under the guise of owners travelling with their own pets.

Including kittens alongside puppies in the Bill mirrors other key pieces of animal welfare legislation to ensure that there is parity for cats and kittens alongside dogs and puppies. The Bill’s changes to non-commercial pet travel rules also extend to ferrets. As I mentioned earlier, this species is susceptible to rabies, and, as a country, we take our biosecurity very seriously; it is paramount that we continue to protect our rabies-free status as well as improve the welfare of our pets.

On the non-commercial pet travel rules, the Bill will supplement the current rules and close loopholes. It will reduce the number of pets that can be brought into the country in a single commercial movement under these rules, from five per person to five per vehicle, and three per foot or air passenger. Currently, deceitful traders can claim ownership of up to five pets each. Therefore, if you pack a van with five people, you can perfectly legally bring 25 animals into the country under the current conditions. Reducing the number of pets permitted in a non-commercial movement will make it harder and less profitable for disguised trades to take place.

The Bill will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet can take place only within five days of the movement of its owner. The new rules will ensure that pets can be moved only by an authorised person if the owner also completes the same journey within five days of their pet. This addresses a loophole that has been used by traders claiming to be authorised persons as a way of bringing animals into the country commercially for sale. By introducing a tighter link between the owner’s and the pet’s travel, the Bill seeks to ensure that authorised persons are used only by genuine owners for genuine, non-commercial pet movements and not for disguised trade.

The Bill also provides the Government with the discretion to determine that a movement should still be treated as non-commercial, even where it does not comply with the new requirements. This will, in effect, enable the Government to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that groups with protected characteristics—for example, assistance dog users—are not adversely impacted, provided there is sufficient justification for the exemption. The ability to grant exemptions will also allow flexibility in emergency situations, such as when genuine owners are unexpectedly unable to travel within five days of their pet due to medical emergencies, natural disasters or other unforeseen circumstances. The Government have been clear that these exceptions will be granted only in very limited circumstances; they will be tightly controlled and subject to strict criteria to prevent misuse. I am sure the Minister will touch on this later in her response.

In addition, the Bill will introduce a regulation-making power to restrict the low-welfare movement of animals into the UK. The first time the Government use this power, they must do so to restrict the bringing into Great Britain of puppies and kittens below six months old, heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and dogs and cats that have been subjected to non-exempt mutilations, such as cropped ears.

On the minimum age of import of six months, we currently see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or younger, despite current rules prohibiting that This can have health and welfare implications for the animals and, indeed, it transgresses current rabies vaccination requirements. Puppies and kittens can be aged more accurately at six months old, enabling this limit to be successfully enforced.

On pregnancy, if this restriction were not introduced, traders might respond to the restrictions by importing more pregnant pets instead. Therefore, the new regulations to be brought forward by the Bill will prevent dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant—that is two-thirds of the normal gestation—being brought into the Great Britain. At that stage, pregnancy is much more easily judged—for example, by abdominal swelling and mammary gland development.

Finally, the Bill will introduce a power to restrict the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations such as cropped ears and docked tails, and declawed cats. These mutilations are illegal here in the UK, unless they are performed under specific exemptions. If we were to allow animals that have suffered mutilations to be brought into Great Britain, that would undermine the enforcement of the prohibition in the UK.

The main enabling power provides flexibility to introduce exemptions to these prohibitions via secondary legislation. That is a very important point to note; however, such exemptions must be carefully considered to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited.

The Bill introduces a limited power to create criminal offences. These may be created for breaching any of the three prohibitions I have just set out, for breaching any other restrictions or prohibitions that may be created under the main enabling power, for breaching any conditions attached to exemptions to such prohibitions, or for breaching the requirement to carry out checks on animals being brought into the UK.

To aid authorities in enforcement, criminal offences that may be created may also include obstruction offences. The Bill will strengthen the current enforcement regime by introducing powers to make regulations in regard to dogs, cats and ferrets that have been seized or detained. These regulations will enable enforcement bodies to recoup costs associated with care and accommodation, and to rehome animals in cases where they have been abandoned. That is extremely important, because it is very costly to hold on to animals that have been seized. The Bill also provides powers to make regulations which enable monetary penalties to be imposed, in order to strengthen compliance and deter unlawful activity.

The changes the Bill makes to the non-commercial pet travel scheme—including amending the limits on the number of animals permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement, and introducing an express requirement for travel to align closely with the owner’s movements—will apply in England, Wales and Scotland. The Bill grants regulation-making powers that extend across all four nations of the UK: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, the duty to enact the prohibitions the first time the enabling power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. I stress that movements within the UK are unaffected by the Bill.

The Bill is a significant step forward in preventing this cruel trade and will significantly improve animal welfare. It is supported by multiple relevant organisations, including the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS International, Battersea, our Animal Sentience Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, and many others. Two similar Bills in the past few years have not successfully completed their passage through Parliament, for various procedural reasons. In a further consideration of this Bill, let us make this third time lucky. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this fairly short but extremely entertaining and good debate about this Bill. There have been some excellent contributions. The passion and enthusiasm for improving animal welfare is a wonderful thing and a great credit to the House.

In my introduction, I acknowledged the contribution of Danny Chambers, which has been amplified, quite rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I also thank another Member in the other place: Dr Neil Hudson, a veterinary surgeon as well as MP for Epping Forest. He has his hands rather full at the minute, but he has been a constant and great supporter of this Bill and animal welfare in general. I also thank the Bill team, led by Hayley Atkin, who is sitting in the Box, and my own veterinary researcher Fiona Shuttleworth, for all their hard work in preparing the work to help the passage of the Bill through this House. I of course also acknowledge the terrific support of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

I emphasise three take-home messages, although there were a lot more, which will no doubt come up in subsequent discussions. We must try to get this Bill through. We do not want to delay it; if it has to go back to the Commons, it will surely die. There will be ample opportunity to discuss many of the issues in the development and tabling of secondary legislation. That is the second big message: please, can we get to the secondary legislation as soon as possible? Thirdly, when—I hope—the Bill is passed, enforcement will be critical. In fact, the Minister has emphasised that, and I know that she is very well aware of the urgency of moving to secondary legislation as soon as we can to get that in place.

This not the end but I hope that, as someone once said, it is the beginning of the end of this particular Bill. If anybody wants to discuss issues informally in the future, I hope they will please contact me. My door is always open; I am very happy to discuss the issues as we move towards secondary legislation. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Forest Risk Commodities

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I absolutely agree that we need to take action on this. The Government are looking at the best way to do so in order to be most effective. The EU reset is also part of that because the EU’s deforestation programme that it is working on is ambitious and we need to look at how we align with that. Also, the DBT is undertaking the responsible business conduct review, looking at the effectiveness of the UK’s regime in preventing human rights, labour rights and environmental harms, and deforestation is part of that, so other action is taking place as we move forward in this area.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, analysis by Global Witness shows that the UK’s imports of cattle products are associated with the highest levels of deforestation, yet it is predicted for 2025 that beef imports to the UK will rise by 12%, while our own beef production will fall by 5%. Given that, in terms of methane production, we produce a kilogram of beef at something like a quarter of the global average—a figure which does not take account of the negative effects of deforestation, which largely apply to imported beef and not home-produced beef—does the Minister agree that we should be supporting and expanding our beef production and relying less on imports?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We look at how we can improve our food production and food sustainability in this country. It is important that we support our own food producers in doing that and that we protect them against substandard products coming in from abroad.

Farmers: Competitiveness

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I take issue with the idea that our home-grown food security is declining. The data we have does not support that. Regarding the senior Defra team, including Ministers, not having any farming experience, although I spend far too much time in London these days and not enough time in Cumbria, I am actually a registered farmer on our smallholding, so that is not quite true.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that competitiveness should include not just price but environmental costs? Given that our farmers can produce meat and dairy products from our sheep and cattle with substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions than the global and even European averages, should we not be buying British, trying to minimise imports and exporting as much as we can to protect our farming industry and benefit the planet?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some important points. Interestingly, since Brexit our exports have gone down by 21%. We are very hopeful that the new agreement we are working on with the EU at the moment will enable our farmers to export more, help our agri-food trade be cheaper and easier, and help us align more with the EU. On costs, environmental costs clearly have to be taken into account as well. It can also save farmers money if they buy into the different innovative options available at the moment. For example, grants are available to reduce pesticide use. There are lots of opportunities through the different environmental schemes for farmers to become more productive and more competitive.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support these regulations; I do not regret them. The UK is a leader in these technologies, and exploiting and implementing them will be an integral part of developing our biosciences expertise to help drive economic growth in the UK. But much more than that, critically, they will help us feed not only ourselves in the UK but the world, in the face of a growing population, constantly emerging disease threats and environmental challenges.

I would just like to point out the rather obvious: the fruit, vegetables and crops we grow and consume now are very different from their natural progenitors and have been subject to genetic changes by humans over hundreds of years, through selective processes involving no knowledge of what other genes might be affected. We have been eating genetically modified food for years and years.

Historically, the world, and especially populations in some of the poorest countries of the world, benefited from the green revolution in the decades after the Second World War, when varieties of wheat and rice in particular were improved such that many people could be fed adequately in those countries. Again, that was achieved by traditional methods. But the modern techniques enable us to make changes extremely quickly, and with incredibly sustainable and environmentally friendly means, to benefit humankind by reducing parasiticides, chemicals, fertilisers and even water—and by reducing food waste. So I find it difficult to understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and our colleagues in the Green Party oppose them.

I have confidence in our molecular biologists and our plant scientists—and these regulations. For these reasons, I support the Government strongly, but I urge them to press ahead with similar enabling regulations to permit precision-breeding technologies in animals. They offer, for example, the prospect of creating avian flu-resistant chickens, which would not only prevent disease in chickens but could reduce the possibility of spillover infections into humans of, for instance, the highly pathogenic avian influenza strain H5N1. Doing that has the potential to prevent the possible adaptation to human-to-human transmission. So I strongly support these regulations for plants, and I urge the Government to consider bringing similar enabling regulations for animals to this House as soon as possible.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, my career has been in the communication of science and evidence, helping to give people the information that they need and want to make decisions. There have been 25 years of studies on the communication of genetic modification and all these techniques. Some of them were done by the FSA, which neatly summarises the decades of research, saying that consumers

“saw a range of risks and benefits to PB food but on balance consumers thought the benefits outweighed the risks if properly regulated … they trust the FSA to regulate PB food”—

but they

“wanted labelling to enable them to make choices at the point of purchase”.

The FSA says:

“The power to decide on the mandatory labelling of PBOs for non-safety related purposes in England sits with … Defra. FSA officials have shared results of the consumer research and public consultation with Defra”.


I am really concerned about the lack of labelling here, not because it is a safety issue but because going against what consumers want carries risks. Defra responded:

“Based on the scientific advice that the risk associated with precision bred plants is no greater than for traditionally bred counterparts, we do not consider that mandatory labelling focused on the breeding technology or process used is appropriate”.


I have heard those arguments echoed by noble Lords today already. But the problem with this is that a lot of people’s concerns about this technology are not safety based, and ignoring the fact that people have other concerns, which they feel are not being listened to, might create a public backlash to this technology.

Often, people feel that something will not be fair here. They are worried about this benefiting the big players and the rich over the smaller players or the poor in the world. Defra’s response, focusing only on food safety, does not even make sense because, as we have heard, labels on food are often about things that are not direct food safety. Labelling of country of origin is mandated, for example. This allows consumers to make decisions on things they want to decide on when they are buying things at the point of sale.

I worry that, if the Government continue on this path of not having mandatory labelling, organic producers, who cannot allow gene-edited material into their supply chains, will have to take the responsibility to do all that tracing and labelling of products themselves. It will be very difficult, as we all know and have already heard, to trace a product all the way from a register—a variety—right through the supply chain. So, if people are not able to do that work or if it will be very expensive, how is the organic labelling supposed to work and how are consumers supposed to make a choice?

If we dig down into the FSA’s material on labelling further, we find a paragraph that says that labelling

“is likely to add extra costs. Providing this additional verification and assurance for all PB food would add extra cost to the whole PB food market, making it less affordable, reducing the incentives for food businesses to innovate and bring new products to market”.

That is the sort of phrase—“incentives for food businesses”—that is likely to trigger the sentiment that we have already experienced around genetic modification, and around the fear that the Government are pandering to big multinational companies, allowing their profits to override concerns about the environment or small businesses such as small farms.

I have a positive solution here for the Government. Rather than making organic and small brands, usually SMEs, label their products as “GM free” or choose whatever label they want—thereby causing resentment among the public about the costs to small businesses and worries about the lack of transparency—it would be far better for gene-edited products to be clearly labelled with what modification has been made to them and why. The Royal Society mentioned this in its consultation response. For example, labels could say: “Genetically enhanced to contain more vitamin C”. This would give people an understanding of the potential benefits and would let them know, and reassure them, that things have been traced through. To respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, if something has been edited and it has shown stability through the generations, it does not matter how many generations later you are: that edited gene is present in that product—and it is there for a reason. This is why people are doing this work: we want these beneficial genes.

Giving people that understanding, through labelling, that it has been enhanced to do whatever it has been enhanced to do allows people to make an informed consumer choice, and it minimises the costs and places them fairly on the people doing the gene editing. I beg the Minister to reconsider on this issue. She should listen to people’s concerns; they are not irrational or misunderstanding science—it is about establishing trust and about your priorities and ensuring that they are the same as the public’s priorities. If you do not act in a trustworthy manner, you cannot expect people to trust you. Once you have lost trust, we know what happens: we have been there before on this issue.

Farming: 25-year Road Map

Lord Trees Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am aware that there are a lot of concerns around some of the recent decisions regarding funding and farming. However, one reason this has been quite difficult is that farming has been facing a lot of challenges for many years now. There has been far too little security for farmers and far too little decent payment to farmers for the goods that they have been producing. The point of the farming road map is to provide some long-term security for the first time in many years.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

I want to press the Minister on the land use framework and when we might see that. It will be essential to ensuring that we have a coherent and strategic plan for how we use all the land in the limited area that we have in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The land use framework will be critical in a lot of areas. Because we have only a limited amount of land, we have to ensure that we are using it in the best interests of the country, whether that is for supporting farmers and food production, for energy production or for housing and so on. It is important that we are bringing that together. I do not have a date for the noble Lord today, but I assure him that we are actively progressing the report.

Domestic Animals: Welfare

Lord Trees Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We will of course continue to support the vital work of the veterinary profession, and I acknowledge the veterinary workforce’s commitment and dedication to animal health and welfare. My noble friend makes a good point, and we are very aware of calls to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is now very old. Defra is talking to key stakeholders and different veterinary groups to explore the best way to support the profession, and we are looking at the legislation.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, we are undoubtedly a nation of animal lovers, but some of the UK’s major animal welfare issues are in plain sight and affect some of our most popular pets. I refer to the extreme conformations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but particularly the problem of flat-nosed dogs—so-called brachycephalic breeds—which suffer or are highly predisposed to ill health virtually all their life, with breathing, whelping, ocular and skin difficulties, and reduced lifespan. Legislation exists to deter the breeding of such animals, should that lead to a detriment to the health and welfare of the bitch or her offspring. Why has there not been a single prosecution under the legislation, given that this is a serious welfare issue?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, our animal activities licensing regulations have been developed to prevent poor dog breeding practices rather than penalise them. Local authorities can refuse, vary or revoke a licence to breed where they are concerned about the dog’s fitness. We believe the impact of having a licence revoked provides a significant deterrent. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point in that, currently, prosecutions are perhaps not happening as frequently as we would expect. This is clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I am very happy to take it up with my colleagues.

Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk

Lord Trees Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, insurance is a difficult issue. It becomes difficult in many areas—I am sure noble Lords are aware of the difficulties for businesses during flooding as well. Getting insurance in certain business cases is complex. All I can say is that we are extremely aware of the problems that occurred last time for poultry farmers in getting insurance. The outbreak this time is very low compared with previous years, but we are being proactive and doing our best to prevent further outbreaks. We are working with insurance companies to make sure that we have the best outcomes that we can, should this outbreak get worse.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, with the outbreak of avian influenza, the challenge of bluetongue virus in ruminants and the ongoing battle to reduce bovine TB incidence—to say nothing of the biosecurity threats to, for example, our pig population from African swine fever—is the Minister confident that her department and APHA have the necessary resources to cope?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks an important question. I met APHA yesterday to discuss exactly this issue because, when there are outbreaks of more than one disease, it has to look at how it will manage all the different aspects. It has assured me that it is confident that it has the resources to manage the response currently, and I am pleased that the Government have awarded funding to Weybridge to ensure that our future capability will be there.

Solar Farms and Food Production

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Regarding tenant farming, the noble Baroness I am sure will be aware that we have announced that we are appointing the first ever commissioner for tenant farming. Clearly, part of their role will be ensuring that we have a fair, balanced, collaborative relationship between tenants and landowners. Part of that relationship will be to ensure that we do not have the kinds of scenarios that she refers to—so, absolutely, we will keep a close watching eye.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, this is about a lot more than solo farms. Financial bodies are buying up estates and farms and planting trees, aided by large subsidies, then selling off the new woodlands to offset carbon emissions. We do need tree planting in the UK, but this irreversible change of land use is continuing unabated and we are losing food production capability. Can the Minister tell us, by letter if need be, the current rate of irreversible loss of agricultural land? If we do not know that, should not His Majesty’s Government be monitoring it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail on this but, as I said earlier, we expect only a very small percentage of land to be taken up with solar farms, as raised in the Question. Also, it comes back to the central importance of developing a fit-for-purpose land use framework. The reason we need to do that has been shown by the kinds of questions that have come up today.